LOS ANGELES KANSAS CITY DENVER SALT LAKE
TECHNICAL REPORT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS CONCACAF Men’s Olympic Qualifying 2015
TECHNICAL REPORT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS CONCACAF MEN’S OLYMPIC QUALIFYING 2015
TABLE OF CONTENT I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 II. A WARD-WINNING PLAYERS AND TEAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 III. STATISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
K. WHEN WERE THE GOALS SCORED?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
L. HOW THE WERE GOALS SCORED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
M. WHO SCORED THE GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
N. WHERE THE GOALS WERE SCORED FROM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
O. TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
P. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE AGE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
A MATCH RESULTS (GROUP PHASE, SEMIFINALS AND FINAL).. . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B GROUP TEAM RANKING TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C OUTSTANDING PLAYERS BY MATCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
D LIST OF TOP SCORERS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
E. TEAM STATISTICS DURING THE TOURNAMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
V. TEAM-BY-TEAM ANALYSIS
F. ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
CANADA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
G. CHANGES IN LINE-UP BY TEAMS DURING MATCHES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
COSTA RICA.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
H. MOST VALUABLE PLAYER BY TEAM AND IN THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG
CUBA.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
IV. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE MOST RELEVANT ASPECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 ........................................
54
RANKIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
HAITI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
I. MOST VALUABLE GOALKEEPER OF THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG RANKING.. 28
HONDURAS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
J. SUMMARY TABLE BY TEAM (CARDS, GOALS, CHANGES IN LINE-UP,
MEXICO.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
PANAMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
USA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
OUTSTANDING PLAYERS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
VI. CONCLUSIONS
........................................................
108
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
INTRODUCTION
4
5
I. INTRODUCTION The final CONCACAF Men’s Olympic Qualifying tournament for the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro was held in the United States of America; 4 cities served as venue for the 8 participating teams (Kansas City, Carson, Commerce City and Salt Lake City in Utah), representing 4 different States. Optimum logistic conditions were provided for all teams, as well as excellent stadiums for training and for the official matches, together with an adequate scheduling for the matches. Public attendance in the different stadiums was scarce.
6
Creative fast-paced soccer, together with a good individual and group technical level were their greatest traits. The tournament showcased young promising players with a high degree of technical talent and skill throughout. The rest of the teams displayed similar technical levels, showing clear deficiencies finishing plays, organizing a potent and creative offense when reaching the opponent’s defensive area, and in their on-goal attempts.
USA, Canada and Mexico represented the North American region and qualified in the first places for the Semifinal phase.
Most teams displayed flexible tactical systems that adapted to specific game conditions, with a constructive soccer philosophy.
Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama represented the Central American and Cuban region, together with Haiti, which represented the Caribbean.
160 players in the 8 participating teams took part in this colorful tournament - 27 of them playing in foreign soccer clubs.
Mexico and the USA, alongside Honduras, displayed the best technical, tactical and competitive levels of the event.
44 players were selected and highlighted for their outstanding talent and performance throughout the tournament; 11 of them selected to the Dream team.
7
AWARD-WINNING PLAYERS AND TEAMS
8
9
II. AWARD-WINNING PLAYERS AND TEAMS
BEST PLAYER
TOP SCORER
HIRVING LOZANO MEXICO
(4 GOALS) JEROME KIESEWETTER USA
TOURNAMENT’S DREAM TEAM: Goalkeeper
1
Gibran Lajud
Mexico
Right winger
15
Erick Aguirre
Mexico
Left winger
5
Rodolfo Pizarro
Mexico
Center back
2
Jhonatan Paz
Honduras
Center back
14
Jordan Silva
Mexico
Central midfielder
10
Víctor Guzmán
Mexico
Central midfielder
10
Oscar Salas
Honduras
Striker
17
Alberth Elis
Honduras
Striker
17
Hirving Lozano
Forward
17
Jerome Kiesewetter
Forward
9
Erick Torres
17
17
10
BEST GOALKEEPER
FAIR PLAY AWARD
GIBRAN LAJUD MEXICO
MEXICAN TEAM
Mexico
2 1
10 10
USA
15
17
9
Mexico
14 5
11
STATISTICS
12
13
A. MATCH RESULTS (GROUP PHASE, SEMIFINALS AND FINAL) OCTOBER 1
OCTOBER 2
Panama
1-1
Cuba
USA
3-1
Canada
Honduras
1-0
Haiti
Mexico
4-0
Costa Rica
SEMIFINAL OCTOBER 13
OCTOBER 4
OCTOBER 6
OCTOBER 7
OCTOBER 10
14
Canada
3-1
Panama
Cuba
1-6
USA
Costa Rica
0-2
Honduras
Haiti
0-1
Mexico
CanadÃ
2-2
Cuba
USA
4-0
Panama
Costa Rica
1-1
Haiti
Mexico
1-1
Honduras
USA
0-2
Honduras
Mexico
2-0
Canada
2-0
Canada
0-2
Mexico Champion
Repechaje
FINAL OCTOBER 13
OCTOBER 3
USA
Honduras
15
B. GROUP TEAM RANKING TABLE GROUP A
C. OUTSTANDING PLAYERS BY MATCH
MP
MW
ML
MD
GS
GA
GD
YC
RC
POINTS
GAME
USA
3
3
0
0
13
2
11
2
0
9
1
Panama
3
0
2
1
2
8
-6
4
2
1
Cuba
3
0
1
2
4
9
-5
6
0
2
Canada
3
1
1
1
6
6
0
4
0
4
GROUP B
MP
MW
ML
MD
GS
GA
GD
YC
RC
POINTS
Mexico
3
3
0
0
7
1
6
1
0
9
Honduras
3
2
1
0
4
2
2
3
1
6
Haiti
3
0
2
1
1
3
-2
7
0
1
Costa Rica
3
0
2
1
1
7
-6
8
1
1
KEY MP: MATCHES PLAYED
MD: MATCHES DRAWN
GD: GOAL DIFFERENCE
MW: MATCHES WON
GS: GOALS SCOREDED
YC: YELLOW CARDS
ML: MATCHES LOST
GA: GOALS ALLOWED
RC: RED CARDS
Note: The top two teams from each group qualified, with the United States ranked 1st in Group A with three wins, 9 points, 13 Goals Scoreded and 2 goals allowed, and proved to be very solid within the group. Mexico won all of its Group B matches, with 9 points, 7 Goals Scoreded, and 1 goal against.
MATCH
NAME
PLAYER
COUNTRY
Panama vs Cuba
SandySánchez
1
Cuba
2
USA vs Canada
Jordán Morris
9
USA
3
Honduras vs Haiti
Antony Lozano
9
Honduras
4
Mexico vs Costa Rica
Marco Bueno
11
Mexico
Sam Piette
14
Canada
Emerson Hydman
8
USA
Alberth Elis
17
Honduras
5
Canada vs Panama
6
Cuba vs USA
7
Costa Rica vs Honduras
8
Haiti vs Mexico
Hirving Lozano
17
Mexico
9
Canada vs Cuba
Arichel Hernández
7
Cuba
10
USA vs Panama
Luis Gil
10
USA
11
Costa Rica vs Haiti
Dylan Flores
10
Costa Rica
12
Mexico vs Honduras
Erick Torres
9
Mexico
13
USA vs Honduras
Alberth Elis
17
Honduras
14
Mexico vs Canada
Hirving Lozano
17
Mexico
15
USA vs Canada
Marc Pelosi
15
USA
16
Honduras vs Mexico
Víctor Guzman
10
Mexico
NOTE:The teams that had the most valuable players per match were Mexico (5), USA (4) and Honduras (3).
Only two players were selected twice as most valuable players for their outstanding role in their teams: Hirving Lozano from Mexico and Alberth Elis from Honduras.
Honduras, second in Group B, won two matches, obtained 6 points and lost the top spot to Mexico. Inter-group matches proved that Group B was stronger, given that Mexico and Honduras reached the final match. Both countries qualified directly to the Brazil 2016 Olympic Games
Canada’s performance was up and down, placing second in Group A with 4 points, 1 match won, 1 match lost and 1 draw.
16
17
D. LIST OF TOP SCORERS GOALS
4
3
2
TEAM
PLAYER
17 USA – Jerome Kiesewetter: / 2 vs Cuba, 1 vs Panama, / 1 vs Canada, 2 Asistencia. Vs Canadà y Panama
1
TEAM
PLAYER
8 Panama - Josiel Nuñez:(1 vs Cuba).
17 Honduras – Albert Elis (1 vs Costa Rica, 1 vs Mexico, 2 vs USA, 1 asistencia. Vs Haiti
3 USA – Matt Miazga:( 1 vs Cuba).
13 Canada - Michael Petrasso: (1 vs USA, 1 vs Panama, 1 vs Cuba).
4 USA – Cameron Carter:( 1 vs Cuba).
9 Mexico – Erick Torres: (1 vs Costa Rica, 1 vs Honduras, 1 vs Canada).
8 USA – Emerson Hyndman:( 1 vs Cuba).
9 USA – Jordan Morris: (2 vs Canada, 1 vs Panama).
11 USA – Alonso Hernández:(1 vs Cuba).
7 Cuba – Arichel Hernández: (2 vs Canada).
15 USA – Marc Pelosi:(1 vs Canada).
17 Honduras – Antony Lozano: (1 vs Haiti, 1 vs Costa Rica).
11 Panama – Edgar Bárcenas:(1 vs Canada).
8 Mexico – Raúl López: (1 vs Haiti, 1 vs Honduras).
1
GOALS
OWN GOAL
5 Costa Rica - William Fernández :(vs Mexico).
11 Mexico – Marco Bueno: (2 vs Costa Rica).
6 Honduras – Bryan Acosta: (vs Mexico).
10 USA – Luis Gil: (1 vs Canada, 1 vs Panama).
6 Panama - Fidel Escobar:(vs USA).
15 Canada - Benjamín Fisk: (1vs Panama). 16 Canada - Molham Babouli: (1 vs Cuba). 19 Canada - Skylar Thomas: (1 vs Panama). 10 Costa Rica - Dylan Flores :(1 vs Haiti). 17 Cuba – Maikel Reyes: (1 vs Panama). 16 Cuba – Daniel Luis: (1 vs USA).
18
14 Haiti - Paulson Pierre: (1 vs Costa Rica). 10 Mexico – Víctor Guzmán: (1 vs Honduras). 17 Mexico – Hirving Lozano: (1 vs Canada).
19
E. TEAM STATISTICS DURING THE TOURNAMENT COUNTRY
MP
MW
ML
MD
GS
GA
GD
YC
RC
Canada
5
1
3
1
6
6
0
5
1
Costa Rica
3
0
2
1
1
7
-6
8
1
Cuba
3
0
1
2
4
9
-5
6
0
Haiti
3
0
2
1
1
3
-2
7
0
Honduras
5
3
2
0
6
4
2
8
2
Mexico
5
5
0
0
11
1
10
3
0
Panama
3
0
2
1
2
8
-6
4
2
USA
5
4
1
0
13
4
11
7
0
Total
13
9
3
1
28
13
15
14
2
KEY MP: Total Matches Played
MD: Total Matches Draw
GD: Total Goal Difference
MW: Total Matches Won
GS: Total Goals Scoreded
YC: Total Yellow Cards
ML: Total Matches Lost
GA: Total Goals Allowed
RC: Total Red Cards
NOTE: As shown in the summary table, the only team that won all of its matches was Mexico (5), followed by the USA (4) and Honduras (3). 4 teams left the tournament without a win (Costa Rica, Cuba, Haiti and Panama).
48 yellow cards and 6 red cards in 16 matches. Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama were the most booked teams in the tournament.
The teams with the most Goals Scoreded were USA (15) and Mexico (11); Cuba (9), Panama (8), Costa Rica (7) and Canada (6) were the teams that conceded the most goals.
20
21
F. ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH GAME
MATCHES
1 TO 15
15 TO 30
30 TO 45
1ST HALF
45 TO 60
60 TO 75
TOTAL TIME
1
Panama vs Cuba
9.00
9.35
8.47
27.22
9.45
9.20
6.30
25.35
52.57
2
USA vs Canada
8.30
8.34
9.38
26.02
11.14
8.36
8.54
28.04
54.06
3
Honduras vs Haiti
10.20
8.40
7.40
26.40
9.05
7.00
6.37
22.42
49.22
4
Mexico vs Costa Rica
9.22
7.10
8.16
24.48
8.35
7.42
8.11
24.28
49.16
5
Canada vs Panama
9.04
10.06
8.12
27.22
11.20
9.18
9.45
30.23
57.45
6
Cuba vs USA
11.04
9.18
8.12
28.34
9.56
9.16
10.04
29.16
57.50
7
Costa Rica vs Honduras
6.35
7.25
7.40
21.40
7.15
6.10
8.34
21.59
43.39
8
Haiti vs Mexico
10.54
7.00
8.38
26.32
7.45
8.00
9.40
25.25
51.57
9
Canada vs Cuba
9.40
7.51
8.11
25.02
7.05
9.06
8.36
24.47
49.49
10
USA vs Panama
7.28
8.14
7.14
22.56
7.12
7.54
7.08
22.14
45.10
11
Costa Rica vs Haiti
9.05
7.30
7.22
23.57
7.41
7.03
8.45
23.29
47.26
12
Mexico vs Honduras
8.20
8.14
8.55
25.29
8.28
7.00
11.05
26.33
52.02
13
USA vs Honduras
8.35
7.59
7.53
23.47
8.10
6.59
7.20
22.29
46.16
14
Mexico vs Canada
10.35
11.08
8.45
30.28
8.42
9.36
6.10
24.28
54.56
15
USA vs Canada
8.45
9.20
8.40
26.05
9.34
8.23
8.16
26.13
52.18
16
Honduras vs Mexico
11.39
9.30
7.10
28.19
10.28
8.34
7.50
26.12
54.31
9.13
8.43
8.39
26.13
9.10
8.37
8.15
25.08
51.00
AVERAGE
• NOTE: Observations on actual playing time • The match with the shortest playing time was Costa Rica vs. Honduras with (43.39) minutes, which is very low due to the amount of interruptions from fouls and the lack of rhythm of the match.
22
75 TO 90 2ND HALF
• The match with the highest actual playing time was USA vs. Cuba (57.50) given the superiority displayed by the United States over Cuba in all aspects of the game, such as ball possession, continuity and rhythm. This total time is below the longest Gold Cup 2013 match between Costa Rica and Cuba, (61.26), and the Gold Cup 2015 between USA and Cuba, (58.15).
• The first period of 15 minutes of the first half was the highest actual playing time of the event, with an average of (9.13) minutes. • The first half of the matches (45 minutes) was the period with the highest actual playing time with (26.13) minutes played, which was below the average actual playing time in Gold Cup 2013 (27.55). • The total actual playing time average of the tournament was (51.00) minutes, which is higher than that of Gold Cup 2015 (50.06), the CFU 2014 finals (49.04) and the UNCAF Cup 2014 (50.31). • The average is below that of the Gold Cup 2013 (54.54) and the actual time played in the Brazil World Cup (55.14).
23
G. CHANGES IN LINE-UP BY TEAMS DURING MATCHES
H. M OST VALUABLE PLAYER BY TEAM AND IN THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG RANKING
TEAMS
2ND MATCH
3RD MATCH
4TH MATCH
5TH MATCH
TOTAL
AVERAGE
PERCENTAGE
Canada
1
1
2
2
6
1.00
12.77
Costa Rica
2
3
0
0
5
0.83
10.64
Cuba
2
0
0
0
2
0.33
4.26
Haiti
6
1
0
0
7
1.17
14.89
Honduras
4
3
0
0
7
1.17
14.89
Mexico
4
1
0
0
5
0.83
10.64
Panama
6
1
0
0
7
1.17
14.89
USA
3
5
0
0
8
1.33
17.02
TOTAL
28
15
2
2
47
AVERAGE
3.50
1.88
0.25
0.25
PERCENTAGE
59.57
31.91
4.26
4.26
HIGHEST AVERAGE PLAYER BY TEAM TEAM
NAME
PLAYER NO.
POSITION
TP
GS
YC
RC
NL
A
O
MM
RK
Canada
Michael Petrasso
13
Forward
450
3
0
0
0
1
3
0
162.00
Costa Rica
Dylan Flores
10
Midfielder
209
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
83.22
Cuba
ARICHEL HERNANDEZ
7
Midfielder
270
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
105.00
Haiti
JUDE Saint CAP.
5
Defender
270
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
65.00
Honduras
Alberth Elis
17
Forward
447
4
2
0
0
1
4
2
206.67
Mexico
Hirving Lozano
17
Forward
322
1
0
0
1
2
5
2
194.78
Panama
EDGAR BARCENAS
11
Midfielder
240
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
76.67
USA
JEROME KIESEWETTER
17
Forward
371
4
1
0
0
2
4
0
165.22
7.83 100.00
NOTE: Despite the preparation level of some of the teams that played several matches prior to the tournament, line-ups lack stability in several teams. Some line-ups varied by up to 6 players in the starting line-up, some due to injuries, and others because they qualified by their third match and decided to rest players for the semifinal. Such was the case with Honduras, which did not use 5 of its starters against Mexico in order to have them rest for the match against the United States. However, other teams did not find their ideal and stable 11. Mexico, the winning team, was regular with its 11 players, displaying stable and sound work in terms of structure.
