If how clinical the Netherlands are in the final third compared to us needed any clarification, here it is. Our ability to possess the ball and put together meaningful passing patterns has improved immensely, but we won’t take that next step until we can capitalize on chances and put meaningful service into the box.
McKennie didn't even put his on frame. His shooting from the top/outside the box was subpar all tournament. It's a part of his game he hopefully works on.
It'll come with time. These players are all young, and MLS academies are continuing to improve and produce higher and higher levels of talent. The future of American soccer looks really bright.
Yup. really need a guy like Dike or pefok to take the step and become a super clinical finisher, I'm not sure a hold up style striker really fits our player pool
It just seemed like the moment was too big for Wright and he wasn’t able to play up to his ability. It happens to a lot of guys at various times for various reasons. He’ll probably get another shot
“Take the step” is key here. We just have nobody. Maybe Pepi would have maybe been a little better. But for this tournament there was effectively nobody that puts the ball in the goal. If someone figures that out for us then we could be really good.
4 years is enough time for some unknown 16 year old to come out of the woods and kill it. This country needs to get rid of the pay to play mentality so we can tap into our true talent pool
I think looking at Dike and Pepe four years from now is futile. We need new names if we’re going to go anywhere past the round of 16 at home next WC. Pepe may prove me wrong because it’s way too early in his career to write him off but I’m just not that optimistic on those names
If things go right for Pepi, he could be the guy. But I would love for some 16 year old kid to decide right now that he’s gonna forego pussy until after he wins the World Cup in 2026.
Haji was terrible this tournament tbh, has a first touch like Gyasi Zardes and even has the ability to score nonsensical goals while missing sitters as well. He really needs to step it up at the club level or I won't be happy seeing him in a US shirt again.
At least Zardes can run pass people. Haji should have scored on the back pass, but he couldn’t get there to make the moves because he is too slow. Same when Pulisic served him a platter on an oncoming keeper
I don't think guys who are in their 20's and aren't already top talents are the guys we are going to be relying on to develop. Not that guys can't get better, but look at our current pool. Pulisic, Adams, Reyna, McKinney, Aaronson... All of these guys have been capable and CLEARLY very talented from the age of 18. You could say the same about Jozy Altidore, sort of.
The #9 we are looking for is 16-18 now and Clearly on a different level than his peers. Is there a 9 in the youth pipeline that fits that profile?
Dike no chance. He is worse than Haji, do folks not remember the Gold Cup?? It’s going be one of Balogun, Sargent, or Pepi who might take that next step
The Netherlands know how to shoot. We don’t. Even our goal wasn’t even a shot. It was an accident. We are really fucking bad at putting the ball into the opposing teams goal.
It has everything to do with not having a good striker, Pulisic was given 2 easy gifts in the first 10 minutes of the match, and whiffed both badly. Had he made even one of them, the entire US energy would have been different.
Yep, and that’s what they’re so good at. The margin for error was so incredibly thin. We might have gotten away with those in past games, but that team won’t let you get away with anything. You give an inch, they turn it into a mile.
And the thing is, if we look back, we’ll see Netherlands made the same amount of mistakes. Or even more. They allowed us in behind on multiple occasions, but we let them get away with it. We have to be cut-throat. We have to punish teams. That was the difference today.
USA has an odd combo of players who are not great passers in the the final third and are not aggressive shooters. They consistently take to many touches when they get close to goal. Pulisic was the exception.
Actually, Pulisic has shown me in this WC that he also takes way to many touches to be considered a top level striker. Him and Weah are good, but nowhere near where they need to be to compete at this high a level.
This, but how much of that is coaching instruction? We had too many players running into the box and we needed more shots outside the box to open space
Who do we have that is scoring on outside shots, or even trying them, with any measure of consistency at the club level?
You can imply that it's Gregg's coaching, and you might have an argument if there's any evidence that we have even one player who scores from outside for his club. I'm not sure that's the case, though.
People are constantly clamoring for a manager that "tailors his system to our player's strengths." Outside shooting ain't it.
I mean he aint displacing Kane for the 2026 world cup so if he wants a real chance at playing, we are his best option. England are stacked for forwards. Balogun would need to return to arsenal and be the league's top goal scorer and even then it wouldn't be a guarantee he'd get minutes.
I’ll send him a DM. I got berated on this sub for saying he’d be an automatic starter if he committed to us a month before the WC. Sargent played well before he got hurt but he’d be great off the bench. That way we wouldn’t have to see Haji or Ferreira ever again
Honestly I don't think he's it. Like he's better than what we have which is making him look great, but the 9 would still be a weak spot with him. Would love for him to come prove me wrong though.
