Blake here:
This match will rankle for a while. The U.S. was playing well against Italy and could have (and probably should have) scored two goals in the first 30 minutes. Italy had a chance and in the 30th minute the ref changes the course of the game by issuing a Red card to Ricardo Clark on a foul that nine times out of 10 draws at worst a yellow. Later in the first half the an Italian defender elbows Donovan in the head and gets a Yellow. A Yellow? For an elbow to the head? When Clark gets a Red for his tackle? If one is a red the other is a red. But the U.S. keeps fighting. Altidore draws a PK on a foul the could have drawn a Yellow (which would have been the Italian's second yellow). Replays show the Italian defender kicking Altidore once he is past. If Clark got a red card shouldn't that have been at least a yellow? Donovan puts the PK away and the U.S. is up 1-0 while down a man.
The Italians substitute the mercenary traitor Rossi in at the 58th minute. Dempsey gets trapped on the sideline and tries to make the pass to Feilhaber in traffic who has his pocket picked by Rossi. Rossi walks in and blasts a shot into the net from 30 yards and the Italians are tied 1-1. At this point the U.S. has been playing a man down for over 30 minutes. The midfielders have been chasing the action and Bradley has made no substitutes. Undoubtedly tired legs contributed to Rossi's ability to dibble unchallenged as he did. Fifteen minutes later the Italians took the lead with a long shot by De Rossi (the Italian defender who famously hit Brian McBride in the 2006 World Cup).
And yet the U.S. is still attacking. Donovan gets crushed in the box - but no call from the Chilean ref. It is as if there were two different standards in this game. He is willing to alter the course of the game and give a harsh red to Clark - but doesn't give the penalty here when it would likely lead to the equalizer. It is o.k. to make harsh calls against the U.S., but not o.k. to do the same to the Italians. Given the fact that the U.S. probably don't have the same level, having to play 10 against 12 (the center ref) makes it that much harder. Finally the U.S. gets caught in a counter pressing for the equalizer and the mercenary traitor Rossi scores a third.
Many may disagree, but the U.S. wins if the sides are even. We created better scoring opportunities and outplayed them while the sides were even. That said, I think Bob Bradley's substitution pattern was curious. Why bring Beasley on at all? I understand the Bradley coached him in Chicago and has a soft spot for him - and certainly Bruce Arena was no stranger to playing players past they expiration date (Jeff Agoos, Eddie Pope, Claudia Reyna), but Beasley has not played well for the U.S. team in a long time - probably since the game in 2006 against Italy. The problem was that with Clark red carded, Bob had no true defensive mids on the bench. Torres doesn't qualify, Adu doesn't qualify so perhaps Beasley makes the most sense. Unfortunately after Beasley was announced and before he could get in the game, the Italians scored the go-ahead goal. If you look at the midfielders Bradley brought, I just don't understand the philosophy. With Edu hurt and Mastreoni having played his way off the team, why not bring in Stuart Holden, or Jeff Laurentowicz. In the game - if you're going with defense - why not bring in Pearce and move Bornstein to left mid? Why not play Califf as a defensive mid? Perhaps he closes down the mercenary traitor Rossi and the thug De Rossi. Where it the tactical preparation? If you are a man down and up a goal going into halftime, why not play for the win or tie? But Bradley doesn't make a move until the first goal is in and while he is preparing to make a move the go ahead goal is scored.
Yet with all that - if the ref calls the P.K. for the foul on Donovan, I think we escape with a tie. And that's why this match will rankle for a long time. The ref essentially took the game away from the U.S. and gave it to Italy.
No comments:
Post a Comment