TOURNAMENT’S PLAYER WITH THE HIGHEST AVERAGE TEAM
NAME
Honduras
Alberth Elis
PLAYER NO.
POSITION
TP
GS
YC
RC
NL
A
O
MM
RK
17
Forward
447
4
2
0
0
1
4
2
206.67
KEY PT: PLAYING TIME
RC: RED CARDS
O: OUTSTANDING
GS: GOALS SCOREDED
NL: NEW IN THE LINE-UP
MM: PLAYER OF THE MATCH
YC: YELLOW CARDS
A: ASSISTS
RK: RANKING
NOTE: Although Honduran Alberth Elis had the highest score in the ranking given his 4 goals, 1 assist, 4 outstanding plays and being named twice the player in the match, Hirving Lozano from Mexico was the Olympic Qualifying Tournament’s Best Player according to CONCACAF’s Technical Study Group. He was 2 times Best Player of the Match, 5 times outstanding and had 2 assists. He was a different and game-changing player, crucial for Mexico’s success in the tournament.
24
25
I. MOST VALUABLE GOALKEEPER OF THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG RANKING TEAMS
CANADA
COSTA RICA
CUBA
HAITI
HONDURAS
MEXICO
PANAMA
26 USA
GOALKEEPERS
PLAYER
GA
PT
NT
MM
NT
TPOD
TPFW
TPCE
RQ
Max Crepeau
1
6
450
2
0
14
15
16
14
79.00
Quillan Roberts
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Ricky Gomes
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Darryl Parker
18
6
180
0
0
6
6
7
7
14.00
Carlos Martinez
1
1
90
0
0
3
4
4
3
4.00
Jairo Monge
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Euer Pozo
12
6
90
0
0
2
2
2
2
Sandy Sanchez
1
3
180
1
1
7
8
5
5
55.00
Delvis Lumpuy
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Luis Odelus
1
3
270
1
0
10
11
12
11
59.00
Ramos Pointe
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Ronald Elusma
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Luis Lopez
1
0
270
1
0
12
10
12
9
88.00
Harold Fonseca
18
4
180
1
0
8
7
9
8
27.00
Roberto Lopez
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Gibran Lajud
1
1
450
4
0
20
21
22
21
184.00
Luis Cardenas
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Raul Gudino
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Jaime Degracia
12
3
90
0
0
2
2
3
3
Elieser Powell
1
5
180
0
0
4
4
4
4
14.00
Orlando Mosquera
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Zack Steffen
1
4
270
2
0
9
9
9
9
56.00
Ethan Horvath
12
0
180
0
0
6
6
6
6
44.00
Charlie Horton
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
-42.00
GOALKEEPER WITH THE HIGHEST RANKING COUNTRY
GOALKEEPER
Mexico
Gibran Lajud
PLAYER N.
GOALS ALLOWED
RANKING
1
1
184.00
KEY GA: Goals Allowed
MMNT: Player of the Match, Number of Times
TPHW: Total Points for Hand Work
PT: Playing Time
TPOD: Total Points for Organizing Defense
TPCE: Total Points for Center Exits
NT: Number of Times
TPFW: Total Points for Footwork
RQ: Ranking
NOTE: This ranking is based on a combination of objective criteria: 1) minutes played, 2) goals allowed, 3) Goals Scoreded, 4) Disciplinary measures (yellow and/or red cards, 5) Player of the Match nomination, 6) technical level, 7) outstanding per match and the criteria of the Technical Study Group specialists (TSG).
The tournament’s top goalkeeper was Mexico’s (#1), Gibran Lajud. He allowed 1 goal and displayed his high technical level, team management capabilities and good ball handling skills with hands and feet. He was selected as the Player of the Match in 4 matches.
-10.00
27
J. SUMMARY TABLE BY TEAM (CARDS, GOALS, CHANGES IN LINE-UP, OUTSTANDING PLAYERS) GOALS
OUTSTANDING
NEW IN THE LINE-UP
RED CARDS
YELLOW CARDS
Canada
6
7
6
1
5
Costa Rica
1
7
5
1
8
Cuba
4
8
2
0
6
Haiti
1
9
7
0
7
Honduras
6
11
7
2
8
Mexico
11
11
5
0
3
Panama
2
7
7
2
4
USA
15
11
8
0
7
TOTAL
46
71
47
6
48
COUNTRY
NOTE:
28
• 46 goals were scored in 16 matches, for an average of 2.88 goals per match. 28 of them were assisted and 6 were headers.
• 71 of the 160 players had outstanding performances in this tournament. 44 of them were selected to assemble the 11-member Dream Team of the tournament.
• 24 goals were scored by forwards, followed by 8 scored by midfield wingers, 6 by defensive midfielders and 8 by defenders.
• In 16 matches, 47 changes were made in team line-ups, which showed the highly variable line-ups of some of the teams in their starting 11 (USA, Panama, Haiti, Canada and Honduras).
• 22 goals were scored inside the penalty area, 16 from the box, and 8 from outside the 16.50 penalty area.
• 48 yellow cards and 6 red cards were given to players in the 16 matches.
29
K. WHEN WERE THE GOALS SCOREDED? GAME
30
MATCHES
1 TO 15
15 TO 30
30 TO 45
1ST HALF
1
Panama vs Cuba
1
1
2
USA vs Canada
1
1
3
Honduras vs Haiti
1
1
4
Mexico vs Costa Rica
1
1
2
5
Canada vs Panama
1
1
2
6
Cuba vs USA
1
2
3
7
Costa Rica vs Honduras
1
1
8
Haiti vs Mexico
9
Canada vs Cuba
10
45 TO 60 60 TO 75 75 TO 90 2ND HALF TOTAL TIMETOTAL TIME
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
0
1
2
4
2
4
2 2 1
0 1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
USA vs Panama
0
3
1
4
4
11
Costa Rica vs Haiti
0
1
2
2
12
Mexico vs Honduras
2
3
13
USA vs Honduras
1
2
14
Mexico vs Canada
1
2
15
USA vs Canada
2
2
16
Honduras vs Mexico
1
2
1
1 1
2
1
1
1
1 1
0
1
1
1
1
1
This leads us to conclude that there was a lack of concentration and low physical fitness shown by those teams that allowed goals during the final minutes of the match.
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME
GOALS
A total of 46 goals were scored throughout the event, with an average of 2.88 goals per match.
7
2
1
NOTA: As shown in the chart, the highest amount of goals (28) took place in the 2nd half and 11 of those goals were scored during minutes 60-75.
TOTALES
5
5
7
17
7
11
10
28
1
46
AVERAGE
0.31
0.31
0.44
1.06
0.44
0.69
0.63
1.75
0.06
2.88
PERCENTAGE
10.87
10.87
15.22
36.96
15.22
23.91
21.74
60.87
2.17
100.00
31
L.HOW WERE GOALS SCOREDED GAME
MATCHES
RESULTS
PC
VS
C
D
JI
I
Panama vs Cuba
1
-
1
2
USA vs Canada
3
-
1
3
Honduras vs Haiti
1
-
0
4
Mexico vs Costa Rica
4
-
0
5
Canada vs Panama
3
-
1
1
1
1
6
Cuba vs USA
1
-
6
1
1
3
1
7
Costa Rica vs Honduras
0
-
2
1
1
8
Haiti vs Mexico
0
-
1
9
Canada vs Cuba
2
-
2
10
USA vs Panama
4
-
0
11
Costa Rica vs Haiti
1
-
1
12
Mexico vs Honduras
2
-
1
13
USA vs Honduras
0
-
2
14
Mexico vs Canada
2
-
0
15
USA vs Canada
2
-
0
16
Honduras vs Mexico
0
-
2
46
1 1
DTE D
1
TOTALES
32
JE
TL I
DIR
P
AG
• Most of the goals were scored in combination plays (11).
IND
• Followed by 9 goals from the flanks, mostly by passes or assists from wingers; a position occupied by very skilled players in the tournament.
1
1
1
NOTE: A total of 46 goals were scored in the tournament, averaging 2.88 goals per match.
1
1 1
2
1
1 1
1
1
8.70
DTE Direct Corner kick
TL Free Kick
P
C
D
DIR Direct
AG Own Goal
Combinación
Direct
I
Left
IND Indirect Penalties
1
1 1 1
1
PERCENTAGE
JE Side Play
Individual Play
1
1
0.25
JI
1
1
1
AVERAGE
PC Centerfield Penetration
1
1
1
4
•6 goals were scored using headers, 2 of which were scored by forwards, 1 by central midfielders and 3 by defenders; 4 of these were scored by central midfielders, 1 corner kick and 1 indirect free kick.
KEY
1 1
• 2 indirect and 2 direct free kick goals were scored.
1
1 2
• 7 goals were scored on individual plays due to distraction in marking and from goalkeepers not coming out, and 16 goals were scored within the 5.50 area.
7
2 0.56
0.44
0.13
19.57 15.22
4.35
11
7
0.69
0.44
23.91
15.22
1 2
2
2
0.13
0.13
0.25 0.13
0.25
8.70 4.35
4.35
2
0.13 8.70
4.35
4.35
4
3
0.25
0.19
8.70
6.52
33
M. WHO SCORED THE GOALS MATCHES
F
1
Panama vs Cuba
1
2
USA vs Canada
3
3
Honduras vs Haiti
1
4
Mexico vs Costa Rica
3
1
4
5
Canada vs Panama
3
1
4
6
Cuba vs USA
3
2
7
7
Costa Rica vs Honduras
2
8
Haiti vs Mexico
9
Canada vs Cuba
2
10
USA vs Panama
2
11
Costa Rica vs Haiti
12
Mexico vs Honduras
13
USA vs Honduras
14
Mexico vs Canada
1
15
USA vs Canada
1
16
Honduras vs Mexico
GAME
34
2
MW
CM
D
G
1
TOTAL 2
1
NOTE: Forwards scored 24 goals, and once again they are the leading scorers. Wingers scored 8 goals, followed by 6 scored by midfield wingers, where several players stood out for their quality.
8 goals were scored by defenders; two of them were own goals, mostly from indirect free kick kicks and corner kicks. This highlights the importance of set piece plays in defining the outcome of close matches.
4 1
2
FORWARDS
MIDFIELDERS
DEFENDERS
GOALKEEPERS
24
VL 08 VC 16
8
0
GOALS
GOALS
GOALS
GOALS
2 1
1
2
4 1
1
4
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
KEY
1
2
F: FORWARDS
MF: MIDFIELDERS
1
2
WM: MIDFIELDER WINGERS
D: DEFENSE
1
1
2
TOTALES
24
8
6
8
0
46
AVERAGE
1.50
0.50
0.38
0.50
0.00
2.88
PERCENT
52.17
17.39
13.04
17.39
0.00
100.00
G: GOALKEEPERS
35
N. WHERE THE GOALS WERE SCORED GAME
36
MATCHES
FROM INSIDE THE 5.50 AREA
FROM INSIDE THE 16.50 AREA
FROM OUTSIDE THE 16.50 AREA
TOTAL
1
Panama vs Cuba
2
USA vs Canada
2
3
Honduras vs Haiti
1
4
Mexico vs Costa Rica
2
2
5
Canada vs Panama
2
1
1
4
6
Cuba vs USA
3
3
1
7
7
Costa Rica vs Honduras
1
1
2
8
Haiti vs Mexico
1
1
9
Canada vs Cuba
1
1
10
USA vs Panama
2
2
11
Costa Rica vs Haiti
1
1
2
12
Mexico vs Honduras
2
1
3
13
USA vs Honduras
2
2
14
Mexico vs Canada
1
2
15
USA vs Canada
16
Honduras vs Mexico
1
2
2
2
4 1
1 1
NOTA:22 goals were scored inside the 16.50 area, in different combinations; individual plays, crosses and many defensive mistakes in coverage and closeouts when the ball changed wings quickly.
8 goals were scored outside the area, close to the 16.50 edge, showing little use of mid-range distance kicks; the long distance shots were null and, when attempted, deficient.
16 Goals Scoreded from the box or goal area, and many of them as a result of goalkeepers remaining inside the goal or because they were not ready for second chance plays, allowing attackers to take advantage.
4
2
16 Goals from the box area
4 4
1
2
1
2
TOTALES
16
22
8
46
AVERAGE
1.00
1.38
0.50
2.88
PERCENTAGE
34.78
47.83
17.39
100.00
22
Goals from inside the penalty area
8 Goals from outside the penalty area
37
O. TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE NOTE: GAME
MATCH
1
Panama vs Cuba
2
JUSA vs Canada
3
Honduras vs Haiti
4
Mexico vs Costa Rica
5
Canada vs Panama
6
Cuba vs USA
7
Costa Rica vs Honduras
8
Haiti vs Mexico
9
Canada vs Cuba
10
USA vs Panama
11
Costa Rica vs Haiti
12
Mexico vs Honduras
13
USA vs Honduras
14
Mexico vs Canada
15
USA vs Canada
16
ATTENDANCE
DATE
TOTAL
GROUP
3816
10/1/15
3816
A
10/2/15
2853
B
3755
10/3/15
3755
A
3147
10/4/15
3147
B
3313
10/6/15
3313
A
• Attendance was lower than in CONCACAF’s U-17 tournament in Honduras, where a total of 63,567 and an average of 1,926 people attended.
• Total attendance reached 28,201 throughout the tournament, with an average of 1,763 spectators per match.
• The quality of the facilities was outstanding; the organization was good, with some details to be improved; it apparently lacked optimum communication for such an event – Olympic Qualifying tournament, which includes the participation of high level players, some of them present in international leagues.
• The tournament had very low attendance throughout, even in the finals, where 4,760 spectators were reported.
P. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE AGE TEAM
3924
10/7/15
3924
2633
10/10/15
2633
4760
10/13/15
4760
Honduras vs Mexico
TOTALES
B
AVERAGE
21
9
Costa Rica
21.3
11
Cuba
20.9
5
Haiti
20.3
6
Honduras
20.6
8
Mexico
21.15
10
Panama
20.15
5
USA
20.45
7
Canada
•
The youngest team of the event, with an average age of 20.15 years, is Panama.
•
The oldest team in average was Costa Rica, 21.3 years
•
It is worth highlighting that it is hard for the different teams, for various reasons, to reach the Olympic Qualifiers with the ideal age for the category; that is, those born in 1993. Many teams showed up with players born from 1996 and 1997– that is a 4-year difference- which is something to bear in mind in future Olympic Qualifying competitions.
•
Mexico, Costa Rica and Canada had the highest number of players born in 1993, thus providing greater perspectives and a more stable development processes in their countries.
28201
AVERAGE
1763
GROUP A
38
2853
• Clearly, the group with the greatest attendance was Group B, which included Mexico that practically plays at home with a huge Mexican attendance.
Total
Average
10884
3628
GROUP B
Percentage
Total
Average
38594
9924
3308
Percentage 35,190
39
GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT SOME KEY ASPECTS.
40
41
IV. GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT SOME KEY ASPECTS GENERAL TRENDS. The tournament was very even competitively among the different participating teams, highlighting the superior quality of Mexico in all soccer aspects pertaining to defense, attack and collective play, winning all of its 5 matches. There was an offensive, positive mindset, and winning expectations among all teams in every match. This is evidenced by the fact that in the 16 matches played, there were 4 draws and 12 defined matches. 46 goals were scored in the 16 matches, for a general average of 2.88 Goals Scoreded per match. The elevated technical level of the coaches is worth highlighting, leading their teams in this Olympic Qualifying tournament. Most squads used flexible tactical systems capable of quickly adapting to the different situations and to the opponent’s level, displaying very good constructive schemes. Teams like Mexico, Honduras, USA and Canada included skilled, competitive players who play in 1st division teams in their respective countries and abroad, which allowed them to create teams with a very high competitive level.
42
These squads conveyed quality and variety to the tournament. It lacked the significant presence of DIFFERENT players; only number 17 from Mexico, Hirving Lozano, and 17 from Honduras, Albert Elis, stood out from the general average.
The competitive results evidenced even levels among participating teams during qualifiers. There were only two matches with extremely disproportionate scores: USA 6-1 Cuba and USA 4-0 Panama. The final ranking in the group phase was quickly defined in Group A with USA and Canada and Group B, Mexico and Honduras. The incorporation of foreign coaches to manage the 8 participating teams was outstanding with 5, 2 of them South American, 3 European and 3 nationals, which contributed to the tactical organization of the teams and their competitive level, as well as the professional approach displayed by all coaching staffs. A better preparation, effectiveness and organization was observed throughout the teams, in terms of their defensive operation and midfield play, but not in offensive organization.
