Group C standings through two games:

Slovenia 1-1-0 (4 pts, +1 GD, 3 GS)
USA 0-2-0 (2 pts, 0 GD, 3 GS)
England 0-2-0 (2 pts, 0 GD, 1 GS)
Algeria 0-1-1 (1 pt, -1 GD, 0 GS)

Here are the scenarios that help the US (and yes, it's looking pretty good):

USA wins, England wins:
USA and England advance. If England beats Slovenia by more goals than the US beats Algeria by, they get the top spot. If not, the US is the top team from Group C.

USA wins, Slovenia wins:
USA and Slovenia advance. Slovenia goes through on points, while the US is the 2nd place team.

USA wins, England-Slovenia tie:
USA and Slovenia advance. Top seed is determined by goal differential and goals scored.

USA ties, England-Slovenia tie:
Goals scored decide if England or USA advance. England would need to outscore the US by at least 2 to have a chance at advancing.

USA ties, England loses:
Slovenia advances as the top team from Group C, USA moves through as the #2.

Main point. U.S. win and they are in. That's it.

That 0-0 tie was honestly the best thing that could've happened from that game.

gorocks99;394401 wrote:That 0-0 tie was honestly the best thing that could've happened from that game.

yep, I prayed for it on my FB status. It has come to fruition. I am thrilled with what has transpired today. I was fully expecting to have to beat Algeria anyway to get SECOND place. Somehow we now still just need to beat Algeria and have a damn decent shot at FIRST place.

An Algeria win would have been nice to. But either way I will take the 0-0 tie. Win Tuesday and in, that is all that matters. If they come out and play like we did in the 2nd half today we will have no problem. Unfortunately the U.S. seems flatfooted until a goal is scored against them.

England's big choke has helped the US. But I want to see a US win one in this group before moving on.

Ytowngirlinfla;394441 wrote:England's big choke has helped the US. But I want to see a US win one in this group before moving on.

If they are going to move on, they have to win.

Laley23;394445 wrote:If they are going to move on, they have to win.

If Slovenia beats England, we could tie Algeria and still advance.

SportsAndLady;394461 wrote:If Slovenia beats England, we could tie Algeria and still advance.

Dont know how missed that one.

Let's not even bother with what may happen between England and Slovenia. Let's just beat Algeria and make things simple to advance. Can't worry about the other game, just have to take care of our business and we are in which is what everyone wants.

KnightXC1;394504 wrote:Let's not even bother with what may happen between England and Slovenia. Let's just beat Algeria and make things simple to advance. Can't worry about the other game, just have to take care of our business and we are in which is what everyone wants.

They will be playing at the exact same time on a separate channel though so its nice to know what we have to cheer for in that match as well...

Dear USA please win as a birthday present for me.

I'm going to say 2-1 Algeria, with absolutely no logic behind the decision except that I've felt awful about this game for a month, and I'm getting visions of 2006 all over again, with a less talented African team keeping us from advancing in the final match of group play.

Just win baby!

win and we're in...i'll take it


oh and someone please remind the us that the game starts at 4 pm local time and that it's okay to exert effort defensively in the first half

Step up and take charge. it's time. In fact, it's past time. No excuses, no complaints about the refs, regardless of what may occur, just win. you have the players, we have been under-performing for a long time on the international scene. We aren't rookies at this anymore. we have no one to blame but ourselves if we come up short today. When we walk off of that field, we should be moving into the next round.

Disclaimer: while I am not a "true" soccer fan, I have thoroughly enjoyed this World Cup, and am pulling hard for a U.S. Victory.

Quick (and probably naive) question: if the U.S. is prone to giving up early goals, could they play an extra defender (and one less striker) early in the match until they get into the flow of the game? Or is that unheard of?

They need a quick start, I hate this falling behind in the first 15 crap. If they get the first goal I think we will roll.

BigAppleBuckeye;397311 wrote:Disclaimer: while I am not a "true" soccer fan, I have thoroughly enjoyed this World Cup, and am pulling hard for a U.S. Victory.

Quick (and probably naive) question: if the U.S. is prone to giving up early goals, could they play an extra defender (and one less striker) early in the match until they get into the flow of the game? Or is that unheard of?

Theoretically they could..however, this team's early struggles isn't about formations, it's about just bad defending, lazy defending, and just lackadaisical play from every man on the pitch.

BigAppleBuckeye;397311 wrote:Disclaimer: while I am not a "true" soccer fan, I have thoroughly enjoyed this World Cup, and am pulling hard for a U.S. Victory.

Quick (and probably naive) question: if the U.S. is prone to giving up early goals, could they play an extra defender (and one less striker) early in the match until they get into the flow of the game? Or is that unheard of?

It would be unheard of and unorthodox to do so at the start of the game but youll see stuff like that happen at the towards the end(or a team will put a striker in there for a defender if they need a goal). If the US just needed a tie I'd say it might be worth it if we actually had a good enough defender to put in there. But Im not hugely into soccer as others on here like Laley/gorocks/S&L/Durkie/Auto so they've probably give you a better opinion than me haha.

Mulva;394618 wrote:I'm going to say 2-1 Algeria, with absolutely no logic behind the decision except that I've felt awful about this game for a month, and I'm getting visions of 2006 all over again, with a less talented African team keeping us from advancing in the final match of group play.

Please dear God don't let this happen.

trackandccrunner;397363 wrote:It would be unheard of and unorthodox to do so at the start of the game but youll see stuff like that happen at the towards the end(or a team will put a striker in there for a defender if they need a goal). If the US just needed a tie I'd say it might be worth it if we actually had a good enough defender to put in there. But Im not hugely into soccer as others on here like Laley/gorocks/S&L/Durkie/Auto so they've probably give you a better opinion than me haha.

It's not unheard of to play one less forward, especially for a team who is a huge underdog.

BAB, it wouldnt be unheard of to do that, but you wouldnt do it for the first part of the game only. It would be for the whole game, as a kind of tactic. You would do it because you are inferior and are more or less playing for a tie. Like if Algeria was going against Spain, they would probably go either 5-4-1 or 4-5-1 putting the extra forward in the defense or midfield. But the scenario wouldnt really be appropriate for the USA here. As S&L mentioned, we arent struggling early because we dont have enough defenders, we just have shitty and lazy defenders.

Now, if this is a very open game, like I expect it will, Bradley might add a midfielder (imo, having a 5th Mid is better for controlling the game and slowing it down, as opposed to a 5th defender which can become confusing and people stop working as they have the extra guy to cover for them). But I dont think he would do that unless we are up 2 goals with say 30 minutes to go.

Taking that goal away from us is about is wake up a sleeping Giant. US will win, then beat Serbia and Uruguay to make the semis.