Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Forza Azzurri, post: 4454052, member: 1452"] I wanted to elaborate on this point a bit. I have been religiously watching the US national team for the last 32+ years. Prior to that, games were simply not on TV. The Paul Caligiuri goal vs T&T, which propelled the US to its first World Cup in 40 years, was not on TV. This is first time, ever, that I have seen a US team truly dominate an opponent at a World Cup for any period of time. It is the first time, at a World Cup, that I have ever seen a US team dominate time of possession and dictate how the game was played. When Klinsmann took over in 2011, he declared that the days of the US bunkering and countering were over. It never happened because we never had that talent to make it work unless we were playing Cuba or St. Kitt's. We finally have the talent to be able to do that, not against a France or and England, but against a mid-tier European side. But playing that way also requires learning how to play that way on the highest stage. I think that the other big difference in the second half yesterday was that we got more tentative in the opponent's half. The risks we were willing to take in the first half, guys were not willing to take in the second half. When you play on the front foot, the worst thing you can do is turn the ball over in a bad area and give the opponent the opportunity to counter. I think we were too cognizant of that in the second half and, as a result, became too stagnant in the opponent's half. The really good news is that we finally have the talent level to be able to dictate play to opponents. You cannot win without talent. Now we have to mature to the point where we are comfortable playing that way for 90 minutes when the stakes are highest. It is an evolution, not a revolution. Looked at in isolation, yesterday was a massive disappointment. Looked at from a long-term perspective, it is a "giant leap" forward. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?