CONCACAF Gold Cup 2015 Technical Report and Statistical Analysis by Concacaf

CONCACAF GOLD CUP 2015 TECHNICAL REPORT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

TECHNICAL REPORT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS GOLD CUP 2015

INDEX I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 II. GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT SOME KEY ASPECTS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 III. EAM BY TEAM ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

CANADA

COSTA RICA

CUBA

EL SALVADOR

GUATEMALA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

HAITI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

HONDURAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

JAMAICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

MEXICO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

PANAMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

USA

.........................................................................

.....................................................................

............................................................................

...................................................................

..............................................................................

IV. TEAM AND PLAYER AWARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

V. STATISTICS

...............................................................

A. M ATCH RESULTS (GROUP, QUARTERFINALS, SEMIFINALS AND FINAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

B. GROUP TEAM RANKING TABLE

C. OUTSTANDING PLAYERS BY MATCH

D. LIST OF TOP SCORERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

E. TEAM STATISTICS DURING THE TOURNAMENT

F. ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH

G. CHANGES IN LINE-UP BY TEAMS DURING MATCHES

H. MOST VALUABLE PLAYER BY TEAM AND IN THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG RANKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

I. MOST VALUABLE GOALKEEPER OF THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG RANKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

J. SUMMARY TABLE BY TEAM (CARDS, GOALS, CHANGES IN LINE-UP, OUTSTANDING PLAYERS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

K. WHEN WERE THE GOALS SCORED?

L. HOW THE GOALS WHERE SCORED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

M. WHO SCORED THE GOALS

N. WHERE THE GOALS WERE SCORED FROM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

O. TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE

P. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE AGE

VI. CONCLUSIONS

100

........................................... .......................................

104

..........................

.........................................

106 108

....................

........................................

.................................................

.............................................. ...........................................

........................................................

101

114

118

122 123

125

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Alfredo Hawit Banegas President

CONCACAF’s 2015 Gold Cup Championship, the Confederation’s elite biannual tournament, fully highlighted the immense talent and growth accrued within the region’s sport. The grandiose tournament highlighted the passion held by the twelve participating teams, as each nation created their unique path, in the attempt to lift the distinguished Gold Cup trophy. Averaging around 41,854 attendees per match, the Gold Cup visited 14 venues including the Met Life Stadium, the Georgia Dome and Philadelphia’s Lincoln Financial Field. Each location provided enthusiastic crowds, in addition to fast-paced matches, high-flying saves, beautiful volleys, and a vast number of goals. Participating CONCACAF teams Cuba, Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Trinidad & Tobago, and USA, showcased each nation’s unique football skills, making for an illustrious and prominent football championship. The competition concluded with “El Tri” outscoring a strong and agile Jamaican team 3-1, and lifting the priced CONCACAF Gold Cup for a record 7th time. Leading El Tri were Mexican standouts, Andres Guardado, who claimed the competition’s Golden Ball award, and Gold Cup’s Bright Future award winner, Jesus Corona. Furthermore, Jamaica’s top-notch appearances throughout the tournament earned the “Reggae Boys” CONCACAF’s Fair Play award. The Jamaican team fought its way into the final by defeating tough rivals including the US, Haiti, Canada, and El Salvador. The Reggae Boy’s innate ability, determination, mental strength, in addition to the team’s strive to succeed, led Jamaica to its first ever Gold Cup final. Moreover Haiti and Jamaica’s role within Gold Cup demonstrated the immense growth achieved by Caribbean football. Gold Cup’s Third Place Winner, Panama, proclaimed itself as an emerging force within CONCACAF. The Panamanian squad took the Confederation’s powerhouse, Mexico, to the brim and almost defeated El Tri in the tournament’s semifinal match. Panama further displayed its evolving skills as it overcame a strong U.S. side, 3-2 in penalty kicks, claiming the tournament’s bronze medal. We would also like to congratulate United States’ Striker Clint Dempsey and Goalkeeper Brad Guzan, for their elite performances during the tournament. Dempsey scored seven goals during the Gold Cup, earning him the All-State Golden Boot award. Guzan earned the All-State Golden Glove Award for his magnificent performance during the championship. On behalf of CONCACAF, we would like to express our gratitude to the 12 participating Member Associations, in addition to our partners, sponsors, officials, staff, fans, and volunteers. It is through our united efforts that we continue to develop our region’s football while delivering impressive and renowned tournaments.

