USA-Colombia Copa Centenario Player Ratings
- by Ridge Mahoney @ridgemax, Jun 4, 2016
June 3 in Santa Clara, Calif.
USA 0, Colombia 2. Goals: Zapata 8, Rodriguez pen. 42.
Att.: 67,439.
The USA fell on its face in front of a sellout crowd at Levi’s Stadium in the Copa America Centenario opener, conceding two goals in the first half and struggling to match Colombia for skill and energy in a 2-0 game that wasn’t that close. Clint Dempsey had two good chances for the USA, but Colombia would have had a third goal but for the crossbar that repelled Carlos Bacca's blast.
USA Player Ratings:
Starters
6 Brad Guzan (Aston Villa/ENG), 46/0.
Saved the shots he should have, had no chance on the goals, raced outside his penalty area to kick clear a dangerous ball played over the top.
3 DeAndre Yedlin (Sunderland/ENG), 35/0.
Overrun by Edwin Cardona numerous times, rarely prevailed in physical duels, and didn’t do much offensively. Unlucky to be called for handling when a cross struck his trailing arm as he turned away from the ball.
4 Geoff Cameron (Stoke City/ENG), 41/4.
Lost the mark on Cristian Zapata when Colombia scored in the eighth minute and got spun around by Cardona, but rescued the U.S. on several occasions by tracking back to cut off passes and win tackles.
3 John Brooks (Hertha Berlin/GER), 22/3.
Delivered a couple of crunching tackles that could have been cautions. Very slow and hesitant at critical moments, tried to use muscle on quicker, savvier players at inopportune times. Gave the referee stick on multiple occasions.
3 Fabian Johnson (Borussia M'Gladbach/GER), 44/2.
Outclassed by Juan Cuadrado and took up bad positions repeatedly when confronted by rather simple situations. Got to the back post to reach a deep cross from Yedlin that led to a shot that was blocked.
3 Michael Bradley (Toronto FC), 116/15.
Ran blindly into double-teams and committed several fouls, not all of them called, trying to get the ball back. Only hit one or two good deliveries on set plays. Volleyed wide left-footed from about 20 yards. Argued with the referee several times.
4 Jermaine Jones (Colorado Rapids), 61/3.
Came off the field disgruntled at the team’s disjointed play, to which he contributed significantly. Chased James Rodriguez in desperation and almost never anticipated moves correctly. Headed a free kick well wide of goal when a centering ball made more sense.
3 Alejandro Bedoya (Nantes/FRA), 49/2.
Looked lost in the first half making runs his teammates ignored. Got on the ball more in the second half and prodded a pass that Dempsey shot wide and pushed back the Colombian defenders by dribbling up the right side, but horribly shanked a volley shortly before being substituted.
4 Bobby Wood (Union Berlin/GER), 20/5.
Worked hard and drew a couple of fouls without posing serious threats. Victimized at times by poor passes just out of his reach and lacked the touch and guile to evade tacklers one-v-one.
4 Gyasi Zardes (LA Galaxy), 26/5.
Aside from a slick spin move that set up a chance for Dempsey and a nice pass to Wood incorrectly ruled offside, Zardes regressed from his excellent effort against Bolivia. He drifted inside once he figured out Colombia had the measure of his speed but rarely got the ball in a good spot.
5 Clint Dempsey (Seattle Sounders), 124/49.
Flattened several times by hard fouls, hit a free kick into the wall. But had header saved off line and forced a great save with a blast that was arrowing toward the top corner. Shot wide when set up by Bedoya, took a close-range attempt that was deflected for a corner kick.
Substitutes
4 Christian Pulisic (Borussia Dortmund/GER) 4/0.
Evaded a few opponents on his rare forays but didn’t get enough touches to figure things out.
4 Darlington Nagbe (Portland Timbers), 8/1.
Needed more of the ball, won a free kick in the final minutes the Americans wasted.
NR Graham Zusi (Sporting Kansas City), 36/4.
Late cameo.
June 3 in Santa Clara, Calif.