PLAYERS IN FOREIGN LEAGUES:
We must state that the teams with better-organized defensive and attacking midfield wingers, with tactical discipline, technical level, mobility and creativity were Of the 160 players from the 8 participating teams, 27 play outside their country, 21 play in European the ones with the best final results. teams and 6 play in teams from different American Deficiencies in the attack were made evident in countries. structured attacking schemes. This showed a lack and profound absence of tactical patterns pre-established Most of the 160 players participate in their respective prior to the tournament in most teams, with the clear local first division tournaments. An example of this is Mexico’s team, where most of them are part of the exceptions being Mexico, Honduras and the USA. powerful Mexican league, playing for renowned and Very few organized and compact approaches to the top quality teams. opponent’s area, as well as little effectiveness and This has contributed to a more stable and continuous scoring capacity were evident in half of the teams preparation level, superior to that of other countries. (Panama, Cuba, Haiti, Costa Rica). Mexico, USA and Honduras were more effective attacking teams and created constant goal scoring situations. Mexico was the most compact team in its approach to the opponents’ defensive area.
Compact schemes and quick transition from offence to defense were basic aspects to achieve the close results obtained in each match.
A deficiency observed was the lack of effectiveness in shots on goal after combinations and the use of mid and long-range distance shots on goal.
Tall, strong central defenders with good technical level were present, along with a compact midfield formation, with intensive marking in defense.
The use of the entire field, including the wings, was a determining factor. Fast and skilled players capable of facing the opponents’ defense, and surpassing them thanks to their skills and speed were aligned mostly in these areas (17 Mexico Lozano, 13 Canada Petrasso, 13 USA Kiesewetter, 17 Honduras Albert Elis, 7 Cuba Arichel Hernandez, etc.).
The use in all teams of defensive and box-to-box midfield wingers who organized and balanced quick transitions from attack to defense and vice versa was one of the most relevant tactical aspects.
Regions: Europe- (21) - USA- (5) Mexico- (1) Total 27 GROUP A USA
11
(8 Europa, 1 Mexico y 1 Canadà).
Canada
6
6 (6 Europa).
Cuba
0
Panama
1
1 (1 España).
Mexico
2
(1 Europa, 1 USA).
Honduras
3
(1 Europa, 2 USA).
Haiti
3
(2 Europa, 1 USA).
Costa Rica
1
(1 Europa).
GROUP B
43
USA, Honduras and Canada).
the wings, displaying two skillful and fast wingers.
We can clearly state that this position is highly important in determining the teams’ final results.
Quick defensive transitions and attacking projections with long varied passes were used by most teams, fundamentally USA, thanks to their speed and physical power. Mexico, on the other hand, always tried to reach its target with wellelaborated combinations.
We noticed little use and effectiveness of mid-range shots on goal and low accuracy in deep passes and combinations that ended in threats to the opposing area. A general negative aspect was the lack of efficiency and effectiveness of teams within the opponent’s area while attempting to score.
TACTICAL ASPECTS Most of the teams had very flexible systems capable of achieving a quick transition, leaving a defensive function, rapidly recovering and attacking and vice versa. Likewise, the level of opponents and the development of the match led to increased flexibility in their tactical approaches. The most organized and flexible teams in their tactical approaches obtained the best results (Mexico, Honduras and USA).
TECHNICAL ASPECTS. General individual and group technical improvements were noticed in all teams; increased ball possession with organized projections from the back, and ball management mainly in the midfield. This does not apply to the opponents’ defensive area during offensive functions, except for Mexico. In fact, the technical level among most teams was quite good. Paradoxically, there were just a few “difference makers” capable of leading a team and determining, as leaders, the final results.
44
Mexico, USA, Honduras and Canada were the teams that tried to organize the most plays, regardless of the opponent’s pressure. They achieved this because of their great mobility and position rotation, as well as their high technical level, mainly in the defensive and midfield areas, with limitations in offense when reaching the opponents’ defensive area. Mexico displayed great skills in ball possession and compact play throughout the field, even in the opponents’ defensive area.
Good line-up stability and few player position changes in the different matches were a positive aspect displayed by the different teams, especially Mexico. The teams with the most line-up changes were USA, Panama, Haiti, Canada and Honduras. The general level of the goalkeepers was good, displaying advanced skills with both legs, hands and during saves. Furthermore, many of them played outside their areas, taking the role of an additional defender at times (1 from USA), (1 from Mexico) and (1 from Cuba). The technical level and tactical organization of midfield wingers was a determining factor, in some cases with two players and in others with one. Their role balancing attacks and coming back to defend was a determining factor in outcomes. Midfield wingers are greatly responsible for the recovery, possession, organization and game assembly within their teams. Teams that had highly skilled players in those positions are the ones that developed a more balanced game both offensive and defensively. Those teams also achieved the best results (Mexico,
Stuffing the midfield with players and achieving ball possession was the most evident trend in defensive schemes. Many deficiencies were noticed in attacking plays when attempting to reach the opponent’s area in an organized manner (Cuba, Haiti, Costa Rica, Canada and Panama). There was an evident lack of defined patterns and effective combinations when attempting to reach the opponents’ area in a compact manner, with the exception of Mexico, which generated positive combinations in the opponents’ area. The most commonly used formations were (1-44-2) and (1-4-5-1). These formations had quick variations when attacking and defending, according to the match characteristics and the level of the opponents. In every case, the width of the pitch was used through the projection of the defensive wingers. Mexico showed great skill with its attack through
Planning of substitutions and their use was mostly accurate in the teams that had projected their games well and were stable in their use, thus increasing performance in the final minutes of the games. The stability in line-ups and on the use of players in their positions in the different matches was a remarkable aspect. In most matches, increased midfield play was observed, as this is the area with the highest number of players, where smaller teams displayed certain ball possession and more defensive skills by reducing spaces. Generally speaking, it was determined that further work has to be made on the defensive function preparation to achieve quick attack to defense transitions in a compacted manner, reducing midfield spaces and spaces in the defensive zone, most of them including one of their forwards in the midfield. The general defensive operation took place in the midfield, which rapidly grouped the teams and displayed intensive presence in such area. Use of the entire pitch in attack through defensive wingers and wingers was conclusive; unfortunately, the quality of crosses into the middle of the area was not very efficient, just as were the attempts to complete shots on goal.
45
NEGATIVE TACTICAL ASPECTS
defense systems was effective. Players in these areas displayed their skills and permanently put pressure on the opponent’s defense.
• Lack of line-up stability in various teams, with respect to the starting 11 in the tournament.
46 goals were scored in 16 matches, for an average of 2.88 goals per match.
• The completion of moves and combinations close to, and within the opponent area, with inefficient and insufficient shots on goal for most teams, except for Mexico and the USA.
The use of defensive wingers to support the attack was also observed, achieving a wider range of attacking plays in teams that used them the most (Mexico, USA, Canada, Honduras and Panama).
• Lack of effective center forward or forwards within the opponent’s area, and efficient shots on goal, except for Mexico and the USA. The teams that played with a single attacking forward and who managed to reach the opponent’s area had very little goal opportunities.
• Few compact approaches to the opponent’s area
ATTACK ANALYSIS Most of the teams displayed a strategy to place a center forward with one or two connecting players between the halfway line and the forward line, who also joined attacks.
46 When these players failed to support, the possible attacks died up quickly. It is very difficult to achieve sustainable outcomes with a single forward attacker, without the defined support from midfield players.
1. There was a tendency among most of the teams to play with a forward directly supported by a midfielder and the approach of wingers, except for Mexico and USA. 2. As a general trend, except for Mexico, there was little compact and combined game in the defensive zone of the opponent’s team; little use of one-two moves, and effective technical / tactical ratio among attackers.
There was good ball possession and management from the team defensive lines (Mexico, USA, Canada, Honduras, and Panama), thanks to the technical level of midfield wingers and the plays organized by them.
3. There was fast and skilled arrival of wingers and defense, mostly as support to the attack. They used the width and depth of the pitch to attack in these zones.
Very few teams arrived in a compacted manner, with clearly elaborated combinations of attack when stepping into the opponent’s area conclusively (Mexico and USA).
4. The teams used one or two deep-lying strikers (acting as a link) between the central midfielders and forwards. Sometimes they played as attackers.
Mexico showed another disposition, always using two defined strikers, with great mobility and interaction.
Limitations on the execution of attack effective combinations, often times due to the lack of mobility with very static forwards and wingers, lack of a stable offensive tactical pattern. Attack conclusiveness and effectiveness was missing in most teams.
5. Optimum ball possession and midfield combinations (Mexico, USA, Panama, Honduras, Canada). There was insufficient depth, forcefulness and effectiveness on shots on goals after crosses.
There was great position rotation wingers, who used their skills and speed to create danger in the opponent’s area.
Most goals were scored in attack combinations (11), most of them made by Mexico and the USA and (7) in individual moves.
The wings were greatly used throughout the tournament, with players who displayed good level, speed and optimum skills (17 Mexico, 13 Canada, 17 USA 8 Mexico 20 USA, 9 Panama).
Shots on goal to the opponent’s goal from the mid-range were just a few, and most of them were ineffective.
• The defensive operation in teams in general prevailed with more quality, compared to the offensive one. • Little use of effective standard plays in corner kicks.
GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE ATTACK
This is a team trend that provides more value for defense or losing by minimum scores, in contrast to the mindset of strong groups that always look for the win.
Several goals were scored through individual moves through the wings, indicating that this type of actions and the efficacy thereof to break the
The conclusiveness in the attacks ending with goal kicks after wing approaches (center) was low in most of the teams, and ineffective, except for Mexico and the USA.
6. The team had technical deficiencies and inaccuracies in moving crosses from lateral areas. Lack of effective center forwards within the opponent’s area, except for Mexico and the USA. 7. Most of the corner kicks were not precise and many goal opportunities were wasted.
47
DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS All teams were better organized in the defense than in the attack. Every team had clear defensive strategies within a rapid defense-attack and attack-defense transition system, with great flexibility and which adapted to game situations. The most commonly used system was 1-4-5-1. The best quality in the defensive line was that of center backs with quick anticipating plays, good wing coverage, and strong aerial play. All teams started with some type defensive approach, with a line of 4 defenders supported by one or two defensive midfielders, who were capable of dropping back on defense when the wingers attacked. Some used a line of three, but synchronized in the quick attack to defense transitions, and generation of a compact block. Every team had, as common denominator, all of its offensive players pressuring the defensive projections as to delay attacking plays. Forwards tried to slow down the attack by rival defenders. Teams concentrated players in the midfield to form a compact block and therefore close down spaces; the weakest teams would do this in their own pitch, with one of the two forwards going to the midfield. Midfield wingers rotating to the middle and all of them applied intense pressure, with good mobility and position rotation.
48
The most outstanding teams, from a technical scheme standpoint, were Mexico, USA, Honduras and Haiti.
The teams in general organized their defensive lines in the midfield, with zone marking and with intense concentration of players in this sector, reducing spaces to the minimum. Mexico was the exception, in some instances applying collective pressure when ball possession was lost. Lack of total concentration in the defensive lines still persists in the area, in terms of standard plays and marking definition in this zone. Most goals were scored inside the 16.50 area (22) and from inside the penalty area (5.50); 16.
PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Teams in general displayed good physical fitness and special preparation level, being Mexico and the USA the best teams by far. All teams tried to deploy a fast-paced and strong game in ball disputes in one-on-one situations. Teams also displayed a compact scheme during the first halves. They than reduced the pace of the game in the second halves (Cuba, Panama, Canada, Costa Rica and Haiti), evidencing the ware of playing 3 very demanding matches in less than 6 days. Mexico, Honduras and USA stood out for their pace and strength during all matches. All teams showed strong psychological disposition during each match, especially when facing adverse situations. All matches were highly competitive and there were no easy teams; they made other teams fight for victory and showed tenacity during their matches; there were only 4 draws in the 16 matches played.
WARM-UPS In all matches, the teams had good warm-up routines, with very good personnel distribution within the coaching staffs in all areas. They took the necessary steps and conducted exercises that were ideal for match preparation. They also took the necessary time for each activity, ending with specific soccer exercises.
CHARACTERISTICS DISPLAYED BY THE COACHES Technical exchanges of TSG specialists were made with all technical directors, noticing good knowledge among them of the objectives to be achieved, both tactical, strategic and competitive in the tournament. Many of them had little time to prepare their teams for the tournament, and few real competitive situations to prepare a stable team. Some difficulties were faced as well when asking clubs to lend players for the tournament, leading to key absences. 5 coaches from the 8 present were from foreign countries: 3 from Europe, 2 from South America and 3 local. All of them with optimum experience, as evidenced by their coaching during the tournament. Most of them were well versed on the system and tactics developed by their teams, and foresaw changes as needed. The teams had more stable line-ups and tactics defined in this tournament, especially Mexico, Cuba and Canada.
49
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE GOALS A total of 46 goals were scored, for an average of 2.88 per match. Most of them took place during the second half with () and of the total of 46, () were scored from minute (30 to 45); this was the period with the highest number of goals. The teams with the highest number of goals were Mexico (11) and the USA (14). The teams with the highest number of goals allowed in this tournament were Cuba (9), Panama (8) Costa Rica (7) and Canada (6).
The tournament’s general average was 51.00 minutes of actual playing time, out of the official 90 minutes established. This is higher than the last Gold Cup (50.06). Excess calling of fouls, penalties, yellow cards and delaying tactics to resume the game after such events. In some cases, due to low dynamics, rhythm, as well as the ball possession in some deficient encounters derived from technical and tactical situations. In such regard, the match played between Costa Rica and Honduras was the lowest in actual playing time with 43.39, which was affected by the excessive number of fouls, interruptions and delays.
The highest number of goals were scored from inside the penalty area with 22, followed by goals from inside the goal or box area (5.50) with 16. This shows a lack of concentration and defensive assignments when close to the goal, and in some cases, lack of interception of crosses by goalkeepers in this area.
The first 15 minutes of the game (1 to 15) represented the longest real playing time with 9:13.
The least amount of goals (8) was scored from outside the penalty area due to lack of shots on goal from long and mid-range.
The longest match in real time was USA and Cuba (6-1) with ample ball control by the USA. The lack of fouls and unnecessary stoppage plays led to 57:50 in playing time, coming close to a world-class playing time.
Forwards scored the highest number of goals with 24 goals, along with central midfielders with 8 thanks to their in-depth approaches using the wings and the width of the pitch.
50
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME
6 goals were scored through rebound headers, mostly after standard plays, 11 goals in combination and midfielders on the sides, and 7 in individual plays.
Likewise, the first half from (1 to 45) represented the longest actual playing time with 26.13 minutes total.
51
TEAM-BY-TEAM ANALYSIS
52
53
COACH:
BENITO FLORO SPAIN
Its coach, Benito Floro, is well known in the soccer world; he has introduced its organization philosophy, ball handling and possession from the defensive lines. Canada knows how to touch the ball and has great mobility. It shows serious difficulties in the opponent’s defense zone, it lacks quality in its offense combinations, as well as power and effectiveness in the opponent’s area. In CONCACAF’s events, the Canadian national teams impress in the first two matches, but as the event unfolds, their performance and competitiveness falls. The final balance of the Canadian National Team in the Olympic Qualifying was as follows:
Canada
Five matches played with one win and one draw, and three losses, with five goals in favor and eight against; they obtained 4th place. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Canada’s national team qualified directly to CONCACAF’s final Olympic Qualifying for the North American region. Eleven out of twenty of its players play in teams abroad, mostly in Europe and in the USA. With an age average of 21 years and 1 month, this team gained good competitive experience in CONCACAF and World Cup U-17 and U-20 categories, as well as in the Pan-American Games.
•
The team had players with good height and athletic physiology, several of which had great speed and individual technical profile.
•
They had power and capacity to develop at high level in international competitions.
•
Tactically, the team needs to perfect its collective tactical discipline.
•
The
team
began
the
tournament
with
Currently, five of its players are part of the senior Canadian National Team in the World Cup qualifying stages. Given their record of accomplishment, it is safe to say that they have a good level of competitive experience.
54
The fact that they qualified directly into the finals of all of CONCACAF’s events without playing the qualifying stages is harmful to the Canadian team’s development, because in most events, they lack time to get together as a group and work as a team, with the aim of assembling a powerful team that can show stable performance throughout the tournaments.
55
1- 4 - 1 - 4 – 1
•
•
•
•
•
confidence; they performed well in their first match against USA.
•
They displayed good medium distance ball passes with balls in movement.
They had good tactical structure and organization aside from physical power. They lost the first match with one goal difference, but they played a good match.
•
They were skillful players for aerial game and great individual resources.
•
They did not have mid or long-range shots on goal.
some key players’ physical performance dropped.
•
The narrow play in the last third lacked a lot of clarity from the forwards.