Sincerely,

5 Alfredo Hawit Banegas President

INTRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION The United States of America was chosen as the main venue for the XIII edition of CONCACAF’s premier event, the Gold Cup 2015. The city of Toronto, Canada, served as an alternate venue, making this the North American edition of the event. The perspective of qualifying for the 2016 Centennial Copa America was an additional incentive for all of the teams, as well as the possible direct qualification for the USA team to FIFA´s Confederations Cup Russia 2017 if crowned champions of the Gold Cup. The Technical Directors of the 8 of the 12 participating teams had head coaches who were foreign, 5 of them from Europe and 3 from South America. The remaining 4 coaches were local. The suitable training facilities and the excellent stadiums constituted great stages for the matches, adding a higher logistic level to the tournament. Thirteen cities from across the U.S. and Toronto, Canada were the venues for the 3 groups formed by the 12 national teams that qualified to the event. GROUP A

USA, Haiti, Panama, Honduras. Venues for qualifying: Dallas, Boston, Kansas City. GROUP B

Jamaica, Costa Rica, Canada and El Salvador Venues for qualifying: Los Angeles, Houston, Toronto. GRUPO C

Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago, Cuba and Guatemala Venues for qualifying: Chicago, Phoenix, Charlotte

Baltimore and New York were chosen as the venues for the Quarterfinals. Atlanta hosted the Semifinals and the city of Philadelphia was selected as the venue for the match for third place and for the Final. There was massive stadium attendance by the fans at all the venues, hitting record numbers for some of the matches. The tournament´s total attendance reached record numbers in comparison to previous editions of the Gold Cup. The Tournament was characterized by overall good level and rivalry between the teams. Some controversial decisions by the referees created controversy in some of the games (Mexico vs. Costa Rica) (Mexico vs. Panama). Scorching temperatures and high humidity levels at some venues impacted the dynamic and intensity of some of the matches, but the players maintained their motivation and competitive spirit throughout the event. Overall, the three CONCACAF regions displayed similar competitive levels, highlighting the development work done by Federations that were previously seen as weak. The Caribbean teams had excellent performances, with four of their national teams qualifying for Quarterfinals and with one of them (Jamaica) playing in the Final in the dispute for first place. On the other hand, the fact that teams with more tradition such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala did not qualify to the second round of the Tournament raises concerns about their chances of qualifying for the World Cup. There were no “unique” players able to define the results of a match, become leaders or stand out from the rest of the pack. A fact worth mentioning is that of the 12 national teams, 11 (the exception being Cuba) have players who play in foreign soccer leagues, which increased the technical and competitive quality of the matches.

Mexico took home the Gold Cup after having reached it highest competitive level of the tournament in the Final game.

USA, one of the favorites, had many changes in line-up during the event. It wasnÂ´t able to qualify for the Final and had to settle for fourth place.

Jamaica was the great surprise of the tournament, making its way to the Final while displaying outstanding technical and tactical skills throughout the event, as well as good physical fitness.

The Gold Cup has proven once again that it is the regionÂ´s most important event, with thousands of fans inside and outside of the stadiums.

Panama took home the third place, showing that it has achieved competitive development within the region. Its mix of capable players and technical directors with great determination and competitive spirit, make us believe that this national team must be considered a strong candidate for qualification to the next World Cup.

GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT SOME KEY ASPECTS

II. GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT SOME KEY ASPECTS GENERAL TRENDS From the beginning of the tournament, the rivalry between the teams was evident, as well as better leveled playing field in comparison to past competitions; there were some players with higher technical skills and better game strategies among the different national teams. The participation of players who play in foreign soccer leagues in Europe, South America and North America contributed to a higher qualitative and competitive level. Teams such as Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Haiti had highly skilled players who increased overall competitiveness. The tournament was characterized by even results. Of the 26 matches played, 11 ended in draw and 9 were decided by a minimum goal difference. Only two matches had disproportionate final scores, both against Cuba: the first one was Mexico vs. Cuba, that ended with a final score of 6-0 and the other was USA vs. Cuba, which also ended 6-0. Final qualifying in the group phase was extremely difficult due to even competitive levels and narrow goal differences. All teams displayed more preparation and organization in the defense and mid-field.