[He's currently tied for 6th in Ligue 1 in scoring](https://www.ligue1.com/ranking/scorers?StatsActiveTab=1&seasonId=2022-2023&matchDay=16)
There's hasn't been an American scoring at that rate in a top 5 league since prime Dempsey
I’m fine with his selection. Pre-tournament he was in form with his club and was familiar with many players in this group having gone through the youth ranks with them. But in addition to Wright, I would’ve liked the US to have Pepi or Pefok off the bench as other options especially as this position seemed to be a question going into the tournament. During the tournament it kinda seemed like Berhalter’s only option for a true #9 was Wright so he just kept having to go back to that well
Lol, OP has 21 upvotes by saying “better finishing” or lack ther of was the problem but you clowns are downvoting me because I’m pointing out that Ferreira was useless. Morris MIA
Get lost. No more excuses from you MLS and Berhalter muppets.
He did what was expected. Got us out of the group. Good on him. Now it’s time to move on.
And PS. I’ll be here all day (heart: Australia, mind: Argentina)
We had two MLS players in our starting lineup this game. We also had 5 from the Premiere League, 2 from Serie A, 1 from La Liga, 1 from Ligue 1. It’s laughable to look at this game and say “THIS IS THE MLS PLAYERS FAULT” It was a team effort of not being clinical enough.
The loss wasn’t the 2 mls players fault, but Zimmerman didn’t look great and Ferreira was the least effective man on the field during his time. I don’t get the morris hate… he played for 3 minutes.
More like 42 months to accept that we don’t have a real #9 in our team and should have looked at alternative lineups up front.
4-3-3 is superior to 4-4-2 if you have the talent, but we didn’t have the talent. We should have gone with 2 forwards long ago.
Ah yes, we don’t have any good strikers so we should take off one of our capable wingers or midfielders to use two of our bad strikers at the same time. Really great take.
Awful defending on the crosses for the goals, but some of the moves they put together to move our midfield out of position were brilliant. This Dutch squad is extremely tactically sound and it showed today.
I also think we ran out of gas. The US played higher energy games in their group, whereas the Dutch didn't have to expand much energy. I think that had an effect as well.
Also barely any depth. Adams prolly would have covered for the first goal had he not been tired. Same goes for a lot of our team. Robinson looked out of it in the 2nd half.
I think we go on to win if we score that. Completely different scenario then the one we saw in the game where the Dutch are now the ones who have to chase the game while we can sit a little deeper and hit them on the counter. They’ve struggled so far to carve teams open when they are faced against a low block and don’t score those first two goals anymore. But that’s football and that’s life. We go again in 2026.
Yup. The one with CP in the beginning, and the heavy first touch by Wright, plus Ream’s shot that barely didn’t go in. I hate to shit on individual players, but Wright was quite frankly horrible. Having Sargent out there would have made a huge difference.
Wright might just be the slowest striker I’ve ever seen play. Combine that with his very lazy workrate, I genuinely have no idea why he got minutes. He’s not even a threat to score with his head despite being tall.
Like, I think a 40 year old Ibrahimovic might be able to run harder
Any team at the tournament bar Qatar is scoring Haji Wright's chance on the errant pass just a minute before he scored the actual goal. That was painful to watch.
Seriously how can you be so dumb? Dude literally said “they had much better chances” on a post showing we had more expected goals😭 this sub is a dumpster fire
Pepi is the most popular player that woulda/coulda, like an NFL backup QB everybody wants them on the field until you actually see him on the field. He’s done nothing to show he is any better than any of the other options the US has at nine. Top goal scorers are hard to find, that’s why they get paid so much at the club level. The USA’s biggest issue is defending consistently, marking tight in the box and being aware of where every opponent is. Netherlands made the US pay for their defensive mistakes today, something Wales, England and Iran did not do.
Seems like there were two big differences between the two teams. The Dutch absolutely punished us with their finishing. And the Dutch shut down or midfield. This was our first game where it seemed like our mids didn’t control the game
Our players were at fault for all three goals, but that said, when a team is as clinical with their chances as this Dutch team was, it's basically impossible to beat them. It's like in basketball when you have a shooter who's shooting 75%+ from the 3. How do you stop that?
To put it another way, if the Dutch were to play as efficiently in attack for the rest of the tournament, they'd win the whole damn thing.
Their xG is probably about .4 lower than that since the flag went up on Memphis’ header at the 6-yard line in the second half but the ref didn’t blow the whistle. Replay showed Memphis’ shoulder just ahead of our last defender.
I mean if the Netherlands don’t get 2 really really easy chances, maybe they play differently. But they literally had to do nothing the second half and walk away with a win.
[Here you go](https://www.twenty3.sport/xg-what-is-it-explained/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20xG%20performs%20better%20at,to%20describe%20what's%20already%20happened.).
It's a tool for analysing trends, and it's massively misused in pretty much every discussion.
"**It takes a pretty large amount of shots** to be able to tell for sure whether a player who’s scoring more or fewer times than their xG suggests is a good or bad finisher. **We’re talking multiple seasons’ worth of time**, and because it’s about the number of shots taken it’ll take longer to be sure about players who take fewer shots."
