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.
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.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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment