Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 16 Dec 2013, 11:26 am

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:Danivon, it looks like Dempsey may be coming back to Fulham for a spell:
I was surprised to see the same news today, I have to admit. Dempsey did leave under a bit of cloud, seeming to go for money. Now that Jol has left, it could be more about the management. He doesn't seem to have settled into the team in Seattle, certainly not in terms of scoring. he may not get a great reception from fans, although after the last few months perhaps he's less reviled than some of the current squad.

We need to do something as a team - changing manager is not enough, the players either need to sharpen up or be replaced (especially at the back). But we don't have much money at the moment. Perhaps Berbatov could attract a big fee.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Dec 2013, 11:28 am

This is kind of a last hurrah for the core (at least with regard to scoring) for this US World Team team. Donovan, Dempsey, and Eddie Johnson would be at or close to their mid-30s for the next World Cup. Altidore would be still only 28 and Bradley 30 but a lot of the scoring punch will be lost and who knows if we have anyone to replace them. The end of the Donovan era where the US has been respectable. This is it. One would think that the older players know this and will give a superb effort as this will be their last chance at achieving greatness as an athlete.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Dec 2013, 12:55 am

I see you've graduated from just effins to dropping the c-bomb. Stayin' classy!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 64
Joined: 28 Mar 2005, 11:58 am

Post 17 Dec 2013, 3:46 am

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:
Sassenach wrote:So what do we make of the WC draw ?


Yeah, Rob, the USA pulled the proverbial 'group of death', again. This is every bit as bad as 2006 when we drew Italy, The Czech Republic, and because of course, Ghana.


In the end you're right though. If your goal is simply to move on to the second round, then this is horrible news. But if you team is shooting for something more than one second round game, then a draw like this is actually a good thing. The one good part about the draw of group G is that the USA gets Germany in game three. With any luck the Germans defeat Portugal and Ghana, and secure their place in the round of 16 without needing to win in the last game of group play. And if the USA has any real aspirations of making a splash in this world cup, then they need to find a way to beat Portugal and Ghana. I think that they can do it too. This team is the best it's ever been right now. That's not to say that we don't have some weak spots and liabilities, but there's a very strong core group of experienced players with good chemistry on this team now.


It is a "group of death"; that means some good teams are going to be going home. Think about it from everyone else's perspective: as the strongest team in Pot 3, nobody wanted to draw the USA. The US can play with any of these teams, and Ghana might prove to be our toughest challenge. We've beaten Portugal, and we've beaten Germany (OK, it was their B team - but we played them pretty tough in 2002, as I recall).

Consider the following scenario:

US beats Ghana, Germany beats Portugal; then US & Portugal tie, while Ghana beat Germany; then US-Germany tie, as do Portugal-Ghana. US tops the group, followed by Ghana and Germany tied, but with Ghana winning the head-to-head. Unless I have the tie-breaker wrong, US and Ghana go through, and Germany and Portugal go home.

Yes, I know this scenario is unlikely - but it's not all that far-fetched, and would require only one result that might be considered "shocking" (Ghana def. Germany). Personally, I think ithe US beating Germany is a real possibility.

As for Manaus: I don't see that as a problem for the US. I've been to Manaus, and it's not that bad; certanly no worse than playing in Central America the way the US had to do to qualify. For that matter, it's no worse than Washington DC in July-August. I'm more conerned with the travel to and from Sao Paolo for every game.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 17 Dec 2013, 11:25 am

I understand the point Randy was making about the US narrowly missed out on being seeded. That said, I think it would have been an eyebrow raiser to say the least if they had been. There's no way that USA is one of the top 8 sides in the competition.

Then again, you could say the same about Switzerland and probably Belgium (although they maybe have a stronger case with their current squad). The seeding system is very peculiar. The Swiss have gotten seeded by virtue of 7 wins and 3 draws in a qualifying group that included Iceland, Slovenia, Norway, Albania and Cyprus. Netherlands, finalists 4 years ago, were unseeded despite getting 9 wins and 1 draw from a group of Romania, Hungary, Turkey, Estonia and Andorra. I can't for the life of me comprehend how this has worked out.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Dec 2013, 12:59 pm

Sassenach wrote:Then again, you could say the same about Switzerland and probably Belgium (although they maybe have a stronger case with their current squad). The seeding system is very peculiar. The Swiss have gotten seeded by virtue of 7 wins and 3 draws in a qualifying group that included Iceland, Slovenia, Norway, Albania and Cyprus. Netherlands, finalists 4 years ago, were unseeded despite getting 9 wins and 1 draw from a group of Romania, Hungary, Turkey, Estonia and Andorra. I can't for the life of me comprehend how this has worked out.
The top seeds are based on the FIFA ratings as at October. These don't just look at the qualifying matches, but all A rated games over the past four years. In that time, Switzerland have beaten Spain (in the 2010 World Cup), Germany (a friendly in 2012), and Brazil (a friendly in August). That last one, as the past year is most significant, was worth quite a few points.