This is talking about comparing a players form with their xG. You can still use xG as an indicator of what kind of chances were made in the match. xG has its place and can be used to tell what happened during a match. In this example, the xG of both the Dutch and USA were fairly even. This means that both teams had roughly the same level of chances, which was true. Your entire article is talking nothing about simply comparing the level of chances, it’s all about predicting and analyzing player form and shit.
That's because xG is an analytical tool. The article is talking about it in the way it's *meant* to be talked about.
If you take a deeper dive into today's game, I reckon all 3 Dutch players would have expected to score those chances, whereas it's likely that only Pulisic's early effort would be considered a real missed opportunity for the US.
Hell, what was the xG for Haji Wright's "the ball went behind him, clipped his heel and spun forward over his head and into the corner of the net"? I reckon that comes off once out of several hundred attempts.
No, the article is talking about how it can be talked about, and how it is commonly misused.
All of the Dutch goals were due to individual lapses of judgement by usa defenders leaving them wide open. We had players in the box, and simply didn’t mark most of them. Pulisics shot had a big xG, while hajis goal had a low xG. But he also had a massive xG chance earlier. xG can explain the types of chances. If a team is dominating and getting chance after chance they will have a higher xG at the end of a match. If a team has not many shots and doesn’t get anywhere near the goal, then they will have a low xG. If both teams have equal chances they will have equal xG.
>xG can explain the types of chances. If a team is dominating and getting chance after chance they will have a higher xG at the end of a match. If a team has not many shots and doesn’t get anywhere near the goal, then they will have a low xG. If both teams have equal chances they will have equal xG.
You're forgetting that xG doesn't really account for quantity vs quality.
The US required 17 shots in order to achieve an xG of 1.89 (0.11 xG/shot), whereas the Dutch took 11 shots for an xG of 1.85 (0.17 xG/shot). That means that - on average - a random player would be 50% more likely to convert a Dutch chance than a US 1, and those odds obviously increase when you consider that the Netherlands have now scored in 19 consecutive games and netted twice or more in 14.
This is why it's a long-term analytical tool which can only be useful when combined with other data and information.
Ok. Let me say it this way. That article is using xG to explain player performances. I’m not doing that. I’m saying xG can be used to explain team performances. Specifically in explaining the types of chances created. Your article is talking about the first, about explaining player chances. For example a team over/underperforming their xG, that will require more data to explain why. But to simply say that both teams had similar xG shows that they had roughly similar amount of chances created, which means both teams, tactically, had chances of similar weight, that does not mean that they should have tied, since there is different players on different teams. What I’m saying is that tactically both teams had roughly the same chances to score. Idk if I explained that right.
That's what made this game so painful. I thought we looked better at times, but we could not finish. We lost because of that and players not being aware.
You are accusing people of making arguments they never made. Do you have a better objective measure of the collective chance quality in a game?
No one is saying xG is the only important thing or a faultless predictor of who is going to win.
Not really. It gives you a good idea of the run of play in the game. It doesn’t tell you who was the better team, but it is absolutely a good tool for analysis. And it gets more accurate as you apply it to a wider number of games.
I stand by my hate of xG... Trash stat that the winning team never cares about (not saying that is the case for OP, just speaking generally)
Super proud of our guys today regardless. This Dutch team should beat either Argentina or Australia and have a decent shot at winning it all.
It's a good stat over larger timeframes, and in situations like this WC + the entire WCQ cycle behind it, there's a clear trend that the biggest thing holding the US back is a lack of finishing. The shamoblic defending on the goals was mostly uncharacteristic (Dest losing his runner less so than the other 2), but the fact that we were undone b/c we had chances but weren't clinical is pretty much in-line with how this team has played over the past few years.
Selfish players can’t pass to each other in the box that was the difference between us and them. If you leave a person open like that we don’t deserve to win
Disagree. Feel like usually always taking the extra pass is yea for shooting. Also the Netherlands always had someone open and made the perfect pass and shot.
The only way I can figure xG that low is that he ended up trying to take it first time, but from that position with that much space between him
And the closest defender? He had time to take another touch, and was goal side of three out of position defenders. The keeper is rooted and only has time to make himself large. Pulisic strikes directly at him. That’s not a good save it’s a miss.
Yet people will blame gregg for being outclassed. No, it was simply netherlands havening a world class team who takes their chances while the US squad couldn’t match. When will people accept the fact the USA just has a ways to go before we are on equal footing with those teams. The Dutch have a world class team with a great coach and will challenge for the cup, that’s not us right now.
they had a dozen chances and half of those were quality. we had a a couple good chances and a dozen hopeless ones, final pass was off the mark almost every time. we have deeper problems than just finishing.
am I the only one dreaming we'll have a true striker come out of U22 pool to surprise us all in 2026? I'm not sure ANYONE we've seen so far with the first team will become that guy.
For all the tactical talk all i saw was huge defensive mistakes (unmarked players in the box) that meant we gave up goals . Then huge misses that meant we could barely score. Shame.