USA 0, Colombia 2. Goals: Zapata 8, Rodriguez pen. 42.
USA – Guzan; Yedlin, Cameron, Brooks, Johnson, Bradley, Jones (Nagbe, 66), Bedoya (Zusi, 86), Zardes, Dempsey, Wood (Pulisic, 65).
Colombia – Ospina; Arias, Zapata, Murillo, Diaz, Perez (Sanchez, 86), Torres, Cuadrado, Rodriguez (Celis, 73), Cardona, Bacca (Moreno, 88).
Referee: Roberto Garcia (Mexico).
Att.: 67,439.
43 comments about "USA-Colombia Copa Centenario Player Ratings".
Read more comments >
Next story loading 
MB was tasked with linking back line to midfield. That actually requires receiving the ball, turning and dribbling forward and distributing the ball. But 9 times out of 10 he just back-passed, completely defeating the function of the position. But the players were not on the same page: a half dozen unproductive corners,6-8 throw-ins in the attacking 3rd that did nothing, teammates unable to complete simple wall passes--very painful to watch. As a side note, how did the USA get a Mexican referee? I can bet you dollars to donuts Brazil doesn't get Argentinian officials for their matches.
We lost cuz they have better players. Time to start Nagbe and Pulisic instead of Jones and Zagbe. We don't stand a chance so long as our midfield completes less than half their passes. And our set pieces were miserable, but I'm not sure we have anyone who is even competent at delivering set pieces. Don't look good.
Sure Colombia has better players. But that has often been the case in years past. Portugal had better players than the US in 2002, Italy in 2006, Spain in 2009, England in 2010... The difference now is that the US has an imposter for a coach.
It's been a year since the disaster in the gold cup and nothing has changed. In any other country Klinsman wouldnt be the coach anymore.
While I was disappointed with the result, overall I was satisfied with the performance. First we attempted to run with Columbia. We didn't hide in a bunker and play scared. Second Columbia did not score during the run of play. I can recall only one dangerous counterattack needing a big play from the keeper (which was saved by the crossbar). Third although Columbia had the league and stayed compact the USA created some good chances in the second half. The US lost but they were not beaten mentally. Given the pre-game comments of the TV pundits, I find it ironic that Columbia scored off a set play and the US did not. I quickly tired of the banal commentary on FS1 and muted the sound. Not the result I wanted, but, if we are honest with ourselves, beating Columbia would have required a historic performance, which was lacking this time. I don't see the point in beating up the team or coach much over this match.
"Columbia had the lead" not league. Spell check wins again.
We didn't hide because Colombia had the lead almost all game. Klinsmann's US team would stay in the bunker for as long as the US is not behind.
US hardly ever loses the mental side of the game; it's the efficacy that matters and in this contest hardly evident.
Historic performance? That happened 22 years ago at the 1994 WC against the same opponent which faced kidnapping and death threats by the cartel.
If we bomb out of this tournament maybe it will finally get Klinsmann fired. Unfortunately, it will take the US not qualifying for the world cup for Klinsmann to go. If the US does not qualify for the World Cup don't come crying to me and other Klinsmann critics. You all have been warned.
Bradley and Arena did far more with less talent.
Uninspiring play - uninspiring coaching. It really appears they were told NOT to press unless they were in the defensive third. The 2nd half was so painful to watch - I rarely recall 2-3 connected passes that we're going in a positive direction. I'm normally a fan of Fabian Johnson - but yesterday he just wasn't present - and the same could be said for Yedlin. The first 8 minutes were great - and then they pressed afterwards and began to click - but around the 30th minute - they just became deflated and the PK popped the ballon. You would think of how much every claims that JK is a motivator the boys would have come out for the 2nd half hell bent on scoring. But they were not inspired - they were tired - and lazy - and bored. I'm not shocked that they didn't press - they continued to pass backward - and only tried to loft the ball over the midfielders to press the flanks - but YAWN - that approach got stale very quickly. THAT IS COACHING. I'm proud of our boys - but I do agree that it will take not qualifying for the World Cup to finally get JK fired. The problem will be - it's not just JK - it's the entire US Soccer Leadership that has let this go on for as long as it has. Also RE: The Ref Crew - it wouldn't have mattered if they were Grade 8s from youth soccer - it wouldn't have mattered (and to be fair - I thought overall the crew was not bad).
