Copa Round One Wrap Up

I'm a couple days late, but these are a some assorted thoughts on the first round of group games in Copa America.

Mexico's Offense
Easily the best game of the first round, Mexico-Uruguay was thrilling and intense. The flow of the game shifted several times, with Mexico dominating the match aside from a 20-30 minute period early in the second half. Uruguay was able to claw their way into the game, after going a man and a goal down, but the energy they spent to do so was unsustainable, and they eventually cracked (mentally, physically and tactically).

Mexico was fascinating and massively impressive. They frankly looked like the best team in the tournament (and maybe all of the Americas), including even Argentina (not so sure about this, but it's pretty close). Juan Carlos Osorio had the team playing like a club side that has trained together for months, and it was stunning.

Their build up shape was what most interested me. Their nominal lineup was a 4-3-3,

But Mexico played a much more fluid and dynamic formation than it appeared on paper. The most notable and confusing movement came out of defense. Reyes, the left center back, pushed into midfield, while Rafa Marquez, the nominal pivot, dropped back; they effectively traded roles. Moreno, at left back, played a little more centrally, while Araujo at right centerback pushed out wider. Layun moved into midfield, leaving a back three of Moreno, Marquez and Araujo. This is sort of what resulted.

However, this is just a snapshot of a moment. The midfield and forward lines were very fluid, with much freedom of movement. As Istvan Beregi points out, the formation occasionally appeared as a 3-1-4-2, which had its benefits...

Really like this 3-1-4-2 setup from Mexico, quality diagonal ball from Marquez before the goal. pic.twitter.com/jayKJihd86

— István Beregi (@szteveo) June 7, 2016

and its shortcomings.

Mexico's build-up problems: CBs far from each other, bad connections, no circulation, easier to press. pic.twitter.com/GPNwIcjttN

— István Beregi (@szteveo) June 7, 2016

In the first half, Mexico dominated the match, completely outclassing Uruguay. They shut off for a while in the second, but once they needed a goal to win, they once again pinned Uruguay back. It isn't often that a great defensive team like Uruguay, with a defensive core from Atletico Madrid, is torn apart like they were in the first half. I'm super excited to see Mexico's other games, and see how they pan out.

Argentina's Counter Attack
The second best game of the first round was Argentina-Chile. Although Messi was left on the bench, recovering from injury and a trans-Atlantic flight, Argentina won the game easily.

Chile held most of the ball, particularly in the second half, but had some build up issues (see linked article), as well as the Argentine defense. Argentina, in a different role from normal, spent much of the game, after the first 20 minutes, defending and looking to break out on the counter attack. It was a strategic move that suited the Argentine side very well.

Chile were especially vulnerable on the flanks, where Angel Di Maria especially found great success attacking for Argentina. Even though they were defending, Argentina weren't passive at all, pressing Chile's center backs and disrupting their build up play.

The second half especially was a master class in counter attacking, as Argentina quickly broke from turnovers to win chances on goal. Chile's build up shape, with 3-4 players on the front line, put them in a poor position to counterpress, leaving the backline vulnerable to counters.

I'm interested to see whether Argentina continue to play more on the counter in the future. With Messi returning, and facing opponents who will likely cede possession to Argentina, I would expect Argentina to play more possessive soccer. But I would love to see more of the strategy from Argentina that we saw against Chile, most likely in the later stages of the tournament.

Poor Turnout
A lot of the talk from the first round has been on the quality of games, and the empty stadiums watching them. People have been wondering why the games have been more boring and defensive, especially given the pre-tournament hype. I think one of the most important reasons is the lack of down time between the end of the club season and the start of the tournament. The Euros are starting a whole week later, giving extra time for teams to train and players to rest. Players in Copa may simply be worn out, and not have the energy to slave through 108 degree weather in Orlando.

The low turnout at stadiums may be due to a lack of excitement about the competition. I mean realistically, how many people want to spend their Saturday afternoon watching Paraguay-Costa Rica or Haiti-Peru? It doesn't help that this tournament is largely viewed as a bunch of friendlies strung together, at worst, or a nice trophy at best. I think people simply aren't excited, and the lack of exciting play (outside of two games) doesn't help.

  

Copa America Day One

I will be *trying* to do a wrap-up of each day of soccer action this summer, between the Euros and Copa America. I won't see every game, so I'll post about the ones I did see.

The opening day of Copa America Centenario featured the hosts, the US, and Colombia facing off in Santa Clara, California. It was a slightly disappointing game, as both teams failed to create good chances out of open play. However, the match was still interesting tactically and in a greater sense. Full confession, as an American I can't help focusing on my team. This post will greatly focus on the US team, but I'll try to talk about Colombia some.

American Build Up Play
One of the most interesting (and encouraging) aspects of the game was the US team's build up play. While Colombia dominated the first 10 minutes of the game in possession, after they scored in the 9th minute on a corner, the Americans increasingly controlled the match. For most of the first half after Colombia's first goal, the US had the ball and dictated play.