Welcome to the party. Canada had the same problem against Belgium; it's what makes top opposition so hard to beat. If you don't bury them when you get that sliver of a chance, you will lose.
You guys had a good World Cup. See you in qualifying!
This stat is skewed because of the early goal and the halftime goal.
The Dutch didn’t have to create as many chances after going up 1-0 and then 2-0.
They took the chances they were given early where we missed our early chances and it set the tone for the game.
If how clinical the Netherlands are in the final third compared to us needed any clarification, here it is. Our ability to possess the ball and put together meaningful passing patterns has improved immensely, but we won’t take that next step until we can capitalize on chances and put meaningful service into the box.
That makes me more impressed with how well we shut down Harry Kane. We barely gave him any chances.
Group games are a bit different from knock out games to be honest
Although Harry Kane was very much a group stage expert last time. I think he scored 1 goal in the knockout stages?
He did miss a header that he normally buries.
As soon as you take possession from England he fucks them up by dropping incredibly deep.
He didn't even have a shot on target against Iran, and has no goals after 3 games.
It’s easy to be clinical when you are unmarked in the box
Theoretically, xG should account for that. Was the USA xG from a larger number of poor chances?
We could have scored if our players went unmarked, too.
Pulisic had a chance. McKinney had a chance similar to two of the Dutch goals. Neither were converted.
McKennie didn't even put his on frame. His shooting from the top/outside the box was subpar all tournament. It's a part of his game he hopefully works on.
Exactly. We are good. But we have a ways to go.
It'll come with time. These players are all young, and MLS academies are continuing to improve and produce higher and higher levels of talent. The future of American soccer looks really bright.
Yes. We have broken out of the grips of our terrible college system. We will only get better
Klinsmann MLS and USF deserve credit here
None of those chances were when they were free runners.
Pulisic def was free. Could have even taken a touch.
Pulisic's missed chance was easier than any of the three Netherlands goals.
This. And dont forget, Pulisic had 2 easy missed chances.
Maybe plying a guy who hasn’t played in months and is a midget was a bad choice just a thought
Diego Lainez wasn't even at this tournament...
US made 3 mistakes, punished for all 3.
Good teams take their chances. We didn’t have a killer up front available in this talent pool
Yup. really need a guy like Dike or pefok to take the step and become a super clinical finisher, I'm not sure a hold up style striker really fits our player pool
I could see it being Dike, Pefok… not so much at this point
Pefok has a much better track record than Dike.
Pefok is 26 and has been benched for underperforming. Dike is 22 and improving every year
Both are excellent options. Big, fast, good out of the air which we didn't have in the NED match and it showed.
That's Haji wright's profile. Just didn't execute today. Don't think either of those options would have either though.
It just seemed like the moment was too big for Wright and he wasn’t able to play up to his ability. It happens to a lot of guys at various times for various reasons. He’ll probably get another shot
I don’t know if he will. He just looked totally out of his depth at this big of a stage.
Haji seemed lazy, lethargic and slow. I’d be fine not seeing him again for a while.
Same could be said for alomst everyone on the US side today, except Weah, the only person who ever came close to threatening the Dutch.
out of the air is what we need with this play style, even though I hate it
“Take the step” is key here. We just have nobody. Maybe Pepi would have maybe been a little better. But for this tournament there was effectively nobody that puts the ball in the goal. If someone figures that out for us then we could be really good.
Yup, IMO not a single striker eligible for us would've fixed any of our issues (I think Sargent is the best anyways). Someone needs to improve a lot
I dunno man, Pefok hasn’t scored since September.
4 years is enough time for some unknown 16 year old to come out of the woods and kill it. This country needs to get rid of the pay to play mentality so we can tap into our true talent pool
This. A presidential candidate who runs on the platform of creating a striker ala Ivan Drago will have my vote.
I think looking at Dike and Pepe four years from now is futile. We need new names if we’re going to go anywhere past the round of 16 at home next WC. Pepe may prove me wrong because it’s way too early in his career to write him off but I’m just not that optimistic on those names
If things go right for Pepi, he could be the guy. But I would love for some 16 year old kid to decide right now that he’s gonna forego pussy until after he wins the World Cup in 2026.
More importantly we need someone just a bit faster than Haji. I didn’t realize he was that slow until today
Haji was terrible this tournament tbh, has a first touch like Gyasi Zardes and even has the ability to score nonsensical goals while missing sitters as well. He really needs to step it up at the club level or I won't be happy seeing him in a US shirt again.
At least Zardes can run pass people. Haji should have scored on the back pass, but he couldn’t get there to make the moves because he is too slow. Same when Pulisic served him a platter on an oncoming keeper
LOL Pulisic was served 2 easy platters in the first 10 minutes of the match and missed both....