Zardes has no first touch -- never pass to his feet, ever; I see U-10s at the park with better ball control. I wouldn't have thought it possible, but since his move to MLS, MB's decline has accelerated -- he's regressed from being even an uncomplicated windshield wiper midfielder (passing side-to-side) to someone with literally no control over his feet. Dempsey continues to excel at sitting on his backside posing with his hands in the air -- he's got that mastered. JJ is two years older from Brazil2014 and it shows. And when you look at our roster overall (including bench players and almost selecteds), there is really very limited quality in every position. Guzan is passable (he got plenty of practice facing shots at AV), Cameron has his moments (he was the only one who appeared to have any thoughts of actually carrying the ball forward), but the rest contribute what? Sorry, for all the glossy advertising/marketing hoopla surrounding soccer in the US, for all the big talk from MLS leadership, for all the wishful thinking of fans across the country, we still can't produce eleven useful players to play this game at a higher level. Playing against CONMEBOL is painful. CONCACAF is definitely where we belong -- second fiddle to Mexico, even with Central America, and slightly ahead of the Caribbean. For feel good matches, we should play Canada more often.
MB had better players around him at Roma; team shape and off the ball runs would be a big help for him, even though for me MB is more of a distributor than a play maker.
Eh....we lost to a top 10 rank'd team...did you really expect to win? A tie would've worked for me at best, so I'm not gonna join the ranks of whiners. The good news is, our back line played better Vs some serious talent and we did not give up a goal in the run of play. Move on, it's a challenging group for us & besting Columbia was always a reach. GO USA!
True Tim. I have lots of thoughts on the game, but I'm more concerned about the next two now. I still think Fabian needs to be in mid though. I was into our movement the first half. Was a little surprised at JK's body language coming out at half. Not sure why Ridge said Pulisic didn't have enough time to figure it out? Figure out what? Several have mentioned, each of these teams have more technical players to a man, but we have to keep the ball more and finish our chances more. It's not over, but we have to play better.
I don't see this as a total disaster. Columbia clearly has more skillful players. The US defense did not give up a goal during the run of play. Klinsmann is stubborn. He will keep playing Jones and Bradley whether they deserve it or not. I believe he needs to start Nagbe and Pulisic. He also needs to play Fabian Johnson in his natural position on the outside of midfield. Johnson is one of there best players and he is wasted at left back. I thought the rating for Cameron should be higher. They can still get out of this group. I did not expect the US to beat Columbia. A tie was about the best one could expect. The problem with the USMNT is an old one and starts at the youth level and has been discussed numerous times on these comment sections. Klinsmann is not the problem, but he also isn't helping matters. I personally would like to see a change at his position, but as someone else said that will only happen if the US fails to qualify for the World Cup, which is a possibility.
Ashpole you Juergan must have been at a different game than I watched. Immediately after the game in an interview Juergan stated " I was pleased with the teams performance". As far as we didn't hide in a bunker and play scared. Except for the first 8 minutes of the game we we losing. We didn't get our first corner kick until we were 13 minutes into the second half. A scoring threat we are not. Juergan needs to go. Now. Give the team to Ramos and let's see what happens.
We have consistently over the years had a defensive let down at a critical time. It happened early when the first goal was scored. How often do you see a goal scored on a corner kick from a volley in the middle of the box??? Totally unacceptable. In my opinion at this level.
The performance of the German/American team was pitiful against third FIFA rank COLOMBIA, what is the US style of playing?
Until such time as the US Soccer Federation led by a person who has never played the game, Sunil Gulati resigns, and we hire a real coach, don't expect any great results with our German coach.
