Note: Some responses have been edited.
General Comments
Anu Khare
So far, so good for the USA!!! I can’t believe they’ve done great with two victories. I just know they will be at France ’98. I am very impressed with the team’s performance. Looks like the 3-5-2 formation works after just a little practice. I was scared of it at first, but I now know that fear is baseless. The coverage on ESPN has been good, so we should be looking for some qualifying games on ABC in the near future. Hats off to Kasey Keller for great shutouts and to Eric Wynalda for his goal scoring!
Jeff Whelpley
Yeah, it might have been a little lucky, but lets face it, the results are what count now. We need to win a few right away so that we will be secured a spot in the next round. Once that happens, I am sure that we will see a more wide open game from the U.S. That aside, I think the play so far has not been that bad. Our passing is wonderful, and our defense was great against Trinidad; however, we are just being a little too over-cautious in the final third of the field. Sampson doesn’t want the boys taking laughable 30 and 40 yard shots like Trinidad did. They amount to nothing, and just give the ball to the other team. Even Preki, who is used to taking control of a game, has been reigned in by Sampson. I think that once the team settles down and realizes their own dominance, they will start to take chances like Preki’s first shot against Guatemala. Basically, the US will get better with every game they play. By the time of the World Cup finals the US will be as strong as any other national team, excluding the big ones (Brazil, Argentina, Italy, and Germany).
John Gaughan
OK, it’s been ugly, but you have to be happy with the two results so far. I was very disappointed in the partisan pro Guatemala crowd at RFK. Granted, it was their first game after the tragedy and it was difficult to predict what to expect. They played very, very physical and I think that Barrett (the Jamaican ref) didn’t do a very good job of keeping things under control. Waldo did an excellent job of keeping his composure with as many times as he was fouled. I also think that with the addition of Preki we became a much more dangerous team. Against T&T, I thought we played a decent game. They are so fast and dangerous as individual attackers. I think Pope did a good job, considering it was his first game and he had such an important task. The crowd was only decent at Richmond. I am still upset that they moved the game from Foxboro to Richmond. Nothing against the people in Richmond, but the national team always plays well in Massachusetts, and always draws well. I will be very upset if Foxboro doesn’t get one of the CONCACAF final games. If any USSF officials read this, trust me, the New England fans will come out in droves for the match. Go US!
Paul R. Estrada
Half of my family lives in Guatemala, so I was particularly shocked by the rough and sometimes brutal play of the Guatemalan side. I am a U.S. fan first (US-Guatemala-Mexico, in that order), but will always cheer for Guatemala against other opponents. I realize that the emotional spirit was high for Guatemala and the pressure to (a) secure a draw, and (b) perform in a fashion as to “bring happiness to the people of Guatemala” was great, but much of the play (particularly that of Leon) was inexcusable. The ineptitude of the Jamaican referee only added (and encouraged) the brutal play that ensued. This should not take away from the play of other Guatemalans, Jorge Rodas for one, who played fairly. As to fulfilling the pressure to perform well, I thought Guatemala fielded their strongest team ever, and I thought they performed admirably. But, as mush as I hate to say it, it is really quite unlikely (other than through divine intervention) that Guatemala will beat the U.S. anytime in the near future. The days of a U.S. national team that could be intimidated by the typically rough play of the smaller Central American nations is past. Clearly the U.S. showed the discipline and professionalism that warrants them to be considered as a side to be taken seriously, to be considered dangerous, and most of all unpredictable.
The 3-5-2 Formation
Alexander Moffett
Certainly the U.S. team seems to be making progress with the 3-5-2, perhaps more so even than England, who are currently making a similar conversion. Someone made the point that 3-5-2 is good for the U.S. because they have more good midfielders than defenders, and this is completely true. The only problem with this system that I can see is that it is not supported on a club level; most MLS teams seem to use a flat back four. Perhaps the new coaches in New York and Tampa Bay might move to this system.
Overall, I was fairly impressed with the U.S. play against T&T and the effectiveness of the five man midfield. Even with Ramos having a bad day, the U.S. midfield seemed to dominate the match during certain stretches. I would like to see a little experimentation up front, perhaps starting McBride or Wagner for a game instead of Moore, who seems to perform magnificently for his club, but is erratic on the national level. I do not favor using Preki as the second striker; despite his individual skills, his biggest assets are his vision and passing ability. Having him in the center of the midfield supporting Wynalda and another striker would be an awesome offensive combination.