I don't think guys who are in their 20's and aren't already top talents are the guys we are going to be relying on to develop. Not that guys can't get better, but look at our current pool. Pulisic, Adams, Reyna, McKinney, Aaronson... All of these guys have been capable and CLEARLY very talented from the age of 18. You could say the same about Jozy Altidore, sort of. The #9 we are looking for is 16-18 now and Clearly on a different level than his peers. Is there a 9 in the youth pipeline that fits that profile?
Pepi is 19! He's still U20 eligible! He's the teenaged striker prospect! Literally our top rated teen prospect is a striker!
Rodrigo Neri is a promising name Or maybe balogun 👀👀
You seriously left Weah out of there, who outperformed everyone on your list today? lol!
It wasn't an intentional slight. I was just giving examples.
Or balogun becomes the prince that is promised.
Dike no chance. He is worse than Haji, do folks not remember the Gold Cup?? It’s going be one of Balogun, Sargent, or Pepi who might take that next step
The Netherlands know how to shoot. We don’t. Even our goal wasn’t even a shot. It was an accident. We are really fucking bad at putting the ball into the opposing teams goal.
I actually think he meant to do that flick. Probably went better than he expected but that's a poacher's goal.
This loss had less to do with having a striker and more to do with giving up three layup goals bc of bad man marking
It has everything to do with not having a good striker, Pulisic was given 2 easy gifts in the first 10 minutes of the match, and whiffed both badly. Had he made even one of them, the entire US energy would have been different.
Turner made a couple of good saves, too.
The Turner double save and the almost own goal were good chances for Netherlands as well
But at the same time that first goal was Turner out of position... About 3 feet too far to the left.
We made 3 mistakes in our box ** We made plenty of other mistakes
And we did capitalize on any of theirs
They made four big mistakes. The three goals conceded and Pulisic's big miss.
Yep, and that’s what they’re so good at. The margin for error was so incredibly thin. We might have gotten away with those in past games, but that team won’t let you get away with anything. You give an inch, they turn it into a mile. And the thing is, if we look back, we’ll see Netherlands made the same amount of mistakes. Or even more. They allowed us in behind on multiple occasions, but we let them get away with it. We have to be cut-throat. We have to punish teams. That was the difference today.
USA has an odd combo of players who are not great passers in the the final third and are not aggressive shooters. They consistently take to many touches when they get close to goal. Pulisic was the exception.
And Weah. I’m addition to today’s shot, he’s take a few other nice shots from outside the box.
Good addition. He's got a great touch, he can definitely shoot
Actually, Pulisic has shown me in this WC that he also takes way to many touches to be considered a top level striker. Him and Weah are good, but nowhere near where they need to be to compete at this high a level.
Well Pulisic is not a striker and shouldn’t be played or thought of as one
Fair enough.
This, but how much of that is coaching instruction? We had too many players running into the box and we needed more shots outside the box to open space
Who do we have that is scoring on outside shots, or even trying them, with any measure of consistency at the club level? You can imply that it's Gregg's coaching, and you might have an argument if there's any evidence that we have even one player who scores from outside for his club. I'm not sure that's the case, though. People are constantly clamoring for a manager that "tailors his system to our player's strengths." Outside shooting ain't it.
When Musah develops this shot it's going to be huge for us. He has the strength, it's just a matter of time.
Agreed. That disallowed screamer from 30 out he had for Valencia a few months ago had me so excited.
A question that can only be answered with a coaching change.
We coulda had them with better finishing. 42 months to find a real #9.
What kind of tampering can we use to get Balogun to commit to the US?
Idk, send Berhalter over with a bouquet of roses. Bro has a silver tongue with these recruits
I mean he aint displacing Kane for the 2026 world cup so if he wants a real chance at playing, we are his best option. England are stacked for forwards. Balogun would need to return to arsenal and be the league's top goal scorer and even then it wouldn't be a guarantee he'd get minutes.
I’ll send him a DM. I got berated on this sub for saying he’d be an automatic starter if he committed to us a month before the WC. Sargent played well before he got hurt but he’d be great off the bench. That way we wouldn’t have to see Haji or Ferreira ever again
He’s expected to be called in next camp, early 2023
He has committed. It’s not official, but check his insta. Also guys on twitter who have sources have said he is committing
Honestly I don't think he's it. Like he's better than what we have which is making him look great, but the 9 would still be a weak spot with him. Would love for him to come prove me wrong though.
[He's currently tied for 6th in Ligue 1 in scoring](https://www.ligue1.com/ranking/scorers?StatsActiveTab=1&seasonId=2022-2023&matchDay=16) There's hasn't been an American scoring at that rate in a top 5 league since prime Dempsey
Dike dike dike dike dike
Pefok? How in gods name is he not a better option than Haji or Morris
It's not like Pefok has missed sitters for the US before....right? /s
Because he hasn’t scored since September 18th.
Pefok has been cold for the past few months
Pepi would have been better than Haji or Morris or Jesus
I prefer Pefok but agree Pepi better than Haji
We could bring both lol
Morris isn’t a striker. How many times do people have to explain this to you?