CANADA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME PER MATCH:
•
Some of the team’s forwards were limited on their individual offense actions in narrow play. They had trouble relating to each other in attack combinations. Individual actions prevailed.
In the second match, they beat Panama, a solid team in the group; they relied on consistent play and tactical organization with outstanding defense work. The last match in their group was against Cuba and their performance level went down; they lost attack power and compared to the matches against the USA and Panama, their performance was poor. They were almost disqualified by the Cuban national team. They lost the Semifinal and the definition for the third place, they played both matches against superior opponents but their physical performance was in decline. The team’s basic formation was stable throughout the event. The main player was Petrazo, number 13; he was relevant in the qualifying matches but lost physically as the tournament developed.
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS •
The team had an acceptable technical level, both individually and collectively; several players showed great skill and ball handling skills, providing them with good ball possession.
•
In the midfield and defense, they showed good control and possession of the ball, starting at the bottom of the defense line, thanks partially to the mobility of their wingers and of their central midfielders.
•
They had good control and combinations under the opponents’ pressure, fast circulation of the ball, narrow plays; but this situation shifted in the last two matches, in which they played a stronger opponent that applied more pressure in their defense.
56
•
The team had good technique in narrow play changes to the other side of the field searching for a wider range.
•
•
Petrazo, number 13, was the most dangerous forward due to his skill set and his feints; he created dangerous situations for the opponents on the left side. Canada’s offense depended on this player’s creativity. In the final matches, he was clearly showing signs of exhaustion and his performance suffered due to his excessive defense responsibilities.
• They had great capacity to maintain a high-level
physical condition and to deliver in compact game functions between lines, thus keeping constant pressure on the opponent. • Nonetheless, in the last matches of the tournament
MATCH
1
2
3
4
5
Team
USA
PAN
CUB
MEX
USA
Actual Playing Time
54.06
57.45
49.49
54.56
52.18
TOTAL AVERAGE
53.55
TACTICAL ANALYSIS • The basic formation was 1-4-1-4-1, using a central
midfielder. Number 14 was the team’s captain, who had creativity and vision, and was able to guarantee quick defense-attack transitions, organizing and balancing the defense area. The offensive area had the support of a quick exit of the defensive wingers and of distribution of passes, enabling counter-attacking plays and attack depth. • Their defense line was organized in four, numbers 2,
19, 5 and 11; with a defensive midfielder, number 14; four central midfielders, numbers 6, 7, 10 and 13; and a target striker, number 9. • They showed wide range in the midfield with organized
defense counter-attacking plays.
Sam Piette, number 14 and the team’s captain, was a good defensive midfielder who showed great organization skills in both offense and defense. His performance was very good. This player has been to international matches with Canada’s senior National Team.
PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • The players were tall, strong, fast and capable, with
good tactical discipline and compact play. • The defenders had great height, which allowed them to
win aerial balls.
57
• When attacking, the midfielders joined and they got
into a 1-3-4-3 position. This shows significant tactic superiority to fulfill offense positions by using the wing sectors, especially the left with Petrazo, number 13. • The team had good player mobility in midfield,
supporting the player with the ball. • In the midfield, Sam Piette, number 14 was very solid
and strong; he recovered well due to good marking. Number 14 was the brain and organizer of all counterattacking plays and attacks in the Canadian team. He played freely between the defensive line and the midline. • Player number 8 brought in a lot of mobility and
support in midfield, where he intersected the ball and facilitated combinations. • The team had good ball possession, essentially in
defense and in the midfield. They had lots of vision and creation of combinations in midfield, but lacked attack clarity in the remaining three quarters of the field. • When they tried long passes, they lost many balls due
to inaccurate ball passes or intervention of opposing defense players; this was one of their main pain points.
DEFENSE ANALYSIS • Canada had a stable defense system with a line of four
defenders, numbers 4, 19, 5 and 11. • They were solid and strong on marking, with good
anticipating plays; played as a compact block most of the time, reorganizing quickly in the transition from attack to defense in midfield. • They lacked communication and coordination between
the two center backs amidst dangerous situations caused by the opponent forwards. • The team had a personal zonal marking with two central
midfielders, numbers 14 and 7. • They are strong in aerial game, organized and
disciplined in the last third of their field. • They had grand and generous physical display of all the
58
players in defense positions, generating a block in the midfield with intense marking. Both midfield wingers and one defense provided support. • The team is strong and efficient in one-on-ones
disputing ball possession, as well as in headers, especially wingers number 4 and 11, and 19 and 5. • They had mixed-area set piece play marking, six players
opened the zone and others marked the opponent’s tallest players.
• One of their limitations was the defense shrinking in the
area of the ball. • Center backs Luca Gasparotto and Skylar Thomas were
strong in individual play in the defense’s center. • The team’s transition from attack to defense worked
better in the matches against the USA and Panama; they tried to create a compact block in the midfield in the second third. • Transition was difficult in the three other matches; it
was slow against Mexico and USA. • The last three matches showed less aggressiveness and
capacity to impose over the opponents. • The defense line was open and it left a lot of space in the
last zone of the field’s first section. • In the final matches, Canada kept its line of four players,
plus one defensive midfielder, number 14. However, the team showed weaknesses in its organization, in anticipating plays and in working as a compact defense line. • They lacked conviction and determination in one-on-one
situations, especially in the second match against the USA when they were disputing the third place.
ATTACK ANALYSIS • Canada had a basic attack line of 1-4-1-4-1, with quick
counter-attacking plays built on short steps and defense transitions to attack with balance in midfield, allowing a fast exit of the defensive wingers, who provided wide range to the counter-attacking plays and depth to the attacks. • They tried attacking with a 1-4-1-5 formation, with
some variations, such as 1-4-2-3. • They quickly managed a 1-3-4-3 when attacking with
the incorporation of the midfielders. Midfielders and defensive wingers tried to provide attack support from behind to the wings. • The team had good player mobility in midfield. Good
ball possession, mostly in defense construction and midfield. • They had great vision and combination creation in
midfield, but lacked clarity in the cooperation with the offensive line in the attack to the three quarters of the field. • Midfield players number 14 and number 7 were
outstanding. They had high technical level, vision and capacity to maintain a high level game.
• The attacking midfielders received many passes turned
back, with few chances of continuing their attacks quickly; receiving the ball like that decreased the chances for depth. • Some forwards had poor individual quality, with the
exception of Petrazo, number 13, who excelled in skill, determination and technique. He scored three out of the team’s five goals. He was the team’s inspirational offense. Unfortunately, he was used excessively for defense, which took a toll on his performance in the last matches. • In the last third, the team lacked clarity to create
combinations and relations between stickers. The team did not display determination in attack as well as in depth.
• The wingers are very slow in their counter-attacking
plays. • They need to improve goal opportunities from mid and
long-range. DEFENSE • They had solid and strong individual marking, with good
anticipating plays, but had deficiencies in sustaining a compact form most of the time while transitioning from attack to defense in midfield. The block did not give width and the midfield wingers did not come close enough, thus leaving spaces. • There is lack of determination and communication
between center backs in times of great danger and opponent’s goals.
• They had few midfield shots and not enough crosses on
goal from the sides of the opponent’s area. • The transition from defense to attack was repeatedly
slow, lots of ball passes on the side and excessive defense from number 14, their top player, who sometimes acted as a defensive winger, and who had to run a lot to get back into the attack.
THINGS TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL • They need to improve the use of shots on goal from mid
and long-range. • They should improve the quality of the crosses on the
opponent’s area. • They need to work with the attack players with average
technique who cannot control or contain the ball in narrow plays. • They need to improve ending goal opportunities in the
air with headers. • The team needs to work on functional technique
specific for the definition of short, agile ball passes, in order to give width, triangulate charges in narrow and populated plays TACTICAL • The team should improve clarity and effectiveness in
the offense attack throughout the last third of the field. • They try to play from behind but when they get to
midfield there is no cooperation with the forwards. • They need to generate spaces for the forwards and
create attack superiority.
59
ATTACK
CANADA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT
• Mostly, combinations seek wide range in the field with a
• They are slow in the attack and cannot manage a
majority in narrow plays. • The attacking midfielders and forwards lacked mobility
and marking; these lines lacked cooperation. • The player with the ball did not get support. • There were differences in the decision-making process
of the central attacking midfielders on when to use one-on-one and when to pass the ball. • They need to be clearer in offensive combinations to
have a more efficient goal opportunity.
number of horizontal passes and ball possession. This allows the opponent to reorganize. They had few deep combination plays to the opponent’s area. PHYSICAL • They need to get tall, string, powerful and fast players,
shots on goal.
level of physical condition, to fulfill compact play functions between the lines, and to put pressure the opponent constantly.
PSYCHOLOGICAL opportunities at individual level.
• The team’s transition from attack to defense is often
very slow.
GOALS ALLOWED:
10
GOAL DIFFERENCE:
-4
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:
• They did not go for a win in offensive action.
• In the first and second match, transition to attack was
very slow, but they were forceful in combination plays to the opponent’s defensive area.
NAME
POSITION
TP
GS
TYC TRC TPM
TS
O
RK
GA
DD
FW
HW
CE
SC
14
15
16
14
1
Max Crépeau
Goalkeeper
450
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
79.0
6
12
Quillan Roberts
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
KEY
18
Ricky Gomes
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
2
Johnny Grant
Defender
246
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
42.3
3
Mark-Anthony Kaye
Forward
98
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
-19.1
4
Jackson Farmer
Defender
199
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
22.1
5
Luca Gasparotto
Defender
450
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
80.0
6
Chris Mannella
Midfielder
291
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
46.3
7
Mauro Eustaquio
Midfielder
272
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
20.2
8
Jay Chapman
Midfielder
238
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
26.4
9
Anthony Jackson-Hamel
Forward
295
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
22.8
OUTSTANDING PLAYERS
14
POSITION
DESCRIPTION
Sam Piette
Midfielder
Organizer. Highly skillful and technical.
10
Caleb Clarke
Forward
377
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
48.9
11
Jérémy Gagnon-Laparé
Midfielder
431
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
37.9
13
Michael Petrasso
Forward
450
3
0
0
0
0
3
1
162.0
14
Sam Piette CAP
Midfielder
450
0
1
0
1
0
3
0
110.0
15
Benjamin Fisk
Forward
89
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
44.9
16
Molham Babouli
Forward
59
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
26.6
17
Hanson Boakai
Forward
84
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
9.3
19
Skylar Thomas
Defender
450
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
115.0
20
Dylan Carreiro
Midfielder
46
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5.1
4975
6
5
1
1
6
15
4
13
Michael Petrasso
Forward
8
Jay Chapman
Attacking Midfielder
Agile, dynamic, with good technique.
1
60
NAME
Attacker that left the opponent out of balance, fast.
19
Skylar Thomas Maxime Crepeau
Center back Goalkeeper
53.55
• They need to improve the capacity to sustain a high
• The team lacked determination to define collective
TRANSITIONS
6
with stamina, tactical discipline and compact play.
• Physical conditions were not a problem for Canada.
• They lacked efficiency in medium and long distance
GOALS SCORED:
Disciplined. Strong market.
TP TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork HW Hand Work
Great technique and team orientation.
TOTAL
CE Center Exits
61
COACH:
LUIS FERNANDO FALLAS COSTA RICA
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The team did not face problems in their technical
management, they have incorporated a good play, and they have players that can control, lead and kick the ball. • They performed well in the plays from behind and
circulation in the mid third of the field. They displayed good ball technique. Despite having players that excelled in ball handling (Ramirez 7, Ruiz 11 and Flores 10), their biggest difficulty came when they had to get through the last third of the field with a good pass. • Flores, number 10, scored one of the best goals in the
tournament, a mid-range shot on goal. • However, this player was not put to good use, he lacked
and he was not very confident in shots on goal. • They combined plays and ball handling in narrow plays
COSTA RICA
in the first two thirds of the field in the first half against Mexico. However, the rest of the tournament they did not manage to combine plays or have ball possession. • The players with the highest expectations and with
Costa Rica’s National Team represented the UNCAF, and qualified for this Olympic Qualifying final by winning against Guatemala in the repositioning stage.
experience in the senior national team did not deliver as expected (Ramirez 7, Ruiz 11 and Flores 10).
Its age average was 22 years and 1 month. Its preparation process for this event was eventful due to a change in coach and in dates to play the qualifying stage, which altered their stability. They were part of Group B, and the following were their results: In its first match against Mexico’s powerful national team, they lost 4-0; they were also defeated in their second match against Honduras 2-0; and finally their last match against Haiti was a 1-1 draw. Their final balance was two defeats, seven goals conceded and one in favor.
62
This generation of Costa Rican players has not performed accordingly with its country’s soccer reputation. Its performance was weak in previous events as well. The team has remarkable individuals who have been summoned to the senior National Team, but they have failed to show stable performances and their psychological level has deficiencies associated with their will to decidedly fight for victory.
63
1-4-2-3-1
PHYSICAL ANALYSIS
DEFENSE ANALYSIS
ATTACK ANALYSIS
• The team had good athletic and physical capacities,
• They grouped in a line of six in the last third, midfield
• There were only isolated and individual actions by
defensive players were tall and fast, forward and midfield players were short; they could have had a classic and speedy target striker.
wingers 11 and 17 moved to the defensive area to play 2vs1 with the wingers 15 and 13 in the opponent’s end, with three midfield wingers (4, 8 and 10) running in the attack front.
• They responded well physically to the demands of the
match, but psychologically they dwindled after the opponent scored, it confused them.
• They used a line of five against Haiti, in their last
match. They placed four midfielders in front of the defensive line and only one striker began the defensive delay action.
• They were unable to sustain an appropriate match pace,
only defense sustained their fighting spirit; transitions to attack were difficult, on top of a lack of quick, speedy counterattacking plays.
• They marked in the area depending on the ball; they
were slow and not aggressive.
• They put pressure on the opponent in the first half of
the match against Mexico and in the second half of the match against Haiti. For them, the tournament was tainted by distrust and passive attitudes.
COSTA RICA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME PER MATCH
MATCH
1
2
3
Team
MEX
HON
Haiti
Actual Playing Time
49.16
43.39
47.26
• Their untimely coverage showed lack of trust in
47.00
• They won out of superiority and not efficacy in defense,
variations 1-4-2-1-3 in attack and 1-6-3-1 in defense.
• They used a playmaker (10), 11 and 17 rotated in the
wings and 7 acted as a lone striker, but he lacked support because defense had to return to the extremes. They had an evident and repetitive attack pace, and they had difficulty in seamless progressive plays.
64
very good goal. • Deficient game that lacked regularity in depth and
shots on goal. Few goal opportunities. • Offensive wise they were deficient and showed no
progression, support, unfinished individual actions; not enough kicks in the matches, they did not elaborate on the play and set pieces.
distrust and untimely marking. • They did not excel in aerial play; the opponents
overcame them. Players 3 and 5 delivered. • Excessive defensive posture made it difficult to get to
the offensive area. • They always waited until the last third of the field to
initiate recovery actions, even after they were defeated in the first match, they sustained a timid attitude that lacked initiative. • They were very far from the opponent’s goal, they had
slow and evident plays from behind; their split relied only on an individual play by number 7, or only when number 11 came into the play after a long defensive run.
• Their game was mostly midfield, with little depth and
combination plays to the opponent’s area. For a team with good technical level and that is knowledgeable in football, there was a shortage of depth and definition.
not able to keep the ball; possession was lost when they tried penetration on attack without adequate support.
• They only had one medium distance kick, and it was a
• They were very vulnerable against each other, overall
third of the field was very slow; it was mainly lateral, executing horizontal passes. offensive conversion; lateral passes without depth. Wingers only played from behind and neglected the shift to attacking.
• Sharing similar characteristics, their attackers were
cause threats to the opponent.
this generated confusion and lack of attention in the area.
• Possession in the plays from behind and medium
• In midfield, they played defense and did not apply
attacked with three players (11, 17 and 7), who showed individual wing plays that surprised a couple of times, but their shots were diverted.
• Their shots on goal were non-existent; they did not
• The midfielders were forced to shift to the area of the
TOTAL AVERAGE
• The chosen formation was 1-4-2-3-1. With some
• In the highlight moments again Mexico, the team
distances, midfielders were always overcome and shy in offensive play, they did not move forward enough to cause danger to the opponent.
recovering the ball. In some matches, they applied high pressure and recovered in a better area.
defensive wingers, mostly without need; they had a permanent 2vs1 and the central midfielders formed a block of 1-6-3 in the last third.
TACTICAL ANALYSIS
number 7; he was alone in the attack, if another player joined him, there was no synchronicity in the action.
• Instead of grouping in the attack and running long
•
65
THINGS TO IMPROVE
• They should focus on being more powerful and
TECHNICAL
• They need to improve the technique of striking shots on
• They need better coordination, attack effectiveness and
final definition
goal in movement. PHYSICAL
TACTICAL
GOALS SCORED:
1
GOALS ALLOWED:
7
GOAL DIFFERENCE:
-6
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:
46.60
• They need to improve the pace of the match and
• They need to have more speed and depth in the
defense-attack transition.
intensity to sustain in both halves.