Some aspects worth highlighting were the use of compact game and fast counter-attack transitions. Many of the teams had tall, strong, center backs with good technical skills.

One of the most significant tactical aspects of the tournament was the use by most teams of defensive midfielders who played as defenders and attackers, and acted as organizers, balancing out defense and attack transition plays. The national teams that had central midfielders and attacking midfielders had the highest technical levels and obtained the best results. Most teams experienced problems attacking, an aspect that gives the general impression that they need to focus on this tactical aspect. There were few attacking plays by the teams, as well as low effectiveness and power, resulting in low scores. Panama, Haiti, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago had good collective technical and individual development.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PLAYERS. Of the 267 players that participated in the 12 teams of this edition of the Gold Cup 2015 tournament, 134 play in foreign clubs. In the past years, the number of Caribbean players playing in Europe, South American and North America has increased substantially, aiding to the improvement of the competitive level in the region. One aspect worth mentioning is that 22 of HaitiÂ´s 23 players play in different confederations, and many of them play in premier European leagues such as those of France, Belgium and Germany. Likewise, Jamaica has 22 players playing abroad and Trinidad and Tobago has 14 players who play in foreign leagues. Cuba is the only team in which all players are debutants and only participate in their countryÂ´s local tournaments.

PLAYERS BY REGION: GROUP A USA

(9 Europe, 4 Mexico)

Haiti

Honduras

(4 Europe, 2 USA)

Panama

(3 USA, 4 South America, 2 UNCAF)

Costa Rica

(7 Europe, 3 USA)

El Salvador

(4 Europe, 3 USA, 2 UNCAF)

Canada

(8 Europe, 5 USA, 1 Asia, 1 Africa)

Jamaica

(10 Europe, 12 USA)

Mexico

(9 Europe)

Trinidad & Tobago

(8 Europe, 4 USA, 1 Asia, 1 UNCAF)

Cuba

Guatemala

(10 Europe, 7 USA, 4 Asia, 1 South America)

GROUP B

GROUP C

(2 Europe, 1 South America, 3 USA)

9 - Europa 6 44 - USA 4 - Mexico 6 - Asia 6 - South America 5 - Central America

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS There was generalized technical improvement, both on the collective as on the individual level by all teams. The teams had greater ball possession with slow build-up from the back and ball handling under pressure. Most teams were evenly balanced in the technical aspect. Players such as Andres Guardado and Jonathan Dos Santos, from Mexico, Rodolph Austin, from Jamaica, and Alberto Quintero, from Panama, had outstanding technical skills. All other players were average.

The teams applied their technical skills in different ways in the pitch; the Caribbean countries leveraged their physical strength and speed with long build-up from the back and quick defense and counter-attack transitions (Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago), as did Canada. Central America had good ball possession in the defensive and midfield areas (El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala).

Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama and USA were teams that attempted to overcome with direct play regardless of the pressure by the opponent, thanks to their great mobility and position rotation, and their high technical skills. Mexico was the team that had the most ball possession in the tournament. The goalkeepers also displayed excellent technical skills. They had good footwork, reaction times, covering of the near post and good defense. In addition, many of the keepers played outside of their areas, acting almost as defenders. Outstanding goalkeepers: Brad Guzan (USA), Johny Placide (Haiti) and Jaime Penedo (Panama). The technical skills and organization of the central midfields was of the upmost importance. These are the players responsible for maintaining ball possession, regaining ball possession when lost, organizing and building-up the game. The teams rarely used - and were not very effectiveon shots on goal from mid-range. The effectiveness using headers increased to a total of 13, an aspect that was rarely seen in previous editions.

TACTICAL ANALYSIS

ATTACK ANALYSIS

The majority of teams had systems that were very flexible, allowing them to achieve fast defense/ attack and counter-defense transitions.

Most teams had a center forward and an attacking midfielder or two between the midfielders and forwards that would constantly create plays that ended in goal opportunities.

