Paul Oberjuerge header image 2

World Cup Qualifying: USA 2, Mexico 0

February 12th, 2009 · 5 Comments · soccer, World Cup

This is another one of those “great day!” results. Like the Lakers beating the Celtics or USC defeating Notre Dame — back when Notre Dame was a worthy opponent.

Which reminds me: Once we get past the instinctive “beating Mexico is always good news” … it occurs to us that Mexico is barely a worthy opponent anymore. The American team is getting better, yes … but Mexico seems to be regressing into fairly thorough mediocrity.

It takes away from the U.S. victory, actually. There is pleasure in knowing you caused your greatest rival discomfort — and all of Mexico today is in a funk, rest assured — but when it comes over a team that is as disorganized and as modestly talented as Mexico looked to be Wednesday night … it tempers any sense of triumph. (And I know Mexico was missing some key players. But serious soccer nations make good a few injuries.)

The U.S. is now 9-0-2 against Mexico in their last 11 matchups on American soil. So the outcome Wednesday was nothing new.

What was new about Wednesday’s matchup was the sense that Mexico was, no question, the inferior team. And by a long way.

The Americans should have won 3-0 or even 4-0. They were that much better. But they got the one goal before half, and seemed to think that was enough, and got even more smug about things and more cautious once Mexico’s captain, defender Rafael Marquez, was red-carded for gouging U.S. keeper Tim Howard with his cleats, in the 64th minute. Instead of going forward from midfield and the wings, the U.S. offense the final hour hour seemed to be almost solely Landon Donovan probing and waiting for someone, anyone, to come up in support — which they rarely did.

Mexico actually seemed to control stretches of the game, in the final 30 minutes, when the U.S. should have gone forward and finished off a deflated team. Well, Mexico didn’t control the game as much as actually keep possession for several passes at a time, which it hadn’t done for the first hour of competition.

Most telling about this match, again, was how overmatched Mexico looked. You had a sense that nearly every U.S. player was faster and more athletic than the guys Mexico ran out there. Which has been true pretty much the entire last decade of this rivalry, now that I think of it.

A decade ago, however, Mexico had an enormous advantage on the technical side. More deft ballhanding, crisper passing, superior game-sense, dependable execution of scoring chances. Ten years ago, Mexico would dominate in time of possession, and the U.S. tended to score almost solely on counterattacks after Mexico got frustrated by American defensive tactics — and got caught with too many men up field.

That seems to have vanished — the technical advantage and Mexican overconfidence that led to counterattack chances for the U.S., and the Mexicans subsequently walking away after saying they had controlled the game and deserved to win.

Now it is the Mexicans who are hunkering down, bunkering in, hoping for a break but seeming to expect the worst. And that bodes ill for fans of El Tri who hate-hate-hate to lose to the gringos. The teams now are technically at about the same level, and when you factor in U.S. advantages in size and speed, it looks like a mismatch out there. Unless the game is being played at 7,000 feet and in the filthy air of Azteca Stadium.

I had a sense Mexico was trying as best it could … but that the U.S. held back out of fear of giving up a counterattack goal.

My friend Luis Bueno has done a really nice job on more specifics of the USA-Mexico match on his soccer site, The Touchline, which is listed on my blogroll (on the right side of this page). He has video highlights, as well as reaction from Mexico media.

Mexico likely will change coaches again. And Mexico almost certainly will qualify for the World Cup. But I have a sense that a seismic shift is going on here, and the U.S. defeating Mexico (anywhere but Azteca) is a result anyone paying any attention should expect.

Some thoughts about individuals:

–Landon Donovan, “Landycakes” to his legion of detractors, continues to be the main man in the U.S. attack. It is no coincidence that he made the key pass that led to both U.S. goals. He is perhaps the only irreplaceable player on the team. Can’t American soccer fandom agree on that?

–Clint Dempsey. Wasn’t he good for a moment there? All he did against Mexico was dive, badly, trying to get fouls called. Honestly, I can’t recall a single thing he did well.

–Tim Howard. The latest in a line of outstanding U.S. keepers that includes Brad Friedel and Kasey Keller (and maybe even Tony Meola). It is the one position you can be sure the U.S. will always have a world-class player.

–Frankie Hejduk. He played right back, and he remains a modestly talented technician who might get forward but is no real threat to generate any offense. But his extraordinary work rate and his willingness to mix it up, his mental toughness and all-around (if crude) energy make him someone who should always have a shot at the starting 11.

–Heath Pearce: The worst U.S. player on the field. The Yanks are lucky that Mexico’s Brazilian import, Dos Santos, didn’t score against him on one of those forays up the right side. Pearce also sprayed passes around the field in directions that seemed to include any compass point not actually occupied by a teammate. The search for a competent left back goes on.

–DaMarcus Beasley. A bit rusty from not playing much this year, but his raw speed had Mexico in a state of panic. Another guy who needs to play, and be part of the Americans just running right at their CONCACAF opponents.

–Oguchi Onyewu, Carlos Bocanegra. Central defenders who are both better than they played.

–Michael Bradley. OK, apparently he’s not just a function of his father being the U.S. coach. Scored both goals and played rugged defense. Not a great distributor of the ball (which in theory was part of his job, with Sacha Kljestan playing as the “holding” mid), but Donovan assumes the playmaker role as long as he is at the “withdrawn forward” spot, as he was Wednesday night. (It is exactly where he should be used, with the national team, and not stranded over on the right wing, as Bob Bradley has done in the past.) That allows Michael Bradley to play more like John Harkes (tough and defense-first) than Claudio Reyna (a true playmaker).

Anyway, the way things are going in this rivalry, that U.S. breakthrough at Azteca can’t be far off. Might even be this year.

Tags:

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Doug // Feb 12, 2009 at 9:34 PM

    Paul, I think you are giving the U.S. a bit too much credit as it was hardly a sparking performance. I do agree that the U.S. did control the play for long stretches of time and that is a real change. Mexico played very poorly and what surprised me the most was how little passion, creativity and determination they displayed.

  • 2 Dennis Pope // Feb 13, 2009 at 12:01 AM

    I think the U.S. was a little lucky to not have gone down 1-0 early on but momentum clearly shifted after Michael Bradley’s goal at the end of the first half.

    And Heath Pearce was the WORST player on the pitch. Why isn’t Freddie Adu getting a look on the right side, he could’ve certainly done as little as Pearce did.

  • 3 Nell // Feb 13, 2009 at 6:26 AM

    There’s no way the US was “lucky” to not have gone down 1-0 early. How could we be lucky? The Mexican team had the voodoo dolls. Did it backfire? Anyway, it wasn’t luck; it was excellent goalkeeping – something Mexico does not have.

  • 4 Ted Tran // Feb 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM

    Ha this made me laugh! You are so obviously biased, I cannot believe you’re a sport writer. It’s funny how you state dos Santos is a Brazilian important, but I doubt any American like yourself would do that same for Benny, who happens to of been born in Brazil unlike dos Santos. All in all, I think you were being sarcastic, if not I feel sorry for you, for accepting the mediocre and anit-football the USNT is known for.

  • 5 radmonkey // Feb 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

    Calling Dos Santos a Brazilian is a pretty glib and disingenuous statement. Would anyone call Gooch a Nigerian import? Or Sacha a Serbian Import?

    The kid is pretty Mexican whichever way you cut it (born there, raised there and etc), I don’t think he can even speak portuguese. If you want to point out the imports, then name them (Ochoa, Zinha and Leandro). Don’t post factually wrong cheap shots.

Leave a Comment