• They need to work on will, self-esteem, trust and
• Aggressive marking in the opponent’s area, play
narrows.
• They should focus on efficiency of individual potential,
• They need to work on their attack program, offensive
coordination, offensive reorganizing.
balance between the lines and improve player selection.
OUTSTANDING PLAYERS POSITION
POSITION
TP
GS
TYC TRC TPM
TS
O
RK
GA
DD
FW
HW
CE
SC
18
Darryl Parker
Goalkeeper
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-14.0
6
6
6
7
7
1
Carlos Martinez
Goalkeeper
90
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
4.0
1
3
4
4
3
20
Jairo Monge
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
KEY
19
Freddy Alvarez
Midfielder
78
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8.7
6
Berny Burke
Midfielder
56
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
21.2
3
Julio Cascante
Defender
270
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
35.0
16
Allan Cruz
Midfielder
53
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5.9
9
Kenneth Dixon
Forward
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.3
14
Bryan Espinoza
Defender
90
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
10.0
5
William Fernandez
Defender
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
10
Dylan Flores
Midfielder
209
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
83.2
13
Steve Garita
Midfielder
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
4
Christian Martinez
Midfielder
227
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
55.2
17
Ronald Matarrita
Forward
180
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
40.0
15
Joseph Mora
Midfielder
194
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.6
2
Jhamir Ordain
Defender
180
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
20.0
7
David Ramirez
Midfielder
253
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
18.1
11
John Jairo Ruiz
Midfielder
242
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
36.9
12
Ulises Segura
Midfielder
66
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
12.3
8
Luis Sequeira CAP:
Midfielder
180
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
-10.0
calculated risk-taking TEAM MANAGEMENT
ATTACK
NAME
NAME
PSYCHOLOGICAL
DEFENSE
66
COSTA RICA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT
effective in the opposing area.
TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits
DESCRIPTION
4
Christian Martinez
Midfielder
Makes a great effort, good marking
10
Dylan Flores
Midfielder
Good kicking capacity
11
John Ruiz
Midfielder
Agile, dynamic, very good technique
5
William Fernandez
Defense
Solid marking, aerial play
67
TOTAL
3001
1
8
1
1
5
10
0
COACH:
RAÚL GONZALES TRIAS CUBA
Cuba was affected by the indiscipline of some players who left the National Team, with only 14 remaining at the end of the event. This event affected their mental concentration profoundly, as well as their performance in the field. However, the high morale of the coaching staff and remaining players constituted an example of will and determination. Cuba had real chances of qualifying to the next phase up until their final match against Canada. The results of the Cuban team were as follows:
CUBA
In their first match against Panama, the result was a 1-1 draw. In their second match against USA, they lost 6-1, with a poor performance both in defense and in attack. In the last match against Canada, the Cuban team showed their best performance and had a 2-2 draw; they played fluently and even dominated the Canadian team, which scored only thanks to technical mistakes by the Cuban players. Three matches, one loss and tow draws; four goals in favor and nine against was the Cuban balance in this Olympic Qualifying event. Cuba’s National Team qualified as runnerup for the Caribbean region in this category, having won against Jamaica 2-0 in the CFU final, and obtained a 0-0 draw against Haiti. The team won all the matches in the preliminary stage in the Caribbean Final in Antigua and Barbuda, with the following results: 2-0 against Guyana, 11-1 against Aruba and 1-0 against Antigua, resulting in fourteen goals in favor and one against.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS The team has players with good height and who have good physical characteristics. Several players had great individual speed, technical profile and capacity for achieving high levels in international competitions.
This National Team is formed mostly by the same players that qualified for the U- 20 World Cup in Turkey and that participated in the Central American games in Veracruz, where Cuba won the bronze medal. Five of their players were part of the senior national team in the last Gold Cup. All players play in Cuban teams in the first division.
68
The coach, Raul Gonzales Triana has been working with the team for over 3 years; he coached them in the Central American games and in the U- 20 World Cup in Turkey. The age average is 20 years and 9 months, making it one of the tournament’s youngest teams.
69
1-4-4-2
From the tactic point of view, collective discipline and organization need to be perfected, players tend to lose concentration or are messy in key functions as the match unfolds, resulting in losses. There was consistency by the basic staff throughout the three matches. The team kept the same players and basic formation in the three matches, with the exception of number 5, who played the first match as right wing back and then left the field. Cuba showed positive position changes and players’ location in the field. The change of number 15 from defensive midfielder to center back was significant, as well as that of player number 4 from attacking midfielder to center forward, in front of number 16. Player number 2 changed from defensive winger to midfielder, playing the ball from the wings to the center and providing safety and possession in that area.
• The team’s organization and ball circulation took
place on their side of the field; they had no plays from behind, mostly on the wings, and they lost the ball to the opponent in midfield. did not get support from the second or third line after receiving a ball. • In the third match against Canada, the team was more
motivated and wanted to win; they had more ball possession. • In that match, the team found more mobility in the
midfield. Their play was more compact between the lines, and attackers had more feints in plays from behind and offensive pressure in the last third of the field. Their game seemed more aggressive and offensive, showing real competitive potential and leaving reservations and fears behind. • The team showed problems with shots on goal, with the
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
• Cuba’s largest deficiency was the lack of offensive
individual level than collective level. They had good ball handling at an individual level in the defensive area and halfway line, where mostly they executed organized plays from behind. They lost the ball many times due to poor mobility of the midfield wingers and forwards. They need to touch the ball and be more supportive of their teammates. • The team had several skillful players with good
individual feints resources. However, they need to work on continuity and pace in collective play, ball possession and 4, 5 and 6 continuous passes. • They had good technique in control and conduction of
individual ball plays. • The technical level throughout the tournament was not
stable. In the first match against Panama they had many bad passes and long plays from behind without team organization to collect the ball after a rebound midfield or in the opponent’s defensive area. • They were weak and disorganized in the second match
against the USA and managed little ball possession, as happened in the first match. • They improved in collective plays, pass effectiveness
and ball possession against Canada. Changes in
match against Canada. At times, they seemed naïve and noble in disputing one-on-ones balls against Panama and the USA.
• They tried a 1-3-4-3 in the attack by incorporating the
• In the first and second matches, Cuba’s collective play
in the midfield and forwards in order to support the player running with the ball.
pace was not stable and high. They left spaces between the lines.
• The forwards were isolated from the halfway line; they
These modifications strengthened Cuba’s midfield, and gave it more fluency and organization in the match against Canada.
• The team had a fair technical level, with higher
70
positions of some players contributed to a better technical performance.
exception of number 7, who scored twice and displayed tranquility and precision. support, mobility and continuity in combination plays; they lost in the attack because they did not play narrow in the opponent’s field. It is as though they played to prevent conceding goals, instead of using their competitive potential against any opponent. They need to have the mindset of a winning team. • The team also lost the ball when the opponent applied
pressure in the midfield or in the defensive area. • They need to use mid and long-range shots on goal.
PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • The players were strong, powerful and agile, capable
of endurance due to their physical characteristics. They had good tactical skills. • The team tried to sustain the intensity of the matches,
and to be consistent in the attack and in the defense. In the first match against Panama, this strategy did not work out; but in the last match against Canada, it worked well. • They had the capacity to sustain pressure in the
midfield and in the defensive area, but they did not apply it in a stable way; this was evident in the last
• They had serious mobility problems freeing-up and
provide continuity to the different actions in an area where they had superiority with number 10, a false forward and deep-lying striker (a highly skilled but static player). • They made mistakes that led to losing the ball, which
generated exhaustion among some of the some players in the midfield, since they had to do extra physical effort. Their sole attacker suffered from physical exhaustion. • The team needs to support attackers in the attack in
order to play narrow between the lines as quickly as possible. This showed lack of physical strength in the team’s attack.
CUBA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME PER MATCH MATCH
1
2
3
Team
PAN
USA
CAN
Actual Playing Time
52.57
57.50
49.49
TOTAL AVERAGE
53.19
TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Their basic formation was 1-4-4-2, using two central
midfielders, numbers 16 and 4, who provided control and organization, unlike numbers 15 and 16, who lacked organization skills. They had faster and sustained conversions with a 1-4-5-1 formation, which they applied in most matched with the false 10. • Player number 16 had tasks of contention and offensive
balance and number 4 was used as playmaker; the last one created mobility and ball possession. Number 10 lacked mobility and visibility. • The team had fast transitions from defense into attack
when applying the 1-4-4-2 to the 1-4-1-3-2, sustaining organization and balance in the midfield. This allowed the defensive wingers to build-up plays from behind with width but not with enough depth.
midfielders to the wing. • They experienced sustained lack of mobility of players
• The team had good ball possession mostly in defense.
However, under pressure they kicked the ball forward without aim. • There was little cooperation between the midfield
and the attacking line. There were limitations in the creation of plays and they lacked attack clarity in the last third of the opponent’s field. • The team lacked clarity to optimize the attacking
advantage in the third section of the field.
DEFENSE ANALYSIS • Cuba had a solid and strong defense in the individual
marking, with good anticipations. The team mostly played with a block of four players who transitioned between attack and defense in midfield. Defense was more compact with a block of seven and eight players, mostly against Canada. • The goalkeeper was skilled; his defense play, footwork
and exits from the penalty area in support of defense were good. • They had the tendency to play individually instead of
collectively in defense. Player Colon made a huge technical mistake in the match against Canada, in the first goal. • They did not apply the defense principles enough in the
defensive compact line. They had good coverage and balance. • The team had a weak defensive tactic and knowledge
of defense principles, such as pressure anticipations, balance and one-on-one coverage in the match against the USA. It showed improvement against Canada. • The team’s transition from attack to defense was
better in the midfield against Canada; in the second third they tried to create a compact block with the support of the midfield players. • In the last match, they showed more aggressiveness
and toughness against the opponents. In its first two matches, Cuba proposed a line of four players with players 15 and 16 as defensive midfielders, but they
71
did not deliver. The team showed weakness in its organization, made mistakes in anticipation plays, coverage and compact play, and were strong in the one-on-ones.
• The attackers did not do good use of one-on-ones, with
the exception of Maikel Reyes and sometimes player number 7. • Regardless of its deficiencies, the Cuban National
ATTACK ANALYSIS • They used plays from behind in fast counter-attacks
based on the individual skills of forward number 9 and midfield winger number 7, both of them with loads of potential. The second forward number 10 lacked mobility; he did not support the continuity of combinations executed by midfielders and defensive wingers, and did not get the ball after rebounds from the opponent’s defensive players in long plays from behind. • Player number 9 showed great physical defense
capabilities, but he was limited for a powerful arrival on the opponent’s field. The second forward had very few shots on goal. • They created some opportunities on the wings but
lacked good crosses to finish the play. • In the attack, the team had few opportunities in the
first two matches; we saw individual actions from the attackers but not enough support from the midline and defense. • The team could not create a majority in the last third
due to a lack of support and offensive narrow play to hold attackers. They need to apply narrow play. • They gave Mikael Reyes, number 9, many long passes
in the first two matches. Nevertheless, he played isolated from players numbers 10 and 7. • When they had ball possession, the team was not
stable in the offense. The midline and the defensive line were limited in their support and in holding the attack. • The team lacked effectiveness in the opponent’s area,
Team scored in all its matches, showing real potential in their offensive development.
THINGS TO IMPROVE
• The team lacks compactness, coverage and a balanced
TECHNICAL • The team needs to work on mistaken passes in the
midfield and lack of mobility in that area. They need to work on ball possession and combination continuity, for which mobility is key. They need to have players with these characteristics.
72
and in corner kicks. • The team did not use the necessary technical tools
in the last third attack, such as blocks, demarking, combinations and relationship between forwards and midfielders. There was an overall lack of mobility.
defense in the line. They need to work on narrowing spaces between the lines when attacking, since they were usually too wide. • They had problems with closures, narrow play and
opponent pressure in the defensive line. They gave too much freedom to the opponent’s forwards in ball possession.
• Their shots on goal are very limited in the mid and
long-range. • They need to work on the lack of definition in the
defensive area in terms of punts and headers in the penalty area. Need to learn to fight for the bouncing ball.
• The team’s coverage and balance behind the ball
were not good in their side of the field when the opponent had the ball. They need to work on decision and strength in one-on-ones when disputing ball possession. ATTACK
• The team should work in narrow spaces with pressure
on the opponent and ball possession.
• The team had few shots on goal. They were weak with
shots on goal with moving ball. TACTICAL • The team did not have enough support from the center • It is not clear for the team how to take the ball and play
in the first and second third of the field. The team’s two central midfielders are playing in the same line; consequently, two people are in the same position in the first two matches (numbers 16 and 15).
to define attacks. • They need to work on the lack of mobility of the
midfielders and forwards. Players in the last third of the field are not clear on how to use the sides or the center in order to efficiently define the attack.
• Midfield players fail to occupy the correct areas and
do not create effective triangles in their midfield positioning. Number 10 is extremely static. • The team does not have enough coordination and
cooperation between the defensive and midline to support the attack. In their first game, they had a lot of intention and depth, and in the second, they lacked clarity in the attack area and in scoring. • The team uses long passes from behind, but is not well
organized to get the second ball. They need to work on getting rebounds from the opponent’s defense players.
especially in crosses coming from the sides. • There was no clarity about the actions in set pieces
DEFENSE
• They need a deep-lying striker 10 with physical
capacities to sustain mobility and to act as link between the attack and midfielder lines. This is crucial for this national team in order to fulfill its actual growth potential.
• Shots on goal were very limited from mid and long-
range. • The team’s line was not compact in attacking plays, and
they do not close the offensive lines. TRANSITIONS • The team’s attack and defense transitions are slow.
They extend and leave spaces between the lines due to the slow defenders. • The team’s attack and defense transitions were slow
in the first and second matches. They needed more aggressiveness in the opponent’s field.
73
PHYSICAL
CUBA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAME
organization.
• They need to work on pace and organization required
for a compact attack and defense, which are unstable. This generates big physical efforts and exhaustion from running large distances between the lines. They lose many passes when they are attacking, which affects the organization of the match. PSYCHOLOGICAL
• They were an example of decorum and dignity. They
showed strength overcoming the indiscipline and desertion of six players. Moreover, their competitive level was high against Canada
GOALS SCORED:
4
GOALS ALLOWED:
9
GOAL DIFFERENCE:
-5
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:
53.19
TEAM MANAGEMENT NAME
POSITION
TP
GS
TS
O
RK
GA
DD
FW
HW
CE
SC
12
Elier Pozo
Goalkepper
90
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-42.0
6
2
2
2
2
1
Sandy Sanchez
Goalkepper
180
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
55.0
3
7
8
5
5
21
Delvis Lumpuy
Goalkepper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
KEY
15
Adrian Diz Pe
Defender
270
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
45.0
18
Abel Martinez
Defender
270
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
2
Andy Vaquero
Defender
270
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
57.0
6
Yosel Piedra
Defender
270
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
45.0
14
Yendry Torres
Defender
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
5
Brian Rosales
Defender
77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.6
19
David Urgelles
Midfielder
270
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
25.0
3
Enmanuel Labrada
Midfielder
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
4
Yolexis Collado
Midfielder
188
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
20.9
16
Daniel Luis Cap:
Midfielder
270
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
55.0
11
Dayron Perez
Midfielder
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
7
Arichel Hernandez
Midfielder
270
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
105.0
17
Pedro Anderson
Midfielder
42
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-5.3
20
Osmany Capote
Midfielder
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.2
10
Hector Morales
Forward
212
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.6
8
Frank Lopez
Forward
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
9
Maykel Reyes
Forward
270
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
87.0
• Since they did not have all the players, and they could
TYC TRC TPM
not play with their substitute players. • The team lacked determination to sustain its collective
tactic; they need to fulfill their responsibilities in tasks and functions. • In the first and second matches, players were cautious
• The staff showed knowledge with the changes applied
in the match against Canada, which was by far the best for the Cuban team; they played with fourteen players, including three goalkeepers.
and shy. Against Canada, they displayed a desire to win and play aggressively. They need to fight the small team mindset. Cuba has the potential to play against any opponent. • The team does not have a stable mental focus; they
need to keep the tactical discipline and collective
OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME
POSITION
DESCRIPTION
1
Sandy Sanchez
Goalkeeper
Very certain, good technique
2
Andy Vaquero
Midfielder / defense
Very technical, organizer
7
Arichel Hernandez
Midfielder
Agile, dynamic and with great technique
15
Adrian Diz Pe
Midfielder / defense
Disciplined, strong marking
9
Maikel Reyes
Forward
16
Daniel Luis
Defensive midfielder
TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork
Organizer. Aerial play
HW Hand Work CE Center Exits
74
75
TOTAL
2987
6
0
2
2
11
2
COACH:
MARC COLLAT FRANCIA
The match with Honduras ended with a very tight 1-1 draw. In their second match against Mexico (which was later champion of the event) they lost 0-1 and ended with another 1-1 draw in the match against Costa Rica. They closed their participation in the tournament with two draws and one loss, 3 goals against and 2 in favor. The National team of Haiti demonstrated once again its growth in terms of competition in CONCACAF tournaments, and the strength of its defense as it only conceded 3 goals and did a good job in the strongest qualifying group.