Tactical grouping of players in the midfield to regain possession of the ball was commonly used. The most popular system among teams was the 1-4-4-2 and 1-5-4-1. All these systems had their variations on the attack and defense depending on the match´s characteristics and the opponent´s level. Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica and Guatemala alternated between 1-3-5-2 with 3 midfielders and 2 wingers as the defensive tactic, and quick attack transition phases. The Caribbean teams, Jamaica, Haiti, Cuba and Trinidad and Tobago used 1-4-4-2 or 1-4-5-1 and 2 central midfielders in their tactical defensive formation.

Forwards exhibited great mobility on the wings to create dangerous situations for the opponent. There were certain players that were fast, had a good level and were highly skilled. Most goals were the result of individual plays using the width, proving that this type of play was the most effective. 62 goals were scored in 26 matches, for an average of 2.38 goals per match. The use of wingers supporting the attack was a tactic constantly used by Mexico, Panama, Haiti, Jamaica, USA and Costa Rica.

All teams used the length of the pitch (wide range) with defensive wingers supporting the attack.

Mexico, Panama, Jamaica, USA, Costa Rica and Haiti were the teams with greatest possession of the ball and ball handling from the defensive line.

The teams displayed good tactics and elaborate plays in the use of throw-ins, and long and dangerous throws center-style into the opponent´s area.

Mexico and Panama were the 2 teams with most elaborate combinations on the attack. Most teams lacked effectiveness and impact on the attack.

Most teams used deep long ball passes from the defensive zone, particularly the Caribbean teams, due to their speed and physical strength, as they used it to gain further depth to attack. Mexico was the exception, using always combination plays, which were highly elaborate.

Of the Central American teams, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala were those with good ball handling skills and technique in reduced spaces, but lacked depth in attack.

Defensive play was commonly used, enabling fast transition from attack to defense, closing spaces in the midfield and defensive areas. Most of the defensive plays happened in the midfield, were teams rapidly gathered and had intense concentration of players in this zone.

Most teams lacked in long passing in direct plays and counter-attacks. Combination attacking plays were not very effective in the opponent´s zone. Individual play was most dangerous for the defenders in the opponent´s zone and the most effective way to score goals

DEFENSE ANALYSIS Most teams were better organized in the defense than in the attack. Every team had its own pattern within a rapid transition phase system. The best quality in the defensive line was that of central defenders with quick anticipating plays, good wing coverage and strong aerial play. All teams had all of its players performing some sort of defensive function and displaying strong physical commitment in their positions. Teams with outstanding organization were Mexico, Jamaica, Panama, Costa Rica and USA. Teams displayed overall organization of the defensive line in the midfield, with marking by zone and concentration of players in this area of the pitch, therefore closing down spaces, except for Mexico, that would occasionally pressure the opponent when ball possession was lost. There was greater tactical organization by most teams compared to past editions of the Gold Cup; Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Honduras, Panama and El Salvador were good examples of this.

PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS This was a tournament that required an overall strong physical fitness condition. Matches were played every 48 hours in different cities, teams had to take charter flights that werenÂ´t always on time; some flights were more than 2 hours long the day prior to a game, affecting the playersÂ´ ability to recuperate.

The event took place in the summer, which meant playing with scorching temperatures and high humidity. This took a physical and mental toll on the players. However, most teams had good physical fitness and were able to maintain good rhythm and stamina during the matches. Outstanding countries were Mexico, Panama, Jamaica and Haiti. The Panamanian team played 3 matches that lasted 120 minutes.

The Caribbean teams, except for Cuba, displayed great speed and physical strength (Jamaica, Haiti and Trinidad and Tobago).

WARM-UPS All teams had good warm-ups, with good distribution of the staff that made up the technical collectives in all areas. Teams followed different warm-up phases and used exercises that were appropriate for the activity that they were about to perform, did them in the correct time, and finalized with soccer specific exercises.

CHARACTERISTICS DISPLAYED BY COACHES

by midfielders. Of these goals, 6 were combination plays and centers from the flanks, 3 were corner kicks and 4 were set piece plays.

Most coaches dominated the systems and tactics developed by their teams, and did the right substitutions in the adequate moments.