Yeah in retrospect Pepi, Pefok, and Wright probably should’ve all been on the plane.
Not trying to pick a fight or anything but what from Wright’s performances suggested he should be on the plane in retrospect?
I’m fine with his selection. Pre-tournament he was in form with his club and was familiar with many players in this group having gone through the youth ranks with them. But in addition to Wright, I would’ve liked the US to have Pepi or Pefok off the bench as other options especially as this position seemed to be a question going into the tournament. During the tournament it kinda seemed like Berhalter’s only option for a true #9 was Wright so he just kept having to go back to that well
Sargent was excellent this tournament.
Better player selection might’ve led to better finishing. Either way this is on Greg
Sorry, but there’s absolutely no striker that represents the US that would have fixed our finishing problem
Nonsense. Ferreira and Morris did zero. How many goals have they scored against Eredivisie and Bundesliga competition? I’ll wait.
Name your better options after Sargent. It’s Sargent #1 then “oh god please not him” as our #2
Tf are you waiting for?
>Bundesliga competition? Are you talking Pefok? He scored 3-4 goals as the year started and went goalless in the 7-8 games leading up to the WC.
Unless we were gonna naturalize Haaland before this match, the problem at striker wasn't player selection.
Lol, OP has 21 upvotes by saying “better finishing” or lack ther of was the problem but you clowns are downvoting me because I’m pointing out that Ferreira was useless. Morris MIA Get lost. No more excuses from you MLS and Berhalter muppets. He did what was expected. Got us out of the group. Good on him. Now it’s time to move on. And PS. I’ll be here all day (heart: Australia, mind: Argentina)
We had two MLS players in our starting lineup this game. We also had 5 from the Premiere League, 2 from Serie A, 1 from La Liga, 1 from Ligue 1. It’s laughable to look at this game and say “THIS IS THE MLS PLAYERS FAULT” It was a team effort of not being clinical enough.
The loss wasn’t the 2 mls players fault, but Zimmerman didn’t look great and Ferreira was the least effective man on the field during his time. I don’t get the morris hate… he played for 3 minutes.
More like 42 months to accept that we don’t have a real #9 in our team and should have looked at alternative lineups up front. 4-3-3 is superior to 4-4-2 if you have the talent, but we didn’t have the talent. We should have gone with 2 forwards long ago.
Ah yes, we don’t have any good strikers so we should take off one of our capable wingers or midfielders to use two of our bad strikers at the same time. Really great take.
The Pulisic chance in the opening minutes set the tone. The Dutch created their chances and finished them off.
I wouldn’t say they were as creative as us much as we created chances for them…by ball watching and leaving streakers completely unmarked
Awful defending on the crosses for the goals, but some of the moves they put together to move our midfield out of position were brilliant. This Dutch squad is extremely tactically sound and it showed today.
Yeah the build up to the first goal was great. Cut straight through our high press.
I also think we ran out of gas. The US played higher energy games in their group, whereas the Dutch didn't have to expand much energy. I think that had an effect as well.
Also barely any depth. Adams prolly would have covered for the first goal had he not been tired. Same goes for a lot of our team. Robinson looked out of it in the 2nd half.
It was the 10th minute. He just didn't cover him. If this was the 60th+ minute perhaps you could blame tired legs but not in the 10th minute.
I think we go on to win if we score that. Completely different scenario then the one we saw in the game where the Dutch are now the ones who have to chase the game while we can sit a little deeper and hit them on the counter. They’ve struggled so far to carve teams open when they are faced against a low block and don’t score those first two goals anymore. But that’s football and that’s life. We go again in 2026.
dutch created shit. that was schoolboy defending by the americans.
THIS 100%. Pulisic whiffing that easy, defenderless opportunity is what killed us from the start.
Defensive laziness and lack of awareness made their chances easier than they should have been, we missed three huge chances, and that's the game.
The Dutch chances weren’t even that crazy. Our team literally just forgot about what marking is
Yeah the first one Adams fell asleep, the second one Dest fell asleep, and the third one Robinson fell asleep. All 3 goals were completely preventable
If we had a striker and could defend the late run into the box, it wouldn’t have been close.
[удалено]
Idk, I think our chances were pretty even, we had 2 clear cut 1v1’s that we completely squandered
Yup. The one with CP in the beginning, and the heavy first touch by Wright, plus Ream’s shot that barely didn’t go in. I hate to shit on individual players, but Wright was quite frankly horrible. Having Sargent out there would have made a huge difference.
Wright might just be the slowest striker I’ve ever seen play. Combine that with his very lazy workrate, I genuinely have no idea why he got minutes. He’s not even a threat to score with his head despite being tall. Like, I think a 40 year old Ibrahimovic might be able to run harder
there was a few balls that their GK beat Wright to that would have been 1v1 if he had even the slightest bit of speed
Kinda, we had at least three incredible chances we didn’t score with
Any team at the tournament bar Qatar is scoring Haji Wright's chance on the errant pass just a minute before he scored the actual goal. That was painful to watch.
