We played to advance. Our opposition was a superior team. If we had tried to open up the game and go on the attack, we would be vulnerable to deadly counterattacks. It may have been more appealing football, but the result would probably have resulted in our losing big to the Germans. How can you argue with the result? As in any tournament, the objective is to advance no matter how ugly the game.
The best analogy I heard on this was from “Mike and Mike” on ESPN. They said it is like a golf tournament. You are up 5 strokes going into Sunday, you do not need to defeat the whole field on the last day, just shoot par and win the tournament.
I’m not arguing with the result. No one can, Germany was much the better side and deserved its win. What I am not seeing is improvement in the areas I feel the USA must have to win, especially without a true target man in Altidore’s absence. Specifically, that is control of the midfield and pace of the game (which should be a given in 4-5-1 but is not for this team), and more possession so you don’t wear yourself to a frazzle playing reactive defense.
I get that some of it is the opposition and I get that some of it is Dempsey being played out of his favored position. I get too that some of it has been the horrific play of Bradley. But I bet if you ask Klinsmann if he’s happy, you and I both know what he would say.
They have to improve.