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME

The teams with the best-defined tactics and most stable line-ups were Mexico, Panama, Jamaica and El Salvador.

The tournament´s general average was 50:06 minutes of actual playing time, out of the official 90 minutes.

USA was the team with the most changes in its line-up in a match, even changing the position of a player within the pitch.

Excess calling of fouls, yellow and red cards and protests against the referee’s decisions negatively impacted the dynamic and rhythm of the matches. This was the case of Panama’s matches. Panama vs. Honduras had the lowest actual playing time (36:22).

OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE GOALS A total of 62 goals were scored during the tournament, for an average of 2.38 goals per match. The highest number of goals was scored during the second half (30), and out of the 62 goals, 13 were scored between the 30th and the 45th minutes, making this the period during which most goals were scored. The teams that scored the most goals were Mexico (16), USA (12), Trinidad and Tobago (10) and Jamaica (8).

The highest actual playing time was from the 1st to the 15th minutes of the match, with an average of 9:28. Likewise, the first half of the game had the highest actual playing time average, with 25:09 minutes. The match with the highest actual playing time was USA against Cuba (6-0), which was characterized by strong dominance and ball possession by the USA, and fair play with very few fouls and unnecessary pausing, which allowed having an actual playing time of 58:15, close to the actual playing time of World Cup matches.

The teams that conceded the most goals were Cuba (14), and Panama and Jamaica (7). Most goals were scored from inside the penalty area (38), followed by goals from the goal area (19). This shows lack of concentration in this defensive area close to the goal and in some cases, lack of interception by goalkeepers on the midfielders in this area. The least amount of goals (5) were scored from outside the penalty area due to lack of shots on goal from mid-range. Forwards scored the highest number of goals with 34 goals, together with midfield wingers with 13, thanks to build-up game from the back using the flanks and the width of the pitch. Worth highlighting is the fact that 13 goals were scored using rebound headers, 8 of which were scored by forwards, 3 by defenders and 2

TEAM BY TEAM ANALYSIS

CANADA

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS COACH:

•

The team had a practical style that didn´t showcase its technical skills. They are effective in the defense and midfield but not so much in the attack.

•

They used direct play with long passes that divided the ball. They did not win on the rebound.

•

They are not good at goal opportunities. They were not at the same level as their opponents in their 3 matches, having scored only 1 goal in 3 matches.

•

They are strong and have good aerial skills, and are one of the best teams in defense, but they do not leverage their strength and height in the attack.

•

It was evident that the team used passing in areas that where open and far away from the opponent´s goal, since it had almost no shots on goal. It had possession of the ball in the midfield but not on the rival´s pitch.

•

The team was deficient in this edition of the Gold Cup. It had a low average of shots on goal from mid range.

•

The use of combination play and possession of the ball are not among its strengths. They were good in the midfield, but in the attack they had problems acting, particularly passing among the lines and in depth. There were no outstanding attacking players; the outstanding defensive players were Adam Straight MED (#15) and Dejan Jakovic DEF (#12).

BENITO FLORO SPAIN

Canada is part of the Northern zone of CONCACAF; it’s qualifying for the Gold Cup was direct. This national team had players with an average age of 26.3 years by 7/07/2015. Lars Hirschfeld, who is 36 years old (goalkeeper), is one of the oldest players in the tournament. The team prepared well for the Gold Cup by playing 7 friendly matches against the following teams, with these results: Against Panama, the match ended in a goalless draw; Against Iceland, it lost 1-2 and then tied 1-1; It won against Guatemala (1-0); Won against Puerto Rico (3-0); Won against Dominica (2-0) and (4- 0). The total was 4 victories, 2 draws and 1 defeat. Canada won the Gold Cup in the year 2000. It has achieve discreet results in past editions of the Gold Cup, due mainly to its lack of ability to score goals, as was the case this year when it scored only 1 goal in 3 matches.

1- 4 - 1 - 4 – 1

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

• The team did not have rival wingers using the flanks,

but they did use their own midfielder wingers against the rivals on the wings and in the center. Midfielders #14 and #16 were always on top of the opponent’s central midfielders.