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Without discrediting the team’s performance in
Haiti
competition, the players used valid resources and technical gestures for each action, but more individually than collectively. • The players had very good ball control in the defense
The Haitian national team was one of the two representatives of the Caribbean in this Olympic Qualifying Championship final. The team was champion of the CFU (Caribbean Football Union) where it beat Cuba and Jamaica in the final. Its average age was 21 years and 2 months. The team had difficulties in carrying out the preparation for this event since it could not count on the stable presence of all its players. This was due to the fact that the soccer clubs they play for did not loan some players.
area, circulating and counter-attacking properly; in the midfield they maintained ball possession but did not transcend into attack for lack of precision and talent. • Shots on goal were scarce and lacked quality. This
was their major drawback. • In the three matches they played, the number and
quality of shots on goal was deficient. • With a limited ability to achieve combination plays in
dense zones, they lost ball control frequently to the rival when pressured.
This team demonstrated very good physical fitness, with fast, strong players, who were determined to play every match to win.
76
It had a solid and organized defense and an outstanding tactical discipline. The players were aware of their limitations and planned the game accordingly. Haiti was part of Group B, where it faced strong teams with the following results:
77
1-4-4-2
• Speed was their best resource when they had space.
In their best match, which was against CRC, they imposed the game’s rhythm with dangerous one-onone players. However, in the matches against Mexico and Honduras, their ability and speed for attack were annulled.
PHYSICAL ANALYSIS
However, their exit and midfield organization was problematic; they had trouble creating plays and shooting in the midfield and the attack areas. • They only managed to control the ball in the defense
and midfield, but they did not have this built into their game. • In the two matches in which they expected a good
• The players were tall, well-built and some were
outstandingly fast. Their average size is important for their game. • The team did not have problems in terms of the
players’ athletic physical aspect. They were successful in the defense, but could have done more in terms of attack. • The players showed they knew their game. Their
defense was compact and counter-attacked with long wait spaces when their opponent slipped. Yet, they did not succeed because of technical deficiencies or because they chose a combination plays hastily. • They pressured Mexico in the attack area. In the other
two matches they waited in the midfield. They did it well, and aggressively recovered the ball only to later lose it again.
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME POR PARTIDO DE HAITI:
result (Costa Rica and Honduras), their formation was different. The result was a goal against Costa Rica scored by a winger (14 Paulson).
DEFENSE ANALYSIS • They used a line of five or a line of four, and they always
maintained a formation with four strikers in front of the defense. They made a block and their moves were precise in time and space. Since they were always compact, they were hard to penetrate. • The players could not find a clear attack. While
firmly standing, they easily lost ball possession after recovering it.
ATTACK ANALYSIS • They basically used a counter-attack game. This was
their strongest bid thanks to their speed and strength. However, they had little success and achieved only isolated advances and bad ball passes. They only scored 2 goals in three games. • With only one forward they expected to achieve
advances where they could connect some of the strikers in the overlapping run. The rest of their performance focused only on getting the ball away from their goal. • Low individual quality was evident in the attack. The
team made a low number of effective combination plays in the defense zone of the opponent. They arrived to this area in an isolated way and with little backup. • Their limited offense is reflected in the absence of goal
opportunities based on clear combination plays, and in consequence, better individual performances.
• They displayed technical deficiencies in shots on goal
and goal opportunities on crosses from wingers. Very little use of shots on goal from mid-range. • Since they only used one play in the counterattack, it
was difficult to observe their real offensive behavior. Their goal opportunities were scarce, isolated and without a systematic behavior to take advantage of spaces, direct free kicks and corner kicks where their aerial play could have generated a goal opportunity.
THINGS TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL • They need to work on offensive gestures, induced
reception, shots on goal, through passes. • Also on shots on goal in movement and on crosses
from the wingers.
• They made very few wide plays as well as few clear
combination plays that ended in shots on goal.
• The team was organized in the defense area in relation
to the ball, and also when they gained possession of the ball in the midfield thanks to a well executed backing, coverage and relief. • In the defense area they had excellent coverage and
MATCH
1
2
3
Team
HON
MEX
CRC
Actual Playing Time
49.22
51.57
47.26
TOTAL AVERAGE
49.35
TACTICAL ANALY • They began the match against Honduras with a
disorganized application of a 1-5-4-1 formation system. When they switched to a 1-4-4-2 formation, their performance improved. • They varied the formation system in the match against
78
• The team is tactically disciplined in their defense.
Mexico using a 1-5-4-1. In that match they could not move on to attack. Their fullbacks did not join in; neither did the strikers. They limited themselves to defending. Against Honduras and Costa Rica they achieved a better balance with a 1-4-4-2 formation that they controlled better.
relief, thanks to the speed of the players. They had very good anticipation plays and a hard one-on-one mark. They are strong in the one-on-one, and they mend mistakes in their defense plans with speed and strength. In the transition to attack they often lost control of the ball because of haste. • They had good aerial play in which they always won. In
the few attack opportunities they achieved, this was an aspect they did not take advantage of. • Their compact defense formation was very good. They
only conceded three goals. In the matches against the two finalists, they conceded one goal in each. • The precision of their attacks is an aspect they need
to work on. In their attacks after achieving ball possession, they did not have luck and were erratic in the pursuit of an effective formation.
79
HAITI’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART
TACTICAL • Having a good defense should not be an obstacle for
overlapping runs or for a good attack. The team needs to strengthen the creation of play combinations in the attack, as well as support to strikers when they attack.
GOALS SCORED:
DEFENSE
1
GOALS ALLOWED:
3
GOAL DIFFERENCE:
-2
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:
49.35
• The team should focus on pressure and ball recovery in
the opponent’s field.
NAME
ATTACK
POSITION
TP
GS
TYC TRC TPM
TS
O
RK
GA
DD
FW
HW
CE
SC
10
11
12
11
1
Luis Odelus
Goalkeeper
270
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
59.0
23
Ramos Pointe
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
PHYSICAL
12
Ronald Elusma
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
3
• They fell short. It would have been good to see them
5
Jude Saint Cap.
Defender
270
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
65.0
KEY
8
Chadeley Germain
Defender
90
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
10.0
PSYCHOLOGICAL
15
Lucson Elie
Defender
77
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8.6
• The team needs more work on education in general.
18
Severe Verilus
Defender
270
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
TEAM DIRECTION
14
Paulson Pierre
Defender
148
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
51.4
• The team has good planning, but they need to bring more
13
Venel Saint Fort
Midfielder
142
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
30.8
6
Fernarderdemas
Midfielder
46
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5.1
4
Berderlinbeaubrun
Midfielder
86
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
-0.4
10
Woodensky Cherenfant
Midfielder
199
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
37.1
7
Jhon Estama
Midfielder
68
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
7.6
9
Jonel Desire
Forward
204
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
27.7
19
Manchini Telfort
Forward
106
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.8
17
Nerlinst Vii
Forward
165
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
33.3
16
Zachary Herivaux
Midfielder
204
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
17.7
3
Alex Jr Christian
Defender
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
2
Stephane Lambese
Forward
270
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
52.0
11
Christiano Francois
Forward
209
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
13.2
• The attack is completely non-existent if the team does
not foster its strengths: aerial play, speed and strength.
display their speed more often and for longer periods of time.
support for a good technical work.
OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME 1 16
Luis Odelus Zachary Herivaux
POSITION Golie Playmaker
DESCRIPTION Got it right; fulfilled his role.
Sévère Verilus
Midfielder
Agile, dynamic, good technique.
5
Jude Saint Louis
Center back
Disciplined. Strong in the mark.
GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork
Good player who understands the game.
18
TP Total Playing Time by Player
HW Hand Work CE Center Exits
80
81
TOTAL
2995
1
7
0
1
2
14
1
COACH:
CARLOS TABORA HONDURAS
Costa Rica and Mexico. The Group phase results were as follows: Honduras 1-0 Haiti Costa Rica 0-2 Honduras Mexico 2-1 Honduras
These results gave the team the second place in its Group and a chance to play for a qualifying position to the Olympics, in the match against USA, that won first place in Group A. In the match that took place in Salt Lake City, Honduras surprised the USA team by defeating the team 2-0 in their own house. Having qualified to the Olympic Games in Brazil 2016, Honduras played the Final.
HONDURAS
Its rival was the strong Mexican national team, which beat Honduras 2-0 and obtained the title of Champions of this tournament.
Honduras is a representative of UNCAF; it qualified to this tournament after having played in Guatemala’s qualifying tournament, where it obtained the following results: Guatemala 1-2 Honduras and Belize 0-3 Honduras. The team has a mix of players that were born in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. The team has players who have participated in FIFA U-20 and U-17 World Cups. Most of them have a history in youth national teams, and it could be said that Honduras has a roster of professional players.
Although Honduras was not one of the favorites to get to the Final, it has always been a strong and competitive team in CONCACAF’s competitions. During this event, the team showed solid work and great competitive level that led the team to their objective to directly qualify for the Olympics. The team displayed respect for ball possession in all of its matches and always tried to play well. They had great tactical defensive work that helped the team avoid conceding many goals (4), and Mexico was the only team that scored against Honduras.
Preparation prior to this tournament was done with sporadic calls of three or four players that were part of the National Team, giving them the chance to work together with the coaching staff to start learning the new work philosophy of the Head Coach.
82
Honduras played three international friendly matches in preparation for this championship against Panama. Two were played in Panama and one was played in Honduras. Panama won all three matches one goal to none. Honduras was part of Group B in this championship with venue in Los Angeles and Denver. The Group was also integrated by Haiti,
83
1-4-2-3-1
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
PHYSICAL ANALYSIS
TACTICAL ANALYSIS
• Honduras had very good individual and collective
• The Honduran players had good physical
• Honduras used 1-4-2-3-1 as basic tactical formation
technical level and good short and long passing in all of the pitch. • It rarely used mid-range shots on goal, although
players 6, 20, 9 and 10 tried to score this way. They were not very effective, particularly in the penalty area with shots on goal. • The team had good combination plays, particularly by
players 9 and 10, who had outstanding technique and vision. • Good individual technique by players 10,9,15,17 and 19. • They had to work hard in their defensive aerial
game, where central midfielders 2 and 3 displayed outstanding technique for head clearances in lateral and front crossings, and for getting the ball out of the danger zone. • As a team, they had an adequate level to be considered
as one of the best teams in terms of collective technique over individual technique in this tournament.
characteristics for their positions in the field. They played with good rhythm and intensity during the whole match and remained focused. • They had good stamina, and their physical fitness
helped them to keep up with the technical work with great synchronization and discipline. • The players had good mentality and were very
determined in the dispute for every ball. They had good communication and support amongst teammates.
HONDURAS’ ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH:
in the three matches it won, which during the attack turned into 1-4-2-1-3 with good tactical behavior and balance, both in the defense as in the attack. • They team works well as a 40-meter block between the
defensive and attacking lines; they had ball possession mainly between the midfield and the attacking third.
MATCH
1
2
3
4
5
Team
Haiti
CRC
MEX
USA
MEX
Actual Playing Time
49.22
43.39
52.02
46.16
54.31
49.02
(Mexico) and then they used a 1-5-4-1 formation with a line of 3 defending central midfielders and two wingers that covered the wings. In front of them they had a line of 4 midfielders who supported the defensive third, with only one striker in front. • The players were very good in aerial play, particularly
the central midfielders. During corner kicks they would mark man to man using one player next to the first post and one in the goal zone.
• They always played with two very organized defensive
central midfielders and two wingers who would sometimes take alternate runs, maintaining the defensive block of 5 and 5 players. • They would close the match in the last few minutes by
TOTAL AVERAGE
• They lost two matches against the same rival
making a 1-5-4-1 line with three central midfielders. Against Mexico, they used a 1- 5-4-1 tactical formation, waiting in the defensive third to initiate a counterattack. • The team would stay in the defensive third and apply
pressure in the midfield, with a slower transition with more ball possession and looking for long passes to leverage the speed of player 17 (Alberth Elis).
ATTACK ANALYSIS • When attacking, Honduras would use a 1-4-1-2-3
formation when it played using two central midfielders. When the team used 3, it would use a 1-4-3-1-2 formation, sending only one winger to the attack, who was joined by a midfielder and they both joined 17 (Elis) who was playing as striker. • Using this formation, the team sought to have good
build-up plays. They did not use this often but when they did they were effective. • In the attack, they used build-up plays from the back
DEFENSE ANALYSIS • They used a 1-4-2-3-1 defensive formation with good
with the ball always on the ground, and the defensive wingers and central midfielders would receive the ball from the goalkeeper who always tried to play using ground passes.
behavior, relief and pressure on the player with the ball; the central midfielders offered good support and coverage. They changed from a line of 4 defenders to a line of 5 during the last minutes to close the match in all three matches. • When they lost ball possession they would press
immediately using the player who was closest to the ball. The team had good defensive closing of spaces and duels by the wingers. The defensive midfielders were well positioned and aggressive to regain ball possession. • Players were strong and fast on one-on-ones,
particularly the wingers. • They were aggressive and could read the game well to
use anticipation plays.
84
• The team kept good distance between the lines and
a compact block in the 35 - 40 meters; they tried to gain ball possession and apply pressure on the rivals in the midfield, and had good organization and communication to maintain the defensive block. • The team had good discipline to rapidly transition from
attack to defense.
85
• The team had two defensive midfielders that alternated
running forward, and with good mobility would always travel to find the box-to-box midfielder 10 (Salas), who had good soccer and collaborated with all of his teammates. • The center forward had good ability holding on to the
ball and passing when necessary. When they used long passing they would engage player 17, who is fast and would travel using the left side to attack. • Most plays started in the midfield with passes between
midfielders 6 (Acosta) and 10 (Salas). • They attacked mainly on the right, opening the field and
trying to go deep. When they used the left side of the field they would try to use diagonal crosses since they had no players with that profile. • The team didn’t have many pre-established plays with
set piece. Players 10 and 9 would form short and fast walls to break into the rival’s defense. Player 17 (Elis), who played as striker and was always alone, was the team’s most dangerous and effective player during the tournament.
HONDURAS’ OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART
TACTICAL • If the team plays more matches and does more
repetitions they will improve the movements and coordination, particularly with the line of 3 central midfielders where they still have not mastered it as well as when they play with 4 defenders.
GOALS SCORED:
6
GOALS ALLOWED:
4
GOAL DIFFERENCE:
2
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:
49.02
DEFENSE • The team needs to be more careful with fouls,
particularly in the last 25 meters.
NAME
POSITION
TP
GS
TYC TRC TPM
TS
O
RK
GA
DD
ATTACK
1
Luis Lopez
Goalkeeper
270
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
88.0
• The team should work on being more effective with
18
Harold Fonseca
Goalkeeper
180
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
27.0
12
Roberto Lopez
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
4
2
Jhonatan Paz
Defender
450
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
75.0
KEY
3
Marcelo Pereira
Defender
360
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
85.0
5
Allans Vargas
Defender
194
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1.6
7
Jose Barralaga
Defender
180
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
25.0
16
Elder Torres
Defender
270
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
30.0
4
Klifox Bernardez
Defender
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
15
Kevin Alvarez
Defender
270
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
42.0
6
Bryan Acosta
Midfielder
360
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
75.0
8
Rodolfo Espinal
Midfielder
304
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.8
14
Joshua Nieto
Midfielder
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.6
13
Darwin Espinal
Midfielder
142
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
15.8
10
Oscar Salas
Midfielder
360
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
99.0
20
Jhow Benavidez
Midfielder
304
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
48.8
17
Alberth Elis
Forward
447
4
2
0
2
0
5
1
221.7
9
Antony Lozano
Forward
233
2
0
0
1
0
3
0
135.9
11
Allan Banegas
Forward
304
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
23.8
19
Kevin Lopez
Forward
156
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
4.3
mid and long-range shots on goal with moving ball. PSYCHOLOGICAL • The team was highly combative but this would turn into
aggressiveness and they had some red cards due to this, which affected the team as a whole.
THINGS TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL • The goalkeepers need to continue to improve
distribution of the ball since when they tried to go out playing the attack started. • The team needs to work on passing the moving ball to
gain better possession and effectiveness in passing.
FW
HW
CE
SC
12
10
12
9
8
7
9
8
TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed
OUTSTANDING PLAYERS
86
DD Direction in Defense
NAME
POSITION
DESCRIPTION
17
Alberth Elis
Striker
Fast, agile, good on one-on-ones, scorer. Good in aerial play.