With the scarce talent available and not start with Tim Howard and Omar Gonzalez is stupid to say the least, using players that will be 36 or more when the World Cup comes around 2018 is for the German to be taken to the gallows and leave him there.
What a bunch of whiners! Eliminate two very obvious errors and the US ties a world class team led by a true world class player! Yes there were some poor performances but in general the poor performers were the fan favorites--Bradley especially and Yedlin. Dempsey, Brooks, Bedoya, and Jones all had good to very good games. For long periods we actually controlled the run of play. Despite MIA Bradley we had quality chances. As mentioned above, we were not playing Ecuador or Bolivia!
I found the rating of Brooks to be absolutely hilarious given that a major rival site made him man of the match!
That's the main problem; "a few players had good-very good games." I failed to witness the "very good." Technically our squad lacks cohesion. IMHO, I'd rather see Nagbe and Pulisic as they seem to feed off each other.
Agreed ... Overreactions to negative result
I'm with Bob, Tim, Daniel and James. I thought we played pretty well. Colombia is the 3rd best team in the world, and we were the aggressors. This was not a "bunker down, absorb the pressure, try to snatch a goal on a counter or a free kick" game, as I feared it might be. We largely shut down their offense. We could have folded after the early goal, but didn't. Cameron blocks with his left instead of his right, Yedlin keeps his hand down (or doesn't turn his back), and Dempsey's shot is a few inches to the right, and we win 1-0 and everybody's happy. Yes, I know that's a lot of if's, but I think people are not giving credit to Colombia's aggressive defense (all over the field). If you'd have told me prior to the game that Colombia would foul us more than we fouled them, and relied on an aggressive defense and set pieces to win, I'd have asked what you're smoking.
I have been a skeptic of JK, but I thought his line-up was solid, as were his subs. I'm not a Jones fan, but he did okay, and I thought Dempsey has been fading, but he had our three best chances. Although I think Zardes does have problems with his first touch, I thought in this game, he actually did pretty well (and he was under a lot of pressure). We had a lot of passes from the back, splitting two Colombians, hitting a US player checking back (under pressure) who laid off a nice pass (either wide or central). Where our performance was disappointing was on the free kicks (Dempsey's best shot excepted). Now granted, David M's point that we may have had possession because Colombia had the lead all game is a fair one, but had Colombia dominated us, they would have had possession anyway. The primary difference between the teams was finishing; Bedoya had an easier opportunity on a corner than the one Colombia scored on, and he blew it (though it wasn't easy, and generally I thought Bedoya had a good game). So there is no need to despair. Now if we lose to Costa Rica, then all the critics are right...
Bingo! Share your analysis ... Shame Bradley was woeful
I like this place. Different opinions different perspectives. Makes for interesting conversation.
I still think it's time for a change particularly with JK.
Don't teams have a designated penalty-taker as well as free kick-taker? I thought I saw (at least) 3 different players on those free kicks. We hit the wall twice, which is totally unacceptable. Deuce went close but also hit the wall (IIRC). Just not good enough at this level.
"The whole is greater than the sum total of its parts"... That's the way our USMNT used to play. We would field a team made up of some good, some very good and some average players. To everyone's surprise (and our delight), our guys pulled together to win some matches where everyone agreed we didn't stand a chance. The thing is, we played as a cohesive unit when we were out on the field. So now, here we are with a base of very good, even better, and some (perhaps)world class (or world-class-in-training) players. However, they aren't pulling together as a team; but rather, they're playing as a bunch of individuals. In fiddling with his mix and match tactics for so long, Jurgen has failed to give our guys consistent positions so they know how and what their team mates can, can't, will and won't do on the field beside them. If JK had fielded the same players for 3 or 4 games (including, and especially, friendlies) in a row as opposed to his constant wholesale tinkering, out guys would have performed much better last night. Repetition not only counts in training until moves become automatic, repetition is vital in learning your team mates' moves, so they can "click", just as Obafemi and Clint did for Seattle. JK has failed to give them that opportunity. Our team is better than what they showed us last night. Hopefully, they can pull together and play as a "more than the sum total" team for the rest of the tournament
Hola Ginger! You are right to a degree, however, these guys are supposed to be professionals and are supposed to adapt to whatever position they're assigned.Now who was that old coach that empowered the "total players concept, Rinus Michels(sp)? and that Johan Cruyff mastered meaning, that players must master playing all positions in order to adapt to the opponent's tactics. IMHO, our players should and ought to know how to play every position, jeez, I used to teach this to my then ayso players, later club and eventual college players, and it worked. Point is that some folks here appear to pigeon-hole players and make them specialists of sorts, a la MB, Il Deuce, etc. Play on!