• Good marking in all areas; fast, strong and

powerful players. • They maintained good rhythm and intensity and had

good physical fitness. Their improvement in the second halves was always better than at the beginning of the match. • They used compact game in the defense but in the

attack the team would break down due to its tendency to use direct play with long passes, therefore leaving open gaps between the lines. • Due to their lack of strong possession of the ball,

they often lost the ball to the opponent. Pressure on the opponent was only applied sporadically in the penalty area.

CANADA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH Match

Team

SLV

JAM

CRC

Actual Playing Time

47.29

50.58

45.27

Total Averageo

48.11

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • They used 1-4-1-4-1, 1-4-3-3 and 1-4-5-1 tactical

formations. • The defense was organized in a line-up made up by

four players (#2, #5, #12 and #17), with five midfields, three of them on the inside (#15, #6 and #14), and 2 midfielders on the wings, blocking the rival wingers (#23 and #9), and leaving one striker to initiate the attack after a rebound (#11). • They tried to use a line-up of five midfielders in front of

the four defenders to try to defend the last third of the pitch; they used compact play in the 40 meters area, to mark in that area (ball, line-up, rival). • Their mobility in rotation, runs with the ball and

offensive relays did not vary and they were very predictable. • The use of direct play did not allow them to have good

ball possession. Unimportant passing in their own pitch gave them some ball possession, but without depth in the attack. They were only better than El Salvador.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • The team used a defense system formed by 3 central

midfielders and 4 defenders, in addition to defensive midfielders. • The team’s line-up was made up by four players (#17,

#5, #12 and #2), which was suddenly broken on the left side by the winger for individual play, opening up gaps in the back. This type of play was the cause of the only goal that they conceded. • They marked the opponents with coverage in

the midfield by #15 and alternated with 2 central midfielders (#6 and #14) to mark the attacking midfielder from the rival team. • All players had a defending role. At some point during

the matches, all ten players were outside the penalty area defending. • They have a good understanding of collective play,

coverage, targeting and diagonal defensive plays. • Their knowledge of the game is one of their strengths. • Players understand the concept of anticipating plays

and apply it well. This is the reason why they only conceded one goal. • Their physical strength, as well as their ability to read

the game and understand the tactical aspects, was lost on the defensive one-on-one play. • Aerial headers are one of their strengths. • The fact that the midfielders were not using the width,

and always kept their positions, allowed them to maintain a compact game. • They never applied much pressure; they were strong

marking outside the penalty area, an aspect that made it difficult for the opponent to move forward. • The team had slow transition plays from the back.

Player #11 tried to maintain possession of the ball to allow other players to move into the opponent’s pitch. When #21 was playing, this was not used due to his characteristics.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • The team used long direct play, either with the

goalkeeper or with the defensive line, looking for the attacking striker (#11) and tried to win on the rebound. Their effectiveness was only evident in the match against El Salvador. • They tried to attack using direct play and set piece,

but didn’t have good passes or plays within the lines outside the penalty area. The team lacked mobility and the ability to run with the ball on the wings despite having fast midfield wingers, who always received the ball facing backwards, thus not being able to move forward. They had a very low shot on goal average compared to other teams. • The team had almost no offensive effectiveness, and

ended the tournament without scoring any goals. They didn’t have an individual attacker.

• The team was not organized to create counter-attacking

plays. They always used direct play that would allow the opponent to transition to defensive play. • They had very low number of shots on goal and an even

lower number of incursions into the opponent’s pitch. • The team had almost no shots from mid range. • They lacked combination attack plays that were

creative and effective when they were in possession of the ball. The team used repetitive plays, lacked creativity, announced the attacks and had almost no mobility to create gaps. There was low individual contribution in duels. • The team was dangerous in centers with set piece in

standard plays. When the ball was rolling they had limitations. In the last 20 minutes of the match against Costa Rica, they got fired up and tried to initiate shots on goal from anywhere in the pitch.

• The team always tried to organize its game from the

defense or the goalkeeper, looking for the rebound and trying to create plays that would end up in corner kicks, in order to be able to use aerial play.

• They tried to attack from the center of the pitch when

they were able to advance, but this didn’t generate any results due to lack of passes to wingers or midfielders that were open on the wings.   • Not very effective in set piece plays (corner kicks, free

kicks) despite having strong and powerful players.