10
Oscar Salas
Box to Box midfielder
Agile, very technical, intelligent. Has good mobility and good personality to ask for the ball.
6
Bryan Acosta
Defensive midfielder
Disciplined, good at regaining ball possession, good ball distribution. Leader.
2
Jhonatan Paz
Center back
Very tactical, strong in the mark, good ball distribution, good in aerial play.
9
Anthony Lozano
Forward
Good technique and ball handling skills, good working with teammates and holding on to the ball, scorer.
FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits
87
TOTAL
5005
6
8
2
3
7
25
5
COACH:
RAÚL GUTIÉRREZ MEXICO
in the same venue, was Mexico 1- 0 Haiti; the last match of Group B took place in (Colorado)and ended with a score of Mexico 2-1 Honduras. Mexico obtained the first place of Group B, which sent them to play against the second place of Group A in Salt Lake City (Utah) for a direct spot in the Olympic Games that will take place in Rio de Janeiro in 2016. The score was Mexico 2-0 Canada. The Final was Mexico (2) against Honduras (0), which confirmed Mexico as the champions of CONCACAF’s Men’s Olympic Qualifying event, after having won the five matches they played and having conceded only one goal in the tournament. From beginning to end, Mexico was the best team among all participating teams, winning the 5 matches it played.
Mexico
The players displayed better individual technique than all other teams and the collective technique was evidently superior. Even though the team had a mix of players with different ages, styles, tactics and orders, it was a solid team in all the matches played. Mexico is the favorite in every one of CONCACAF’s tournaments in which it participates. That is why it is always the rival to beat and the most respected team in all of this Confederation’s tournaments. The team qualified directly, but used as preparation the Pan-American games in Toronto, the Central American Tournament of Veracruz and the U-20 FIFA World Cup in New Zealand.
Mexico scored 11 goals in 5 matches and only conceded 1 goal. It had better ball possession in the field than all of its rivals; it had control in passing, attacked using all the areas, and was superior in shots on goal. The players and the coaching staff displayed great maturity in accepting the responsibility of being the favorite team, and ratified why they are considered as favorites in the pitch.
These tournaments helped to select the roster, which was affected by the dates of this Olympic Qualifying, since they did not correspond to FIFA dates and some of the key players were not loaned for the event by the soccer clubs they play for. Despite this issue, the coaching staff was able to put together a roster with a mix of players born in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and even some born in 1997, such as Erik Aguirre.
88
Mexico’s average age was 21.05 and it was part of Group B, together with Costa Rica, Haiti and Honduras. Group B played its first matches in Los Angeles (California); the first match ended Mexico 4-0 Costa Rica; the second match, which took place
89
1- 4-4-2
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
TACTICAL ANALYSIS
ATTACK ANALYSIS
• Mexico had superior individual and collective technique
• When Mexico was defending, it used a basic formation
• Mexico used a 1-4-2-4 formation, but as the matches
than all the teams participating in this Olympic Qualifying. They had constant good quality in short passing and ball control, starting with the goalkeeper, who managed and distributed the ball from his area with good criteria, ideas and technique. • Individually, 17 (Lozano) was the most dangerous player
on one-on-ones in the tournament, playing either on the right or on the left. • In short passing, and due to the opponent’s apparent
willingness to give them space and the ball from the start of the match, they had an 80% higher effectiveness and ball possession than the other team in all the matches they played. • Mexico was also superior in mid and long-range shots
on goal than the other teams, not because they tried more, but because they were very effective in scoring. • Thanks to their good technical level, Mexico was the
only team that attacked as a compact block using combination plays and displaying excellent game relationships between the strikers and the rest of the team.
PHYSICAL ANALYSIS
• The team made no variations to its tactical strategy
despite the score in the matches, and always kept good organization and order. The team had good functioning and organization in all of its lines, with good mobility, rotation and high game rhythm. • The goalkeeper started by distributing the ball to
the wingers, who passed the midfield with good ball possession using the width and the depth of the field. The midfielders distributed the ball by always connecting the two defensive wingers that created plays and possession in the rival’s pitch, and looking for the wingers’ support, who would move forward in an alternate manner. • They always tried to build-up plays compactly in the
attack with 4 and 5 players, and pressured quickly after losing ball possession.
DEFENSE ANALYSIS
passed it transitioned into a 1-4-1-1-4 for the attack, leaving only a central midfielder; in other matches it varied the basic formation, even using a 1-2-4-4 tactical formation given that its opponents would go back to wait for them in their own pitch, allowing the Mexican wingers to move up to the central midfielders and the strikers to move up to the attacking midfielders. • The team constantly used 2 center forwards that would
alternate to receive and attack using the sides with the support of the strikers, who were fast using the wings with outruns, crosses and strong one-on-ones. • Central midfielders had good ball possession and good
skills to reach the attacking third. They displayed good individual technique and mid-range shots on goal. • The attack always started with the goalkeeper, who
organized the plays with passes to and among the defenders, particularly the center backs, who were supported by the central midfielders. They distributed the game on the left and right using the wingers alternately, and the forwards would place themselves as strikers, always seeking to outrun and reach the borders to cross or do a diagonal pass towards the
• They had few set piece plays, but player 8 (Alvarez)
was an expert at this and he scored a goal in a direct free kick and hit the upper goal post in another shot. • They had few short corner kicks where they had the
rival defenders leave the goal area and leveraged this to shoot from the center. TECHNICAL DIRECTION • Good collective direction that showed excellent
team control and management. The correct variants introduced in order to incorporate changes during the right moments of the match demonstrated that the game was being accurately read. • The team had good organization in warm-up. • Mexico has done good development work with youth
categories that should be studied by CONCACAF.
• Mexico defended with a 1-4- 4-2 basic formation, with
• The players had very good physical features for each
of the positions they played; they also had good rhythm and stamina for the 90 minutes of all matches played. • They had excellent focus during all of the matches
and exhibited great communication skills between the players, in addition to a positive attitude to solve all problems and challenges presented by the rival teams. • They remained calm when they conceded the goal
in the match against Honduras, and didn’t get disorganized at any moment.
MATCH
1
2
3
4
5
Team
CRC
Haiti
HON
CAN
HON
Actual Playing Time
49.16
51.57
52.02
54.56
54.31
2 central midfielders and 2 midfield wingers in addition to 2 center backs; it had a good defensive organization in the last 35 meters and sometimes used a 1-4-4-1-1 formation for the defense, in order to have an attacker close to the midfielders line when ball possession was regained. • The team had fast attack-defense transition plays and
vice versa, and they had good pressing when they lost the ball. • It was the most solid team in the defense, always being
compact and organized, with good communication among players, good coverage and marking, and good one-on-ones.
MEXICO’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATC:
90
of 1-4-4-2, which transitioned into 1-4-1-1-4 for the attack, and could end up in a 1-2-4-4, since some rivals would go back so much into their own zone that they would allow Mexico to bring its strikers into their area.
center, where two center attacking midfielders would combine in a wall running or supporting each other to break the defense with fast walls and short or midrange shots on goal.
TOTAL AVERAGE
52.32
• Players did a good job at reading the game in the
defense, with adequate anticipations, and although they didn’t have to struggle much, they displayed good aerial plays. • Mexico aggressively applied pressure in the attacking
third, but if necessary it would go back to the penalty area to form a block with 8 players in front of its goal.
91
MEXICO’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART
THINGS TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL AND TACTICAL • The team needs to continue improving each day since
they have to face tough competition and this will help them in that aspect.
GOALS SCORED:
DEFENSE
11
NAME
GOALS ALLOWED:
1
GOAL DIFFERENCE:
POSITION
TP
GS
TYC TRC TPM
10
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:
52.32
TS
O
RK
GA
DD
FW
HW
CE
SC
1
20
21
22
21
• The Mexican players that play as central midfielders
are not fast by nature, and therefore they are sporadically exposed when they have to face fast the forward. Learning to read the game, anticipating and working on the tactical aspect helps them overcome this issue.
1
Gibran Lajud
Goalkeeper
450
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
184.0
12
Luis Cardenas
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
20
Raul Gudiño
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
ATTACK
2
Josecarlos Van Rankin
Defender
226
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25.1
• The 2 main center forwards had great level, but the
3
Hedgardo Marin
Defender
105
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
11.7
4
Carlos Salcedo CAP
Defender
345
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
48.3
5
Rodolfo Pizarro
Defender
450
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
65.0
6
Erick Gutierrez
Midfielder
280
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
61.1
7
Alfonso Gonzalez
Midfielder
174
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
26.3
8
Raul Lopez
Midfielder
326
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
91.2
9
Erick Torres
Forward
339
3
0
0
1
0
3
0
167.7
10
Victor Guzman
Forward
450
1
1
0
1
0
5
1
167.0
11
Marco Bueno
Forward
450
2
0
0
1
0
3
0
140.0
13
Luis Lopez
Defender
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
14
Jordan Silva
Defender
450
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
65.0
15
Erick Aguirre
Defender
387
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
58.0
16
Daniel Alvarez
Forward
119
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
20.2
17
Hirving Lozano
Forward
322
1
0
0
2
1
5
2
194.8
18
Alfonso Tamay
Forward
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
19
Luis Loroña
Midfielder
98
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
10.9
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
40.0
replacement center forward who played in some matches did not show the same level and was not able to create competition amongst them and maintain a higher level. .
OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME
17
10
9
Hirving Lozano
Victor Guzman
Erik Torres
POSITION
DESCRIPTION
Striker
Dangerous in the attack, always looking for oneon-ones, skillful and technical. Good with crosses with the right foot, good kicking technique, he likes to score.
Midfielder
Strong in the mark, good skills to regain ball possession, good distribution and possession. Good kicking technique. Disciplined and intelligent in his movements.
Midfielder
Agile, good technique, strong on one-on-ones. Good mobility, good association with teammates and good handling the ball. Dangerous and effective in the goal area. Scorer.
Defensive midfielder
Good at regaining possession of the ball, creator of plays. Good size, good communication, good distribution of the ball with this feet. Very good build-up plays in crosses and good technique in front of goal.
92 1
Gibran Lajud
KEY TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits
Autogol
93
TOTAL
4980
11
3
0
5
5
28
5
COACH:
LEONARDO PIPINO ARGENTINA
In addition to their training, they did two tours to play friendly matches in Mexico at the Centro de Alto Rendimiento CAR against the Mexican National Team, and in Pachuca, against one of the affiliates of this renowed club. They travelled to Honduras to play against the Honduran U-22 team and against the reserve team of the Motagua Club, and obtained the following results: Panama o – 5 Mexico Panama 1 - 0 Pachuca Affiliate Panama 1 – 0 Honduras Panama 3 – 0 Motagua Reserves
Panama
The Head Coach, Leonardo Pipino, considers that the preparation was acceptable, that the country’s best players are part of the team and they all play in first division teams of the Panamanian league. Of the two of the players who play in Spain, only one had authorization from the club to participate in this tournament. Panama, representative of the Central American zone UNCAF, qualified for CONCACAF’s Olympic Qualifiers by winning the quadrangular tournament that was held in Panama on August 11-15th of 2015, where it played against El Salvador, Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and achieved the following results: Panama 0 – 0 Costa Rica Panama 3 – 0 Nicaragua
In the Olympic Qualifying tournament, Panama, USA, Canada and Cuba, formed Group A, which had Kansas City as initial venue and concluded their participation in Denver, Colorado. The numbers obtained by Panama in this phase were not favorable to be able to close the Olympic cycle in a process that started with kids born in 1993-1995 and even in 1996 and 1997. The Panamanian team obtained the following results:
Panama 3 – 2 El Salvador
In the qualifiers it accumulated 6 points, scored 6 goals and conceded 2, obtaining the first place in the competition.
94
After qualifying, Panama’s preparation consisted of 7 micro-cycles with the purpose of consolidating the team. Given that the competition was internal, they experienced many issues with preparation during workdays. This National Team is mainly comprised by youths born between 1995 and 1996.
95
1- 4-5-1
Panama 1 – 1 Cuba Panama 1 – 3 Canada Panama 0 – 4 USA
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
DEFENSE ANALYSIS
• Panamanian players are strong, fast and have the
• The first line of defense was made up by 4 defenders
required size for the positions they play. • They had the stamina to maintain a high intensity level
when the match required it.
The team did not display the necessary balance in the defensive phase and conceded 8 goals. In the attack, they lacked forcefulness despite the amount of ball possession they had, and were only able to score 2 goals in their 3 matches, obtaining one point thanks to the draw against Cuba. The team’s average age is 20 years and 3 months. This National Team is formed by players who are well-built, have good individual technique, understand their game model concept well but who are strong tempered, an aspect that generated expulsions that made it difficult for the team to obtain better results. The team was deficient in this tournament in their functions and effectiveness, something that is unusual since traditionally the Panamanian teams are known for not conceding goals.
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Panamanian players generally had good individual
technique that translated into an acceptable collective technique. • This technical level allowed them to manage a
structure of short passes and to surprise with long passing in all zones of the pitch. • They were deficient in mid-range shots on goal; they
had an average of 22 shots on goal in the 3 matches that lacked quality. They exhibited their best technical level when they organized the attacks using the wings, with well-executed crosses that were poorly finished near the opponent’s goal. • Midfielders and forwards proved to be skillful on
96
one-on-ones and under pressure from the opponent. They used triangulations that enabled them to use combination plays and maintain ball possession when under pressure from the opponent team.
• Their game philosophy was to have ball possession in
a compact structure between the lines. When they lost the ball they displayed great physique to pressure and regain possession. The team had drive and fighting spirit. They were very strong on one-on-ones.
PANAMA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH: MATCH
1
2
3
Team
CUB
CAN
USA
Actual Playing Time
52.47
57.45
45.10
TOTAL AVERAGE
52.07
TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Their basic formation system was characterized by
a 1-4-3-3 base distribution with variants depending on the match’s needs. Near the goal they would use a 1-3-3-4 formation and in the defending third, the block would use a 1-4-5-1 basic formation. • Whenever the score was against them, they tried to
and in front of it, 1 or 2 central midfielders, who would form a block in the defensive third when the whole team did not have time to regroup. The defensive wingers provided a lot of support for the attack, but this would debilitate the team in the defensive aspect. • The defensive strategy was to take over the midfield
and have the whole team form a compact block, to turn it into a defensive pressure area. • The defensive concepts of pressing, coverage and
balance during marking were not well applied by the lines or collectively during the matches.
• The defensive line of 4 was dynamic and provided
support during attack to the midfield, progressing to the attacking third. They played more on the attack and forgot about defending, therefore conceding 8 goals in 3 matches.
ATTACK ANALYSIS • The basic formation used was 1-4-3-3 for the attack
that players moving to the midfield or from the line of 4 defenders changed, using the width and depth of the pitch, to a 1-3-3-4 variant. This was done with skill and speed, mainly from its strikers using the wings. • The team’s style was organized attack; they rarely
• The team was aggressive on one-on-ones but due to
used long and direct attacks, but when they did these were effective.
their desire to attack, they lost focus and conceded 8 goals.
• The team played using the wings, with skillful players
• The defenders were effective in aerial play. They
collaborated in set piece tactics in corner kicks and lateral free kicks to attack, leveraging their good aerial skills. • They knew how to respond to defensive problems
during the match. In the defensive aspect they sought to get organized in the midfield and applied intensive marking, and when they lost ball possession they applied pressing by zones.
such as 9 Abdiel Arroyo on the right and 11 Edgar Barcenas on the left. With the support of the defensive winger or the midfielder they always won on the wings. • The quality of the mid and long-range shots on goal
was deficient. They had 22 shots on goal from mid and long-range that had no positive yields. • Panama had players with great quality in the
attack. The red cards affected the team´s collective functioning.
have initiative and form a compact block in the rival’s area, even if they were numerically inferior due to the expulsion of a player. • The team’s organization within the system they
adopted was compact, with mobility and good rhythm. • When they had ball possession, they always tried to
build plays from the back, playing to move forward in the different zones of the pitch with direction changes to win the wings or seeking penetration through the center of the field. • In terms of their organization in the midfield, they
always had support from the defensive wingers. The progression of the defensive wingers towards the rival’s pitch allowed them to gain width in their game and become numerically superior when coming from the midfield. • They reached the opponent’s goal many times but
lacked clarity to score on shots on goal. • ontundencia para finalizar las jugadas en tiros a gol.
97
• Given that the team was beating on ball possession,
it was consistent in the way it acted in the different zones of the pitch, applying assists, triangulations and blocks, and the crosses from the wings always had a target. However, they lacked effectiveness in the shots on goal with a moving ball. • Panama lacked effectiveness and forcefulness in the
goal area. • They lacked preparation in their tactics for corner
kicks. • The team as a whole had great stamina for the attack,
but they made many technical mistakes in shots on goal and goal opportunities.