The bright side is that in international tournaments, the teams tend to improve as they play more games. We will, hopefully, see that improvement in the USA. In which case playing the toughest opponent in the first match could turn out to be a good thing. The US gets an extra day of rest before the next game on Tuesday. The "next match" is always the most important one.
You do have different takers of the kick. I didn't mind the three, they're all good. Just didn't work out. Julio and others over the years have asked what is the US style of play. I think it is to some extent and probably will become like the team playing Scotland today in a friendly. Why might I have that opinion? Good forum, with people I like hearing from like FFS stated.
Very interesting comments, I agree with some and don't with others. Here's my two bits worth: I worked last night at a small soccer shop located in a soccer complex, with the clients 95% Latinos and watched at least 75% of the game (the center has four large tvs) What was glariingly and readily apparent to me was the skill levels, we seemed sophomoric and the Colombians more skillful, fast, and aggressive. As someone pointed out above, we shut them down to a degree, their first goal was well taken and the PK was unfortunate. Yet, only several comments above give credit where credit is due, to the Colombians' play, many forgot we played the 3rd ranked world team in the world, and were just outclassed. BUT I was genuinely shocked to read Mahoney's ratings, especially of MB, who was certainly not playing well AT ALL, and then seeing Il Deuce on his behind, I thought to myself that, hey for once Ridge Mahoney and I saw the same game! As for other comments, I agree with Kent James above, and it will be just a matter of readjusting and getting a good mindset for the next game. As for the folks watching the game at our soccer center, most of the negative commentary was directed at MB and Deuce, some was even positive as those watching were cognizant of the fact we were playing the 3rd Ranked team in the world; further, they said the hand ball call was atrocious, and Deuce's shots was damned good, as was the 'keeper's save. Other comments from a very knowledgeable crowd was about 50-50 for both teams, and interestingly, the kids were rooting for the US, the older guys for Colombia, and one sage fellow even said that this was an excellent teaching moment for his team. I'm the perennial optimist and I see a light at the end of the tunnel, though I hope and pray it ain't a train's headlights blaring through! GO USA!!!
Colombia did a good job blocking MB from receiving the ball and no adjustment was made to free him up I believe this contributed greatly to his game being subpar.
Stewart, not sure what you mean by freeing MB up? If you're talking about two players denying him possession then that opens up for us even more. Which they didn't do anyway. Players have to find the space to be involved, its always there.
Ric concerning your comments on our skill level. I agree. What I noticed in this game and others before it with different players is the problem with receiving passes and the first touch after receding is how often the ball is out of control of the player. Basic stuff but it seems many US players struggle with this.
I think it all reverts back to our youth programs and what is being taught there. Comments please.
These same players do well in league play. I am not knocking MLS; international play has more pressure and pace than any league. Players like Messi are freaks of nature. You can take the 100 best youth you find and spend years doing all the right training and not produce a Messi. Having said that, I agree that we need to improve youth development that feeds our elite programs. The improvement I see necessary at the youth level is extending quality training to reach a much larger percentage of youth players.