Peter Church
When I first saw the 3-5-2 against Ireland in the U.S. Cup, I knew it was the best way to use our personnel. When Bora was coach, he would put people on the field based on where they would play, which is why Mike Sorber and Cobi Jones hit it off with the national team: when they started, they weren’t necessarily among the 11 best, but they were the best at their position. Since Steve Sampson has been coach, he has had more of a tendency to choose 11 players, and then plop them on the field wherever, which has led to running Dooley ragged, taking Harkes out of the flow of the game, exposing Agoos to speedy outside players, and never getting the ball enough at Reyna’s feet, putting a non-striker on the front line with Waldo, etc…. The 3-5-2 makes good use of the talent available. It gives us speed on the outside. It gives us a good tackler in the central defense. It puts the ball at Reyna’s feet, and allows Harkes and Ramos to play through balls. And it gives Wynalda a system to work with, and a partner (for my money, Preki over Moore any day). Cobi is an excellent outside defender, something he has never gotten enough credit for in the past. Lalas is much better as a marking back than a sweeper. Now, where do you go from here, and how do the other possible faces fit in? Without Dooley, we can use Pope, Balboa, or even Agoos at sweeper. Other possibilities on defense: John Doyle, Robin Fraser, Dan Calichman. Frankie Hejduk is well suited for the wing midfielder position. Brian Maisonneuve at any midfield position (Moore can work in central midfield, but not at wing, where he was in the second half vs. Guatemala). Kirovski is ideal as a withdrawn striker, and McBride and Lassiter can play the front-runner role. Preki can play withdrawn striker or any of the Harkes/Reyna/Ramos positions. Unfortunately, Mike Sorber and Mike Burns are more or less without a position in this setup. Anyway, I think it’s a good start
Rand Swenson
I have to agree that I like the 3-5-2 for the team as it is currently constituted. However, I think that there are a few weak points that need to be kept in mind. In my opinion, there is only one individual that is proven to be capable of playing sweeper in this system right now, and that is Dooley. It is possible that Balboa will get back to where he was (that remains to be seen), and Pope will probably be able to in the future. For that matter, Harkes and Agoos may be able to in the future. However, only Dooley has proven he can handle this critical position in the system.
Similarly, this system is critically dependent on flank midfielders who can play the entire length of the field, controlling late attacks on the flanks as well as filling the flanks on attack. Fortunately, we now have a very deep midfield and forward corps that can hold the ball and distribute at the appropriate time to these flank runners, but I think we really only have two individuals who can play this position at the highest level, i.e., Cobi Jones and Stewart. While Agoos did an adequate job out there, I think that Stewart’s play suffered because of Jones’ absence on the opposite flank. Hejduk may one day prove to be capable in this position, as well. However, right now in the 3-5-2 I think we are very suspect and substantially weaker if Dooley, Jones or Stewart goes down and continued success in this system will depend on developing appropriate substitutes for these players who, after all, have been subject to injury in the past.
Bob Paczynski
Now that Sampson has seen what this team is capable of … and we’ve garnered six points with several great untested reserves on the bench, shouldn’t we try putting Preki or McBride up with Wynalda? Let’s open it up a bit and see what this team can REALLY do.
Television Coverage
David Lipset
I was frustrated by the quality of the TV coverage on ESPN2 for the match between the USA and T & T. The camera angles were awful and repeatedly limited one’s view. More often than not, the camera did not even keep up with the ball! I found the camera on a moving track along the sidelines following a front-runner going downfield completely worthless! It seemed like the cameramen had no idea what they were covering. It would be simple enough just to watch how the Latin Americans cover soccer on Univision to get a crash course. But I suppose this would suggest that Americans don’t know everything, which of course they (we) do.
Hector Tobar
ESPN’s coverage is fantastic. I love, for example, that they do a graphic comparing Wynalda’s feats with the national team to those of greats in other sports, Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, etc. It shows how far the sport has come.
I can still remember the bad old days when the only way to find out what the national team was up to was to read the small type agate scores in the back of the sports section: all we got was the score, and that was it. That’s what it was like in qualifying for the 1982 and 1986 World Cups. You had to subscribe to a soccer magazine (like Soccer America!) to even see a photo of the game. I remembering picking up the local paper one morning in 1980 and reading the fine print in the back of the paper that said the US had been eliminated. Everything happened in a vacuum.
Now the national team is on national television (in English, no less!) and you can even buy a replica U.S. team jersey at the mall. It blows me away. USA Today and my home town paper, the Los Angeles Times, actually have full-blown stories describing what happened in the game!
I’m in heaven.
Jim Murphy
The [television] coverage overall has been pretty good. Bringing in Ley and Malin shows you that ESPN is taking this pretty seriously.
HOWEVER, what does it say about the federation that we will be unable to see the road matches? I guess I should feel lucky to have Univision, but I really shouldn’t have to watch these matches in Spanish (I don’t speak it).
Is there another country in the world where the fans are not able to see ALL of their teams matches LIVE and broadcast in THEIR NATIVE TONGUES? I’m including Trinidad, Guatemala, etc. — not exactly world superpowers, but countries that surely figured out a way to bring their fans the matches.
You can argue all you want about the cost of satellite time, but I think this country still has a long way to go to prove that it cares about soccer.