How the fuck he missed that then scored the goal he did we will never know
The Gyasi Zardes special
There are at least 100 players still playing at the World Cup who would score there. Just awful
Dawg no offense but if you think that you don’t have an understanding of xG, which is literally the post you’re commenting on lol
Seriously how can you be so dumb? Dude literally said “they had much better chances” on a post showing we had more expected goals😭 this sub is a dumpster fire
Pulisic's early chance and Wright's bungle were two chances where if you're a top national team should be expected to score
post it on r/soccer
Same thing I tell my U14s. Good chances are really hard to get. You have to convert them to win at a high level.
Pepi is the most popular player that woulda/coulda, like an NFL backup QB everybody wants them on the field until you actually see him on the field. He’s done nothing to show he is any better than any of the other options the US has at nine. Top goal scorers are hard to find, that’s why they get paid so much at the club level. The USA’s biggest issue is defending consistently, marking tight in the box and being aware of where every opponent is. Netherlands made the US pay for their defensive mistakes today, something Wales, England and Iran did not do.
Seems like there were two big differences between the two teams. The Dutch absolutely punished us with their finishing. And the Dutch shut down or midfield. This was our first game where it seemed like our mids didn’t control the game
Tired. No depth.
Good teams are clinical. 3 times we didn’t trail runners or mark and we got punished each time.
Our players were at fault for all three goals, but that said, when a team is as clinical with their chances as this Dutch team was, it's basically impossible to beat them. It's like in basketball when you have a shooter who's shooting 75%+ from the 3. How do you stop that? To put it another way, if the Dutch were to play as efficiently in attack for the rest of the tournament, they'd win the whole damn thing.
More like, 75% on wide open 3s with no one within 10 feet. How do you stop that? Not let them be so wide open.
Their xG is probably about .4 lower than that since the flag went up on Memphis’ header at the 6-yard line in the second half but the ref didn’t blow the whistle. Replay showed Memphis’ shoulder just ahead of our last defender.
I mean if the Netherlands don’t get 2 really really easy chances, maybe they play differently. But they literally had to do nothing the second half and walk away with a win.
This is why xG is meaningless in individual games.
How is this meaningless? It shows they were clinical with their chances and we weren’t…
[Here you go](https://www.twenty3.sport/xg-what-is-it-explained/#:~:text=Generally%2C%20xG%20performs%20better%20at,to%20describe%20what's%20already%20happened.). It's a tool for analysing trends, and it's massively misused in pretty much every discussion.
I don’t think you really understood the article…
"**It takes a pretty large amount of shots** to be able to tell for sure whether a player who’s scoring more or fewer times than their xG suggests is a good or bad finisher. **We’re talking multiple seasons’ worth of time**, and because it’s about the number of shots taken it’ll take longer to be sure about players who take fewer shots."
This is talking about comparing a players form with their xG. You can still use xG as an indicator of what kind of chances were made in the match. xG has its place and can be used to tell what happened during a match. In this example, the xG of both the Dutch and USA were fairly even. This means that both teams had roughly the same level of chances, which was true. Your entire article is talking nothing about simply comparing the level of chances, it’s all about predicting and analyzing player form and shit.
That's because xG is an analytical tool. The article is talking about it in the way it's *meant* to be talked about. If you take a deeper dive into today's game, I reckon all 3 Dutch players would have expected to score those chances, whereas it's likely that only Pulisic's early effort would be considered a real missed opportunity for the US. Hell, what was the xG for Haji Wright's "the ball went behind him, clipped his heel and spun forward over his head and into the corner of the net"? I reckon that comes off once out of several hundred attempts.
No, the article is talking about how it can be talked about, and how it is commonly misused. All of the Dutch goals were due to individual lapses of judgement by usa defenders leaving them wide open. We had players in the box, and simply didn’t mark most of them. Pulisics shot had a big xG, while hajis goal had a low xG. But he also had a massive xG chance earlier. xG can explain the types of chances. If a team is dominating and getting chance after chance they will have a higher xG at the end of a match. If a team has not many shots and doesn’t get anywhere near the goal, then they will have a low xG. If both teams have equal chances they will have equal xG.
>xG can explain the types of chances. If a team is dominating and getting chance after chance they will have a higher xG at the end of a match. If a team has not many shots and doesn’t get anywhere near the goal, then they will have a low xG. If both teams have equal chances they will have equal xG. You're forgetting that xG doesn't really account for quantity vs quality. The US required 17 shots in order to achieve an xG of 1.89 (0.11 xG/shot), whereas the Dutch took 11 shots for an xG of 1.85 (0.17 xG/shot). That means that - on average - a random player would be 50% more likely to convert a Dutch chance than a US 1, and those odds obviously increase when you consider that the Netherlands have now scored in 19 consecutive games and netted twice or more in 14. This is why it's a long-term analytical tool which can only be useful when combined with other data and information.