Holy smokes, Robin, did someone just call Leo Messi a "freak of nature?" Jeepers weepers, then does this mean that Pele, Beckham, Chicharito, Johan Cruyff, Donovan, Gio Dos Santos, etc., are also "freaks of nature???" Bob, did you know that in Argentina young players aren't encouraged or allowed to play in a full field, rather they focus on small-sided games, and must dribble-dribble-dribble, until their teachers/coaches are satisfied enough to allow them on large fields and full-sided games? As for improving "youth development that feeds our elite program...(sic)" I strongly feel that this approach is our of whack, 'cause IMHO elite pgorams will always be around, and they sure as heck aren't going to wait for that "freak of nature" new "Messi" 'cause they will allready have him in the elite ranks. And as for "quality training" these trainers must first go through such a training themselves before they can impart their knowledge.... there are too many "wannabe elite trainers" many not really worth their salt, and lastly, as I've been saying so many times in these pages, is to get the hell out of the recreational mentality
that we've been mired in for too many decades.
What I meant by that is you cannot plan on producing a Messi. Not that you cannot plan on producing good professionals and excellent international players--Ramos, Reyna, Donovan, Dempsey, McBride, Cherundolo, Hamm, Akers, and prospectively Pulisic. Someone somewhere has done something right. The biggest complaint I have about the current elite clubs is that they focus too much on team tactics and too little on fundamentals. Specifically at U12 they are teaching a U14 curriculum apparently figuring that their players already have enough skill to win U12 matches. But that shouldn't be the point. Development should be measured by a personal standard not by comparing to others. What is happening is that players are being shortchanged 2 years of skill development. They could be so much better. I suspect that is your point too by the reference to Argentina. A point I often make is that organized teams/leagues and matches are unnecessary for development until you start teaching team tactics at U14.
!Hola¡ Ric...I get what you're saying about players being able to play different positions. I also know that not all players who excel in one position will play another as well. When my daughter began to play in USYSA San Diego, we taught our rec players to dribble, pass and shoot with both feet. My daughter played center forward or left forward because she was very comfortable on the left even though she was naturally right-handed. When she made the traveling team there was a girl who had played up the previous year as a center forward and then the head coach's daughter always played left forward. So my daughter was moved to left mid, where she excelled. When we moved to Arkansas and our team joined a league inOklahoma (no girls traveling teams in AR at that time) she continued at left mid, although she could also play right and center with no problem. When she went to college in Vermont, she became a sweeper. I keep wondering why we haven't found a good, solid left back, even if he's a righty. No, I was trying to make the point to play the same group in enough games for them to be comfortable enough with their positions in relation to their fellow players so they KNOW what they can all do on the field. For example, how many times, last night, did we send a leading pass to a mid or forward with our intended receiver just short of being able to reach the ball? I believe that more familiarity with their fellow players would have resulted in shorter, more accurate leads. But, as you say, PLAY ON!
The USA was beat by a better team, better coached and more skillful. Columbia did exactly what it needed, they got an early goal, built up the lead by halftime, held on to the ball enough in the 2nd half to stymie any USA comeback. The USA started playing with the plan to hold Columbia to low scoring and try to eek out a low scoring tie or victory. The USA coach did nothing at halftime to change the situation. The first goal was Cameron's fault. He marked poorly, being a couple of yards away on a simple pick play. Yedlin was correctly called for a handball. Very little creativity, poor ball control skills, sloppy marking, no coaching adjustment...a just result.
Can't argue with any of that Charles.
Sitting in the stands watching Columbia toy with us at the start of the second half allowed plenty of time to observe their right side attacker Cuadrado and our counterpart Zardes. It struck me that this was a good demonstration of the results of the youth development systems of our country and an elite soccer country. 26 years after our first modern WC (and untold millions of dollars sucked out of our pockets by soccer "professionals") later we get Friday night.
Boy, that's a high bar for Zardes. Cuadrado is quicker than lightning, and (from what I could see in the game against us) one of the most skillful, exciting players on the planet. I was fearful of how he might shred our defense every time he got the ball. That being said, I thought Fabian Johnson did pretty well against him (maybe, with a lead, Cuadrado wasn't attacking as much as he would otherwise, but he certainly seemed to go at us almost every time he got the ball, so I'm not sure that's a valid argument).