PANAMA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART
DEFENSE • The team has to work on being collaborative when
regaining ball possession. • They need to work on attack-defense transition plays. • Panama needs to focus on their defensive
GOALS SCORED:
2
GOALS ALLOWED:
8
GOAL DIFFERENCE:
-6
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:
NAME
ATTACK • The team must be more effective and forceful on shots
POSITION
TP
GS
TYC TRC TPM
TS
O
RK
GA
PHYSICAL
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
-10.0
1
Elieser Powell
Goalkeeper
180
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-14.0
3
2
2
3
3
20
Orlando Mosquera
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
5
4
4
4
4
2
Chin Hormechea
Defender
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
KEY
Kevin Galvan
Defender
270
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
35.0
• The team needs to improve ball circulation based on
• The players need to have self-control in personal
4
Michael Murillo
Defender
270
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
27.0
5
Pedro Jeanine Cap
Midfielder
171
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
19.0
6
Fidel Escobar
Defender
168
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
-1.3
7
Jesus Gonzalez
Midfielder
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.1
8
Jhamal Rodriguez
Midfielder
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.1
9
Abdiel Arroyo
Forward
184
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
47.4
10
Miguel Camargo
Midfielder
191
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
66.2
11
Edgar Barcenas
Midfielder
240
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
76.7
13
Jesus Araya
Defender
90
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0.0
14
Roberto Chen
Defender
254
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
58.2
15
Francisco Narbon
Midfielder
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.0
16
Justin Simons
Midfielder
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.3
17
Carlos Small
Forward
123
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
8.7
18
Josiel Nunez
Forward
208
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
58.1
19
Jorman Aguilar
Forward
176
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
19.6
contact situations. • They need to work on being highly mental.
TEAM DIRECTION • The team should learn to handle their psychological
aspect better when they compete. • They need to rely more on their game philosophy.
TACTICAL
SC
90
3
on shots on goal, mainly when moving.
CE
Goalkeeper
PSYCHOLOGICAL
• They need to improve their technique and effectiveness
HW
Jaime De Gracia
TECHNICAL
result after each match is negative.
third and to increase passing.
FW
12
THINGS TO IMPROVE
• They need to be efficient and powerful in the attacking
DD
on goal in the opponent’s attacking third.
• The players all have excellent stamina but the end
mobility and passing on the first touch, looking to create spaces for shots on goal.
52.07
effectiveness and analyzing the problems they had that led to conceding 8 goals in the 3 matches.
• Panama needs to work intensely on the game model
based on the match´s 4 stages.
TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense
OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME 10
98
Miguel Camargo
FW Footwork
POSITION Defensive midfielder
DESCRIPTION Organizer, skillful and technical.
11
Edgard Barcenas
Midfielder
Dangerous in the attack, fast.
9
Abdiel Arroyo
Midfielder
Agile, good technique, strong on one-on-ones.
18
Josiel Nuñez
Defensive midfielder
Good regaining possession of the ball, creator of plays.
14
Roberto Chen
Center back
Good with marking, technical.
HW Hand Work CE Center Exits
99
TOTAL
2827
2
4
2
0
7
12
2
COACH:
ANDREAS HERZOG AUSTRIA
only one player, 9 Jordan Morris, from Stanford University (USA), is not a professional soccer player. During CONCACAF´s Olympic Qualifying to Brazil 2016, which took place initially in Kansas City and finished in Denver, Colorado, the USA was first in its Group A, having won all matches with the following scores: USA 3 – 1 Canada USA 6 – 1 Cuba USA 4 – 0 Panama The team also qualified during the first phase as the team with most goals scored, with 13 goals in favor.
USA
USA’s average age is 20 years and 7 months, being one of the national teams that has done an important process with its talented players.
The United States, Mexico and Canada represent the Northern Zone of CONCACAF, so they directly qualify to the Olympic Qualifying. USA was part of Group A, together with Panama, Canada and Cuba. This National Team feeds from the U-20 team that played the World Cup in Turkey in 2013 and the U-20 team that played in New Zealand in 2015. This group of players also participated in the Toulon, France, Championship in June of 2015, where they obtained third place after defeating England 2-1.
During the Semifinals phase, the USA faced Honduras, second of Group B, and lost by a score of 2-0 in the Tournament’s most important match, since it would have given the team its ticket to the Olympic Games Brazil 2016. In the match for third place, USA did a better job in comparison to its previous match and won against Canada 2-0, after having played a superior game during the whole 90 minutes.
In the month of August, they had a training camp for 10 days to incorporate the new recruits, and in September before the Tournament, they held a second training camp in England where they played two preparation matches, and obtained the following results:
100
USA 1 – 0 England
101
USA 2 – 0 Qatar The Head Coach, Andreas Herzog, believes that he has the best players for the Olympics, but also said that this team could be better, since 5 players who currently play in Europe could not attend the event. From the team´s roster,
1-4-3-1-2
These were USA’s final statistics: 5 matches played, of which it won 4 with 15 goals in favor and 4 against. It obtained third place, which allowed it to play a match against Colombia in order to win a spot for the upcoming Olympic Games. 5 juegos jugados de estos 4 victorias y una derrota con 15 goles a favor y 4 en contra alcanzando finalmente la tercera posición del torneo lo que les permitió a ir al repechaje frente a Colombia para ganar un cupo a los próximos juegos olímpicos.
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The players had very good individual technique
with passes in short and long distances, good ball circulation, and were able to turn this into good collective technique. • They were well positioned in the field both in depth
and in width, which allowed them to have good ball circulation in the midfield by using triangulations and long deep passing. • They had effective mid-range shots on goal and shots
with moving ball during the Group phase with 13 goals in favor. • The team had skillful players in the attack, who were
strong on one-on-ones: Gboly Ariyibi 20, who is skillful using the wings, and 11 Alonso Hernandez, among others. • The players were very effective in aerial play in
defense and they were a model to follow for set piece plays, since they were very dangerous when they leveraged goal opportunities
PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • The players were strong, well-built and fast. • They had good stamina and were able to maintain a
102
high pace in the match, showing a lot of dynamic. The way they positioned themselves in the field allowed them to have a compact game between the lines during different times of the match, for attack, defense and transitions, which also allowed them to maintain good physical fitness for the duration of the game. • When the score was not favorable to them, the players
showed the capacity to keep constant pressure on the
DEFENSE ANALYSIS
opponent. • The USA had players who had explosive runs in the
attacking positions.
USA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH:
PARTIDO
1
2
3
4
5
Equipo
CAN
CUB
PAN
HON
CAN
Actual Playing Time
54.06
57.50
45.10
46.16
52.18
TOTAL PROMEDIO
51.00
TACTICAL ANALYSIS • The basic formation system used was 1-4-3-1-2,
which meant that they were playing with 4 players in the midfield in a diamond shape, being 10 Luis Gil the point of reference since he has a lot of mobility and connects from the back the two strikers; on the defensive line, the line of 4 players was supported by central midfielder 6 Will Trapp when the team could not organize the block in the defensive third. The line of 4 defenders was always disciplined and followed the tactical orders, and supported the second line of 4 or 5 players who compacted the block. • In front of the opponent’s goal, the structure changed
• The defensive formation system used was a line of 4
in the back supported by a central midfielder as pivot - 6 Will Trapp, who is a player with great presence in the midfield. They constantly used a variation with the support of player 13 Matthew Polster and 8 Emerson Hyndman, who would join the defensive block. • The defensive organization of the team was usually in
the midfield. A compact team would apply pressure on the player with ball possession; the rest of the time they would be doing coverage and balance in the zone. After losing ball possession, the team would apply pressure in the area where the ball was lost to give their defense time to organize. • The team’s defensive organization and focus allowed
them to quickly respond to defensive problems, intercepting and anticipating what the opponent would do. • They had problems with one-on-ones in the defensive
third with players who had good dribbling skills. • The first defensive line of 4 defenders was very
dynamic, providing support by the center or the wings to the midfielders when they were attacking. • The players were very effective in aerial plays in
any defensive situation. In the attack, they provided support during the whole match by applying a
stationary tactic very successfully. • The USA had a very compact game between its
defensive and attacking lines. They know well how to close down spaces in the defense and open them in the attack. • They are used to playing by having players from the
defensive lines move up to provide support to plays from the back with ball control.
ATTACK ANALYSIS • The USA’s game philosophy was to have long direct
plays from the back for the attack. The majority of their offensive plays were by bidding on changes in direction or penetration passes. • The team would organize in the rival’s pitch with the
incorporation of the defensive wingers and 2 center backs, 4 midfielders and 4 forwards in the attack with a 1-2-4-4 formation. • The two strikers had good quality in big spaces. When
the rival reduced their spaces, their potential was reduced. • When the team restarted the game from behind, they
would use one of two possibilities: long goal kick seeking to reach its strikers, or playing from behind,
to 1-4-4-1-1. The team tried to always be compact between its lines. • The team’s functioning and its organization had its
ups and downs. During the first three matches the team was sound, but during Semifinals they lacked precision, losing their order and focus, and losing the good soccer displayed in the first phase in terms of mobility and rotation in the match against Honduras. • The team always used the midfield to regroup and form
a defensive block. Their soccer was practical, based on ball possession in the midfield and on long passes to its two center forwards, 9 Jordan Morris and 17 Jerome Kiesewetter. • In the midfield, the organization was lead by 10 Luis
Gil, with the support of the two defensive wingers who would provide security for ball circulation. • The team lacked forcefulness in the attacking third in
the last matches.
103
from the defensive area, with controlled ball, securing ball possession in the midfield and looking for spaces to place the team’s forwards in a position for shots on goal. • The organization of the counter-attacking plays were
planned during the defense-attack transition plays. • The team had a low volume of mid and long-range
shots on goal compared to the number of attacks using the wings, since 80% of the goals were started on this zone with well-directed crosses and intelligent closing of spaces that the forwards used for anticipating plays against the defenders in the area. • They had problems attacking through the center due
to the closing of spaces by the rival team’s block, and lacked technical imagination to surprise the opponent using ball touches with walls, feints and dribbles. • Although they lacked precision in pre-elaborate plays
during corner kicks and free kicks, it was always evident that they had done planning for their execution.
THINGS TO IMPROVE:
• The team needs to work on the conscious application
of the game model based on the characteristics of the players. • They need to have better control of the attack-defense
transitions at higher speeds.
• They need to have more control of passing in reduced
spaces when they are under pressure from the opponent. • They need to improve ball circulation with precise
passing at greater speeds.
GOALS SCORED:
NAME
• The USA needs to have better organization in the line of
4 defenders at the start of the match.
GOALS ALLOWED:
4
GOAL DIFFERENCE:
11
ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:
51.00
POSITION
TP
GS
TYC TRC TPM
TS
O
RK
GA
DD
FW
HW
CE
SC
4
9
9
9
9
6
6
6
6
1
ZACK STEFFEN
Goalkeeper
270
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
56.0
12
ETHAN HORVATH
Goalkeeper
180
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
44.0
18
CHARLIE HORTON
Goalkeeper
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
ATTACK.
2
ERIC MILLER
Defender
235
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
16.1
• The team needs to have more creativity in the attacking
3
MATT MIAZGA
Defender
360
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
75.0
4
CAMERON CARTER-VICKERS
Defender
450
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
130.0
TP Total Playing Time by Player
5
WILL PACKWOOD
Defender
90
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
10.0
GS Goals Scored
6
WIL TRAPP CAP
Midfielder
360
0
2
0
0
0
4
1
87.0
TYC Total Yellow Cards
7
DILLON SERNA
Defender
343
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38.1
TRC Total Red Car
PSYCHOLOGICAL
8
EMERSON HYNDMAN
Midfielder
288
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
107.0
TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match
• They should focus on improving their competitive
9
JORDAN MORRIS
Forward
377
3
0
0
1
0
3
1
158.9
10
LUIS GIL
Midfielder
295
2
0
0
1
1
2
1
134.8
11
ALONSO HERNANDEZ
Forward
197
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
71.9
13
MATT POLSTER
Defender
389
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
30.2
14
FATAI ALASHE
Midfielder
207
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
13.0
15
MARC PELOSI
Midfielder
217
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
91.1
16
GEDION ZELALEM
Midfielder
103
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.4
17
JEROME KIESEWETTER
Forward
371
4
1
0
0
0
4
2
165.2
19
MAKI TALL
Forward
84
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
16.3
20
GBOLY ARIYIBI
Midfielder
173
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
41.2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
20.0
• They need to work on pressuring the rival with the ball,
on their coverage and on how the defensive balance is executed. Also, they need to prevail on the one-onones in defense.
third. They need to improve the effectiveness of combinations in that area. . PHYSICAL • The team should work on defense-attack transition
mentality. TEAM DIRECTION • The team needs to analyze if the players’
characteristics adjust to the game style that they want to develop.
OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME
POSITION
DESCRIPTION
10
Luis Gil
Midfielder
Good mobility, intelligent.
4
Cameron Carter
Defender
Strong in the mark, gives all in the game, leader.
6
Will Trapp
Midfielder
Agile, dynamic and good technique.
17
Jerome Kiesewetter
Forward
Scorer, strong, fast.
11
Alonso Hernandez
Forward
Technical and with good mobility.
Autogol
104
15
DEFENSE .
plays from the midfield to the box.
TECHNICAL
USA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART
TACTICAL.
KEY
TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits
105
TOTAL
4989
15
7
0
4
8
26
9
CONCLUSIONS • In general, the different national teams had a similar competitive level, but Mexico had an outstanding level due to their game and the results they obtained. • The event was well organized; the venues for the matches and trainings were first class at all the locations. • There was not much participation from the public in the different stadiums. It is worthwhile analyzing the reasons for low attendance.
• This tournament was an offensive event; goals were scored in all matches and out of the 16 matches played, only 3 ended up with a draw. 13 matches had a winner. This proves the highly competitive spirit and that the teams didn’t want to speculate with the results.
• The matches were adequately scheduled, enabling the players to have better performance.
• In general, most of the teams displayed deficiencies in the technical aspects on the attack.
• There was good participation of players that play for professional teams of countries with high levels. This helped raise the competitive level of the tournament.
• The goalkeepers had a good level, were well positioned, had good direction and mobility within the box and penalty areas and even outside of it, turning into sweepers due to their footwork and good passing.
• The referees had an acceptable performance, since no difficulties arose during the matches. • There were no players that were DIFFERENT in the attack, capable of standing out in the important matches and scoring due to their level. The only exceptions were players 17 Hirving Lozano from Mexico and 17 Alberth Elis from Honduras.
106
• In total, 160 players participated in this event; 71 of them had outstanding performances with their respective teams, and of these, 43 were assed and considered to be part of the 11 best players of the event to form the Dream Team.
• Players who play as central midfielders were outstanding due to their technical and competitive level, and they were the ones responsible for determining the score of their respective teams.
• The national team coaches and coaching staff were highly capable and did a good job of directing the teams. • In the exchanges between the coaches and the TSG, we found out that most of the teams had issues and irregularities in their preparation for the tournament. • Some of the causes of this were: the short time to properly prepare as a team; the issues with some clubs not wanting to allow the players to leave; and not having been able to play enough international matches to prepare for the tournament.
107
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Continue to develop this event in a more professional way in all aspects, since it is a direct source of players for the national teams of all the countries. • Do a profound analysis of the countries that may be considered as venues for this competition. An aspect that should be carefully taken into account is the public’s interest and the soccer tradition of the country, in order to be able to have full
108
attendance to the matches. It is important to enhance outreach. • Provide priority attention and support to each of the participating countries in their preparation for their participation in the final events of CONCACAF. • The countries that had the best youth developmental processes in place are those that had the best results.
109
MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL STUDY GROUP FOR THE 2015 MEN’S OLYMPIC QUALIFYING CHAMPIONSHIP.
From left to right: Luis Manuel Hernandez (Cuba), Oscar Benitez (El Salvador), Wilmer Cabrera (USA), Luis Hernandez Herez (Cuba), Etienne Siliee, Eduardo Rergis (Mexico). THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE WERE PART OF THE TECHNICAL STUDY GROUP:
THE TECHNICAL STUDY GROUP (TSG) PERFORMED THE FOLLOWING FUNCTIONS:
1. Luis Hernandez Herez (Cuba). Member of EXCO. Chair of the TSG 2. Oscar Benitez. El Salvador. Specialist. 3. Etienne Siliee. Curacao. Specialist. 4. Eduardo Rergis. Mexico. Specialist. 5. Wilmer Cabrera. USA. Specialist. 6. Luis Manuel Hernández. (Cuba), Coordinator of the TSG
• • • • • • • •
110
•
Wrote the technical and tactical analysis and the report for each match. Exchanged thoughts with coaches and watched trainings. Gathered match statics. Selected the Fair Play team for each match and for the Tournament. Selected the Best Player of the Match for each match and outstanding players per team. Selected the Goalkeeper of the Tournament. Selected the All-Star team. Prepared the Tournament’s preliminary and final reports. Analyzed the performance of all players who participated in the event. Did a final analysis of the technical, tactical and physical aspects of all teams participating in the Tournament.