The Netherlands had a fantastic 2010 for rankings, but in 2012 lost all three group games in Ukraine, and slumped.

I really don't like the way that the FIFA rankings are arrived at. They calculate points for a match (which will be zero for losing, regardless of the opponent) and average the scores over each year, weighting the past four years in the ratio 10:5:3:2 (current year first). This means that if a team plays a a lot of easy friendlies, it drags the average down, even if they win (and by more if they fail).

Elo is the same system used to rate Chess players. It also has been applied in other sports, such as Baseball (by Nate Silver to help predict who makes the playoffs), Basketball (by the NCAA), American Football (used as the non-subjective part of the College Bowl selections) and Women's Football (by FIFA).

I get the problem with geographic pots, but I'm not sure what kind of allocation would be fairer, and still give a decent chance of not having a group over-dominated by European teams.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Dec 2013, 4:44 pm

Not sure why I dignify such rudeness with a response, but...

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:
danivon wrote: There were four other national teams who were not seeded but had a higher ranking than the USA. By definition, then, it was not 'by the slimmest of margins' that they were not. The Netherlands were ranked 8 and were only not seeded because Brazil were as hosts.


Oh for [bleep]'s sake. Can we have any conversation without you just being a complete [bleep]? Is that possible. Do you have to nitpick every [bleep] word?

The USA might well have have outpaced Switzerland had they won in their game Costa Rica instead of losing that qualifier. That's pretty close to something most people thought unthinkable. But nothing like Danivon or Ricky to show up, and attack a simple statement with some nitnoid detail for the sole purpose of being a [bleep].
So, basically, the USA lost a game they should have won, on paper, and that means they were a gnat's breath from being seeded? Guess what? Lose games you should win and that happens.

danivon wrote: If FIFA used a better ranking system, it is not guaranteed that the US would be seeded. The ELO rankings show them in 13th. But England would have been seeded. To be honest, the main reason our FIFA ranking is low is a combination of mediocre results in WC qualifying and a poor choice of friendly opponents.


No, there is no guarantee. And my comments were not at all about the FIFA rankings, but rather their method of determining World Cup groups. The FIFA ranking system is fine as it is. As for other ranking systems England doesn't deserve to be seeded in any conceivable scenario, so a system that would have them in the top 8 is just a load of garbage. England would struggle to qualify in the CONCACAF region with their present team. That doesn't change the fact that the seeding system sucks. But anything to distract the conversation, right? That's pretty much standard procedure for you. You have no point to make, but you must be a [bleep], so...
Sorry, but the seeding for the top pot was the hosts plus the top 7 in the FIFA rankings. It's entirely relevant. Perhaps if you could express yourself without swearing, or fanboy partisanship, you'd be able to make a point beyond 'the system sucks'. What would be a better system?

danivon wrote:England's draw is disappointing not for being a tough group, which it is, or for having to play in Manaus, which sucks,.but because the two major teams there play negatively, and England do not play attractive football either.


Unsurprisingly the above comment make no sense. Playing in Manaus has nothing to do with their opponents' style of play at all. England's draw sucks because they have to play Italy and Uruguay, who are both top 10 teams. England's draw sucks because they are arguably the weakest team in it. While there is yet some hope for them to right the ship, it's unlikely that they will use the players available to them that could get the job done. If they don't develop a goalkeeper, they're going to blow their game against Costa Rica.
This would be because the comment was written in English, not in sweary yahoo. I was not actually talking about England's draw being bad from a fan point of view, but from a football point of view. If you could get your head out of the space of 'my team good, other team sucks' point of view, and of you could read things and respond rationally rather than just glancing and emoting, perhaps you'd get this:

I get that Italy and Uruguay are top-10 teams. That is why I said it was a "tough group" (as well as the fact that Costa Rica are no easy team to play). Manaus is an issue because of the remoteness, the heat and the humidity - the latter does actually have some bearing on how a game is played - you won't see a fast-paced game over 90 minutes with 80% humidity. But that was not my point (hence me putting the first to part in "not for" clauses.

My point was that Italy and Uruguay have reputations (and not particularly undeserved) for playing negative football. Italy tend to rely on defence. Uruguay on thuggery. Costa Rica can play beautifully, or like a bunch of hacks. Combined with England's current lassitude, it makes for a tedious set of games to watch.