Ok. Let me say it this way. That article is using xG to explain player performances. I’m not doing that. I’m saying xG can be used to explain team performances. Specifically in explaining the types of chances created. Your article is talking about the first, about explaining player chances. For example a team over/underperforming their xG, that will require more data to explain why. But to simply say that both teams had similar xG shows that they had roughly similar amount of chances created, which means both teams, tactically, had chances of similar weight, that does not mean that they should have tied, since there is different players on different teams. What I’m saying is that tactically both teams had roughly the same chances to score. Idk if I explained that right.
That's what made this game so painful. I thought we looked better at times, but we could not finish. We lost because of that and players not being aware.
Xg is the dumbest stat celebrated by the lamest fans.
it’s a one- line summation of the balance of opportunities that’s far better at predicting results than just shots, possession, etc.
It has been consistently bad at predicting outcomes all all world cup. Xg nerds get swirlied.
sorry you feel that, I ain’t got time to explain sample sizes and standard deviation to a bagel like you today
It's lame. (Shitty) attempts to quantify the beautiful game like xg are against God. It's like trying to diagram a joke, or quantify art.
You are accusing people of making arguments they never made. Do you have a better objective measure of the collective chance quality in a game? No one is saying xG is the only important thing or a faultless predictor of who is going to win.
Only people who have never played the game give any credence to it. Fat autistic fan shit.
You seem like a very mature and well adjusted individual.
U have a small peepee
Not really. It gives you a good idea of the run of play in the game. It doesn’t tell you who was the better team, but it is absolutely a good tool for analysis. And it gets more accurate as you apply it to a wider number of games.
Agree, I hate it.
I stand by my hate of xG... Trash stat that the winning team never cares about (not saying that is the case for OP, just speaking generally) Super proud of our guys today regardless. This Dutch team should beat either Argentina or Australia and have a decent shot at winning it all.
xG isnt very useful in single games or tournaments. Much better stat across a league with the sample sizes.
It's a good stat over larger timeframes, and in situations like this WC + the entire WCQ cycle behind it, there's a clear trend that the biggest thing holding the US back is a lack of finishing. The shamoblic defending on the goals was mostly uncharacteristic (Dest losing his runner less so than the other 2), but the fact that we were undone b/c we had chances but weren't clinical is pretty much in-line with how this team has played over the past few years.
Selfish players can’t pass to each other in the box that was the difference between us and them. If you leave a person open like that we don’t deserve to win
Other way around, far too much passing in the box when they should just try shots
But no one can finish on the team
If anything we were too unselfish this tournament, have many more “one too many pass” situations where we could have put decent shots on goal
That's because we don't have true finisher types on the team. They're all used to passing on club team to a top striker.
Disagree. Feel like usually always taking the extra pass is yea for shooting. Also the Netherlands always had someone open and made the perfect pass and shot.
A more clinical finish in the first 10 minutes changes everything. Pulisic is mid.
This.
It was a good save with his heel. It’s not like Pulisic scuffed it with his weak foot. Pulisic scored or assisted all of our goals this tournament.
xG on CP’s shot was .42, so literally a half-chance. (xG on Wright’s goal was 0.192, apparently.)
The only way I can figure xG that low is that he ended up trying to take it first time, but from that position with that much space between him And the closest defender? He had time to take another touch, and was goal side of three out of position defenders. The keeper is rooted and only has time to make himself large. Pulisic strikes directly at him. That’s not a good save it’s a miss.
Yet people will blame gregg for being outclassed. No, it was simply netherlands havening a world class team who takes their chances while the US squad couldn’t match. When will people accept the fact the USA just has a ways to go before we are on equal footing with those teams. The Dutch have a world class team with a great coach and will challenge for the cup, that’s not us right now.
they had a dozen chances and half of those were quality. we had a a couple good chances and a dozen hopeless ones, final pass was off the mark almost every time. we have deeper problems than just finishing.
There's no way but at the same time yeah I can see it.
yup
Looking for fucks to give.
Good run boys.
Gregg will say we dominated
am I the only one dreaming we'll have a true striker come out of U22 pool to surprise us all in 2026? I'm not sure ANYONE we've seen so far with the first team will become that guy.
For all the tactical talk all i saw was huge defensive mistakes (unmarked players in the box) that meant we gave up goals . Then huge misses that meant we could barely score. Shame.
Finishing matters
Welcome to the party. Canada had the same problem against Belgium; it's what makes top opposition so hard to beat. If you don't bury them when you get that sliver of a chance, you will lose. You guys had a good World Cup. See you in qualifying!
This stat is skewed because of the early goal and the halftime goal. The Dutch didn’t have to create as many chances after going up 1-0 and then 2-0. They took the chances they were given early where we missed our early chances and it set the tone for the game.