THINGS TO IMPROVE • Specific technique (definition); agile and short passing

that allows the team to have wall passes, triangulation and short passes in populated areas.   • Leverage the team’s strengths, its aerial play, its

physical fitness to play high-tempo matches; They need to take calculated risks in the attack, be bolder when facing the opponent, coordinate attacking plays to create goal opportunities or possibilities and generate surprise in direct play.

• Continue to exploit its ability to recuperate in

convenient areas; apply pressure on the opponent; develop better blocking of the rival’s passing line outside of the penalty area and learn to read the game. • Create gaps for its fastest forwards; generate

superiority in attacking plays, and rotations and castling to surprise the rival; use shots on goal from mid and long range and try to regain possession of the ball when lost. • Optimize its physical attributes to create a high-tempo

game. The team was always better in the second halves. • Players are disciplined, persistent and well balanced.

They need to take more risks and try to win in each attacking play.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Adam Straith

Central midfielder

Good on the mark, defensive relay.

Dejan Jakovic

Center back

Strong on the mark, good aerial play.

Marcus Haber

Forward

Area player, good ball possession, practical.

David dgar

Center back

Disciplined. Good marking skills.

Kryriakos Stamatopolous

Goalkeeper

Good skills and team direction.

CANADA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE CHART IN THE TOURNAMENT GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

POSITION

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

TYC TRC

-2

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

47.27

Lars Hirschfeld

0.0

Quillan Roberts

0.0

Kryrlakos Stamatopolous

270

82.0

Nikolas Ledgerwood

Defender

180

0.0

KEY

Ashtone Morgan

Defender

0.0

Andre Hainault

Defender

4.0

David Edgar

Defender

270

35.0

Julian De Guzman

Midfielder

180

35.0

Russell Teibert

Midfielder

-3.8

Kyle Bekker

Midfielder

9.6

Tosaint Ricketts

Midfielder

248

27.6

Simeon Jackson

Midfielder

0.0

Marcus Haber

Forward

161

47.9

Dejan Jakovic

Defender

270

60.0

Jonathan Osorio

Midfielder

8.3

Samuel Piette

Midfielder

163

-1.9

GA Total Goals Against

Adam Straith

Defender

270

60.0

DD Direction in Defense

Maxim Tlssot

Midfielder

7.6

FW Footwork

Marcel De Jong

Defender

270

45.0

HW Hand Work

Pedro Pacheco

Midfielder

0.0

CE Center Exits

Karl Ouimette

Defender

10.0

Cyle Larin

Forward

140

15.6

Tesho Akindele

Midfielder

161

17.9

2994

TOTAL

TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Cards B Total for Player of the Match by Match NA Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players

COSTA RICA

COACH:

PAULO WANCHOPE COSTA RICA

opponent’s field. The team uses direct play when prompted by its rival and initiates plays displaying control and a high technical level. Costa Rica was part of group (B), alongside Jamaica, El Salvador and Canada. Its first match against Jamaica resulted in a draw (2-2), in its second match against El Salvador, El Salvador tied (1-1) in overtime, and during the closing performance in Toronto against Canada, it had a scoreless draw. Notwithstanding, Costa Rica qualified to Quarterfinals with 3 points as a result of the 3 draws with 3 goals scored and 3 against. A low score yield, lack of clarity in its attack and effectiveness in the opponent’s field prevailed as a constant in the Costa Rican team throughout the tournament

The Costa Rican team earned its qualifying spot in the 2015 Gold Cup by winning the UNCAF tournament, which took place in the US. In the 2014 World Cup hosted by Brazil, the team did an excellent job, showing a high technical and competitive level in this tournament. Its Gold Cup historical track record consists of 13 appearances and its best result was obtained in the 2002 edition. The average player age was 26.6 years and most of the players were part of the main line-up of the national team that participated in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.

In Quarterfinals the team faced the Mexicans in a match that was Costa Rica’s best performance of the tournament, but lost 1-0 due to a very disputed penalty goal in the last minute of the game. Thus, Costa Rica exited the tournament with 3 draws and one defeat, 4 goals against and 3 in favor. A performance that was well below its recent competitive history and level shown in the last World Cup. The team did not have an optimal physical level, which was evidenced during second halves, and several of its key figures # 10, Brayan Ruiz, and # 5, Celso Borges, did not display their usual level, alongside the unstable player # 12, Campbell. Costa Rica is a country with a great soccer tradition and excellent players. They should deepen their analysis of their latest performances and should not rely on the last World Cup results.