Joel Mayer
I thought the Telemundo coverage of the US-T&T game was excellent — a very professional job by Jorge Ramos and Ricardo Mayorga. They were very fair and accurate in their analysis. They clearly expected a better performance from the U.S. in the first half (didn’t we all?) but recognized that the Americans raised their level in the second to do what was necessary. Their analysis of the fine points of the game was enlightening. This was the first time I have seen the US national team on Telemundo, and I would rate their announcers better than ESPN, who are best at cheerleading, or Univision. On the latter, Andres Cantor is always superb, but Mr. Longo seems to have an anti-American bias which I find annoying. Ramos & Mayorga are fair and accurate, and interesting, which is the best compliment I can give to soccer announcers. An interesting Telemundo feature were pre-filmed comments by Steve Sampson and Claudio Reyna, which they put on at some slow moments.
It was also refreshing to see fans in a stadium in the U.S. actually cheering for the United States! Maybe they should have more qualifiers in Richmond!
U.S. Players’ Performances
Adam Zebrowski
Alexi Lalas played an exceptional match marking Dwight Yorke. I had doubts Lalas could sustain his responsibilities throughout the entire match. But he showed the heart to make up for his lack of running speed.
Claudio Reyna has become the consummate professional. Five years ago, I would never had envisioned Reyna becoming the defensive force he has. His complete mastery of the game IS making him the best USA player.
Eddie Pope, while caught several times, clearly gives the USA hope defensively in the future. Along with Hejduk, Pope represent the NEW desire and hunger this team will need in the future.
Steve Sampson has proved Americans can coach soccer at the highest level. It goes beyond just technical knowledge, but the molding of the character of a team. He performed well in two matches. The next two away matches will reveal how good the current USA team is. TWO LOSSES and we’re back to the qualifying meat grinder, but a WIN or TWO TIES, and the away matches are successes.
Juli B.
It was sure nice to be there when Brian McBride scored his first ever international goal for the U S. It was and is also nice to see American players (McBride, Pope, etc.) with a lot of talent who have been able to better themselves without a lot of overseas playing time. Cool!
J. Levin
What has happened to Joe Max Moore’s touch? I watched this guy play for the last part of the MLS season….he is not the same player
Ernie Stewart and Thomas Dooley continue to shine. Stewart’s speed and intelligence with the ball and Dooley’s composure and creativity….I still think that if Dooley wasn’t so valuable in back, we would see him getting assists and goals as a midfielder
Jeff Agoos is clearly one of the most improved players on the squad. In my opinion he played an excellent game against T&T, both in back and overlapping (great assist too).
Claudio Reyna is a key player, and he made some brilliant plays at times, but he needs to make more of an impact throughout the game… he tends to disappear
Alexi Lalas does not have the speed you would like, but he does so many other things. His marking has improved, and the U.S. rarely gets beat in the air while he is in the lineup. He provides a weapon on dead ball situations and will give you the physical effort you need against big, fast players (e.g. T&T’s forwards). Lastly his passing, while not wonderful, has improved..
Kenya Brown
Kasey Keller right now is one of the hottest goalkeepers in the world. The match against Newcastle has really boosted his confidence and he will really give teams such as Mexico and Costa Rica a hard time when they meet. No doubt Keller is class all the way.
David Jones
Jeff Agoos can’t do anything with his right foot. Everyone in the world knows that he can’t even pass with his right foot! Sampson could at least add to the flame by taking out Agoos and adding an aggressive young player like Frankie Hejduk. Anyone but him in the middle! Preki is definitely a front-runner along with another young and upcoming star Jason Kreis.(will be back after recovering from elbow surgery) In my opinion, Jeff Agoos shouldn’t even be on the squad.
Enzo Basciano
I am not convinced that Jeff Agoos is the appropriate choice on the United States defense. Why doesn’t Sampson give Mike Lapper a chance, he’s starting in England and was good enough to be selected by Bora as one of the country’s top seven defenders for World Cup 1994. By what I’ve seen of Mike Lapper in pre world cup matches in 1993 – 1994, I believe he is a better all round defender than Agoos and for that matter Mike Burns. I can not recall when the last time Sampson had Lapper on the roster perhaps the Gold Cup but definitely in August 1995 when he played well in the Parmalat Cup, versus Sweden in Norrkoepping in a 1 – 0 loss and Copa America.
Winlar
Normally I’m the first one to rip Jeff Agoos, but this wasn’t the game to do that. I thought he played fairly solidly, and I’d much rather see him in the midfield than getting used left and right on defense.
Sal Arciniega
Is Eric Wynalda incredible or what? He has really come up big for the U.S in W.C. qualifying. His leadership and tireless efforts to continuously push forward have really paid off. Against T&T he should have had at least two more goals, his physical and tactical skills were far greater than those of the T&T players. I personally think America’s World Cup hopes depend greatly on the success of No. 11, the greatest player ever to wear an American Jersey!