I fully expect the USA's group to be far more fun to watch

Dempsey left for a chance to play in Champions League, something that he was promised with Spurs, who failed as usual to deliver. Fulham couldn't offer any realistic hope of that. To link that move to money alone is naive. In the end Fulham made the move about money, since they sold the player, thinking that they could get better with the profits. They didn't.
Several problems with this:

1) Dempsey joined a team that had Europa League football and missed out on CL simply because Chelsea had won it that summer. Tottenham did not 'promise' CL football, but of the teams going in for him at the time (Spurs, Liverpool, Aston Villa), they were also the closest to qualifying in 2012-13 - with their best EPL points & GD ever, but a win away from being in 4th place.

2) I understand that Fulham were unlikely to offer a shot at the CL. But Spurs were not a certain bet and if that really were his motivation, why go to Seattle a year later?

3) he got a pay rise at Spurs

4) What was Fulham supposed to do with a player a year away from the end of his contract who made it clear he wanted to go? Keep him and hope his form didn't get affected and then see him release on a Bosman? Give him away for nowt? No. Given that Liverpool only offered about £3M for him, why should they not accept an offer for £6M? You do realise that football clubs are businesses and not social clubs right?

5) Fulham did not make a huge profit on Dempsey. Sure, he cost $4M in 2007 and was sold for $9.5 in 2012, but if he was on any more than $20K a week that's break-even at best (and ignoring any other clauses). He was a great player for the club and we are grateful for what he did, but he was not sold for the money - as before it was because he wanted to go.

6) Frankly, Fulham were not in the position to use the receipts to much effect. We are generally a selling club (Saha, Smalling, Van der Sar, etc) because we don't have the fanbase and income to just buy whoever we want. Berbatov was a gamble, and on his day he's fantastic, but at the time we had an owner who was seeking to cut his losses. And again - Dempsey wanted to go. I believe FFC would have tried to renew his contract rather than sell, but if didn't want to, it wasn't going to happen.

The deal as it exists now is being described as an (MLS) off season loan. I seriously doubt that Fulham, are going to pay MLS what they just paid Tottenham for Dempsey when they sold him to Spurs in the first place. Maybe they realize their mistake, but it doesn't sound like they've learned their lesson to me. They're getting ready to sell Berbatov now.... If the fans give Dempsey a poor reception then then so be it. Sounds like a great idea, though. Sell Berbatov, and then sit around and pout because another player is coming back to help. That should really help the club.
Sheesh! yes, it's a loan. Not sure that I've seen an indication of buying Clint back anyway. Berba may stay (after all, who would buy him?), but even so I can't see us paying £6m to get Dempsey. Not unless he has a serious uptick in form given his last few months at Seattle.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 17 Dec 2013, 11:15 pm

Clint Dempsey made what he thought was a good career move. It's really no different to what thousands of footballers do every year. At his age he was unlikely to get another shot at the big time and so he took it. I don't see the issue tbh.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 16 Mar 2014, 10:32 am

ruffhaus
and at the end of the season I'll take Moyes and Fellaini over Rodgers and Suarez any day.


Still?
I admit I underestimated Rodgers. But I think I got Moyes and Fellaini about right...
Rodgers appears to be rolling along, and has his team still competing for the title - with Suarez firing goals and not eating ears.
Moyes runs Fallainni out against Liverpool and they get hammered 3-0.

And Everton is still out performing Man U, without Fellaini ... Another sign that Moyes is, as the sign in the visitors section of Old Trafford said today "A football genius".
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Apr 2014, 7:12 am

ruffhaus
Imagining what Martinez would do with the Man United roster is like imagining what you and I would do with it. He was never going to get the job. I like the guy a lot, but I think that he'd be over his head at Man United now, and Everton was a more suitable stepping stone for him to transition to from Wigan. It's the same step that Rodgers took , moving to Swansea, and should have stayed with to prove himself. When Liverpool sacks him, he'll be hard pressed to get a Championship job.


It's too bad Ruffhaus took a walk. Now that the season is winding up, and Moyes is fired, and Liverpool in the drivers seat for the EPL championship .... it would interesting to hear the rationalization.
Reviewing the conversation, the evaluation of Fellainni is particularly funny based on his contributions to the Manu U campaign this year...
Still, Rogers did better than I thought he would. Although I think its clear that Martinez would have been a better choice for Man U than the unimaginative Moyes.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 22 Apr 2014, 10:43 am

Martinez wouldn't have lasted 5 mins at Manchester Utd. He's a terrific manager and I'm sure he'd be talented enough to do it, but he needs his players to buy into the project and play with enthusiasm, and it's very doubtful he, or indeed anybody else, could have gotten that reaction from the squad that David Moyes inherited. The pressure would have been enormous and the fans would have given him a handful of games before getting right on his back and undermining morale.