A big feature of this build up was the use of vertical passing. Colombia defended in a 4-4-2, with the two strikers fairly narrow to keep Michael Bradley, in the pivot, off the ball. This opened up room in the half spaces for John Brooks and Geoff Cameron, the American center backs, to dribble into and make passes. The inward movements of both American wingers, Gyasi Zardes and Bobby Wood, as well as the two wide midfielders, Alejandro Bedoya and Jermaine Jones, opened up targets for passing.

The Colombians didn't do a fantastic job of stopping these movements and passes, although they were able to spring traps on a few occasions, like the one below.

Why would you even attempt this pass? You're playing into an obvious trap. #USAvCOL pic.twitter.com/Yn0k8e33Fe

— WM Formation (@TheWMformation) June 4, 2016

However, the Americans for the most part were able to get around Colombia's defense in midfield, particularly in getting the ball to Bradley, as the deep lying playmaker. With the front 2 blocking immediate access to Bradley initially, the centerbacks often shifted the ball between themselves, or out to the fullbacks, to open the Colombians up.

Often Clint Dempsey, as the striker, would drop off the front line into the 10 spot, left open by the US. This opened a vertical passing lane for the centerbacks, and Dempsey, when he received the ball, would often lay it off to Bradley, working around Colombia's defense. The clip below shows just such a move, as Brooks passes to Dempsey, who lays it off to Bradley.

Both team's focus on Michael Bradley, offensively and defensively, demonstrates how important he is to the US. Much of the debate about the national team in the past two years has focused on where Michael Bradley ought to play. Jurgen Klinnsmann has tried him in a more advanced role, a no. 10, but Bradley was ineffective and marginalized there. Klinnsmann then moved him back, deeper into the midfield, where Bradley plays best. 

Against Colombia, however, Bradley was horrid. I am more optimistic about his build up play in the game than many other people are, but it wasn't what the Americans needed. Offensively, much of the Americans play did end up going through people other than Bradley, and I felt that when he did have the ball he was too slow and indecisive to make an impact. Defensively he made several key errors, including the turnover that lead to Colombia's second goal. He fouled in very odd places, and looked somewhat out of sorts.

USA Defense

Defensively I was also impressed with the US. They were set up well, and gave the Colombians very few chances. Indeed, both goals came out of set pieces, although the penalty was the result of some poor open play defending.

The US defended high up the field in a 4-3-3. They were fairly compact through the center, and front to back, as the backline pushed up, nearly to the midway line. However, the front 3 of the US team didn't put any pressure on the ball. This is partly due to Colombia having a 2 v.1/3 v. 1 overload in the first line, and also due to Dempsey's age and lack of energy. But America still did a poor job of pressuring the Colombian's build up, until the ball progressed into midfield.

There you can see how high the front 3 for America are, yet they are not pressuring the ball. Dempsey was particularly relaxed, and I think Klinnsmann would have been wise to take Dempsey off instead of Bobby Wood (see below).

Deeper into the field, the US would occasionally drop into a 4-4-2, particularly with the ball on the wing. The image below demonstrates this: the midfield three has flattened, with Jones shifting out to the wing. Meanwhile, the ball-far winger (Zardes) has dropped into the midfield line, leaving two attackers up front.

Overall the US defended very well. The Colombians had very few chances from open play, and James Rodriguez, always a threat, made very little impact on the game. The backline particularly impressed me. I really liked the Brooks-Cameron partnership, and although Cameron falling asleep let Colombia score their first, both centerbacks were very good.

Colombia

I've said most of what I have to say about Colombia already, but there are several things I haven't mentioned. Firstly, this was not a match for Colombia to be proud of. There has been talk that Colombia "dominated the game without the ball." I couldn't disagree with this statement more: Colombia did not put in an Simeone-esque performance, dictating where the offensive team would play. Although the Americans struggled to create chances and covert good build up to good attacks, this is prominently due to American problems, not Colombian defense. Colombia's defense was open very often and did a poor job of covering the half spaces.

In possession, Colombia weren't much better. They struggled to play through America, and although they were slightly more successful than the US in terms of chance creation, they struggled there as well. In the end, Colombia executed of a set piece better, and then won a penalty, and that's how they won the game. 

Conclusion

This was obviously a very disappointing result for the US. Depending on how the Costa Rica-Paraguay game goes later today, the result could be slightly better or worse. But, in terms of underlying factors, I was more optimistic. Bradley *should* play better than he did today, and the US did a good job of getting him the ball. I liked the midfield trio, and thought they did a good job facilitating build up. The front three were disappointing, and since all three are central forwards, they often neutralized the others strengths. The defense was impressive, especially in terms of the backline, and I think as they clock more minutes in together they will get better. 

The major problem for Klinnsmann coming out of this game (other than the result) is that of offensive personnel. The US seriously lacked creativity and chances against Colombia. He could start either one, or both, of Christian Pulisic or Darlington Nagbe, two no. 10's. But he needs to make a change, because America's attack was poor. 

The US is not out of this tournament, but the loss puts them into a very tough position. The pressure on Klinnsmann is rising, although I personally believe that he coached a decent match. I think some of the pessimitic responses to this match are simply cyncical, and while it was not a good result, the positives are pretty clear. This was one of the first times we've seen America play something resembling the possession based, attacking soccer Klinnsmann promised. The good build up play shows the foundation of this soccer are being laid, and I think that should be encouraging.