It was an impossible job basically. Perhaps somebody like Guardiola might have managed to be successful there, but in all probability even he'd have struggled.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 22 Apr 2014, 11:25 am

It was one hell of a poisoned chalice to take up the ManU job after SAF. Moyes appeared to struggle to get the respect of players and also to help attract big name signings (although money may also have been a factor). The idea that Martinez or any other manager who has not won any big trophies or obtained a reputation overseas would have coped any better on that score is pretty laughable. Martinez has indeed proved himself with each job so far, but not yet at the highest level.

I don't know who could have inherited that United team and done well. Another big name mayhave had a lot to live up to, and frankly the squad are in transition so even SAF would have had a hard time winning the league.

Of course I find it hard to feel sorry for ManU supporters, who have been spoiled with over 20 years' of success and silverware and see 7th place as a disaster. I'd be ecstatic if Fulham could have such a disastrous year!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Apr 2014, 2:04 pm

danivon
The idea that Martinez or any other manager who has not won any big trophies or obtained a reputation overseas would have coped any better on that score is pretty laughable. Martinez has indeed proved himself with each job so far, but not yet at the highest level.

He won the FA Cup. With Wigan.
So there's one more trophy than Moyes ever managed.

Players give managers a chance. And if the manager knows what they are doing and his tactics, systems and decisions work out he wins them over. Rodgers has managed to do that with Liverpool. And most of us on this board thought he couldn't.
And Martinez has done that at Everton. On Saturday 8 of the 11 Everton starters were Moyes acquisitions. But they played a helluva lot better under Martinez they they ever played for Moyes.
We'll never know for sure, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest Moyes wasn't up to the task of making his players play better .... but Martinez certainly is ...
From an excellent ESPN blog :

Fulham rookie Dan Burn had to clarify his comments to insist he meant no disrespect when he discussed United’s tactics in the wake of the shocking 2-2 draw in February, but he had a point, regardless: "I've never headed that many balls since the Conference," he said.
Incredibly, United sent 81 crosses over during the match against the league's worst team at the time. You would have thought that after 20 or maybe 30, such a tactic was not working. But 81?
Watching Moyes try to use Juan Mata was akin to seeing a pensioner operate an iPad in the opening stages of the Spaniard's career at the club. The Scot simply did not know what to do with Mata, often wasting him in the wrong position when it was clear he would thrive as a No. 10.
The Everton players he used to coach have also highlighted Moyes' tactical game, as Ross Barkley said: "Martinez is more tactical. We do a lot more tactical work which is good for me because I'm young and still learning."

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/mancheste ... ew?cc=5901
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 2552
Joined: 29 Aug 2006, 2:41 pm

Post 17 Jun 2014, 12:37 pm

So if Jozy can't play against Portugal, how does the US replace him? Do they send out Johansson--who was absolutely horrible? Start Wondo? Or switch formation?

I am of the mind that going with a 4-5-1 would be the best approach. Aron, while having a hot foot in the Eredivisie looked way too lost. Wondo is a super-sub, imo. He can't hold the ball like Jozy.

However, our midfield could benefit a ton from an extra creator. We have an abundance of wingers with decent enough and comparable quality that we can put Zusi and Bedoya out at the same time, and bring in Brad Evans if we need someone to draw free kicks.

Bradley played terribly. With more midfield creators, he can play the holding midfield that he is more attuned to (rather than the 10).

Agree/Disagree?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Jun 2014, 3:20 pm

Guapo wrote:So if Jozy can't play against Portugal, how does the US replace him? Do they send out Johansson--who was absolutely horrible? Start Wondo? Or switch formation?

I am of the mind that going with a 4-5-1 would be the best approach. Aron, while having a hot foot in the Eredivisie looked way too lost. Wondo is a super-sub, imo. He can't hold the ball like Jozy.

However, our midfield could benefit a ton from an extra creator. We have an abundance of wingers with decent enough and comparable quality that we can put Zusi and Bedoya out at the same time, and bring in Brad Evans if we need someone to draw free kicks.

Bradley played terribly. With more midfield creators, he can play the holding midfield that he is more attuned to (rather than the 10).

Agree/Disagree?


What you write makes sense, but I'm just starting to learn the game.

I did say (and believe) we got thrashed yesterday and then pulled the game out. Dempsey's goal was beautiful, but that we tried to stall the remaining 89 minutes--that's not much of a strategy. To be fair, when Altidore went down, the whole thing shifted. Had he not pulled up lame just then, he might have had a chance on that run.

Watching Aron made me wonder how come Landon isn't on the squad. Surely that would have been a better safety net?

I agree Bradley seemed lost too. Like, why didn't he try to run out the clock instead of lamely sending it toward the goalie at the end of the match?

I think our best shot is if Portugal was so shattered by Germany that they have yet to recover. I didn't see much to give me hope of the US escaping group. Now, that's saying something given that they won the game. We had two special plays, a nice save, and rode that to a win. That's not a good formula.