As part of its preparation for this Cup, the Costa Rican team played 5 games against strong teams, losing 3 of them (1-2 vs. Panama, 1-2 vs. Colombia and 1-2 vs. Spain) and having 2 draws (0-0 vs. Paraguay and 2-2 vs. Mexico). The team scored 4 goals and conceded 11. This team showed very good technique. Eleven of its players play abroad in international leagues; they have the ability to adapt to their rivals. Its defensive proposal has been incorporated while its offensive game is still in progress. The team strives for ball possession and utilizes the entire width of the pitch for the attack, but, as it had occurred during preparation matches, there was lack of forcefulness and definition in the

1-4-2-3-1

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Their ball handling and possession, and the technique

used are significant for the team, both collectively and individually. This approach was stable in every match. • The team has a very good striking technique, that allows

them to initiate plays from the lower midfield and create convenient combination plays for the midfielder or striker with more effective and favorable ball passes. • The shots on goal do not reflect the quality of this

striking technique due to lack of accurate ball kicks. • Ineffective and low midfield shots on goal opportunities. • They know how to use combination plays and ball

possession, as this was one of their strengths in all the matches played. They demonstrated it during their last game against Mexico, where they were defeated more due to tactical than to technical aspects. • There were two players with great 1v1 marking ability:

players #17 and #12 used it very well. Player #12 had a very intermittent game from one match to another, but during the match against Mexico he was outstanding and played at his World Cup level. • The rest of the players had a great game routine

and competitive experience, which allowed them an excellent ball possession and technical quality. This team had an elegant game but was ineffective and lacked forcefulness and definition in the opponent’s field.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • These are athletic players with varying characteristics

that meet the physical conditions to compete: speed, strength and stamina. • The competition system did not favor them in terms of

schedule and rhythm, as it took its toll on the European league players and their ability to quickly adapt to a demanding environment. They always lowered their performance in the second halves, allowing their scoring advantages to fade away. • In terms of defense they maintained a compact block,

but in order to overflow the opponent in quick offensive forays, the team would thin out and the strikers were left too isolated. • When their offensive advances ended, their 3 strikers

would pressure the opponent’s goal kick forcing the rival to play direct balls. They were effective in winning rebounds.

• Several of its key players revealed not having arrived

with an optimal physical preparation and in the second halves they showed exhaustion and were substituted; for example its captain and key player, #10, Brayan Ruiz, who played in the last World Cup.

COSTA RICA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH Match

Team

JAM

CAN

ESV

MEX

Actual Playing Time

54.02

50.10

45.27

50.30

Total Average

52.30

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • They always started with a (1-4-2-3-1) formation and its

variants, which they used in the last minutes against El Salvador, wanting to close out the game (1-5-4-1). They used other variants in other games such as 1-4-3-3 or 1-4-5-1, depending on the rival. • During the last minutes against El Salvador, they formed

a line of five, as they had recently experienced goals against in the last minutes of the friendly match against Mexico and against Jamaica during the tournament. They tried to close out the gaps and applied other plays depending on the circumstances, both defending and attacking variants. In the match against Jamaica, for example, players #5 and #10 made a double playmaker line behind player #21 in order to better control the rival’s defense through players #17 and #15, and remain closer to the goal scoring area. • They have mastered being compact on the defense and

they are in the process of incorporating the defensive/ offensive transition with further offensive play dynamics. • They group players in the midfield, which is the zone

of ball possession and control. They thus provoke superiority by leaving opponents void of reference, and maintain possession until gaps open or individual duals are provoked by players #17 and #12. • In the last game against Mexico, they displayed

inarticulate functioning at the center and their center midfielders were constantly overcome in short ball speed. This got better with the substitutions made in the second halves. • They have mastered ball possession during initiation

plays. In what is a classic initiation play, 2 wingers participate on the sides and 2 midfielders take the outer corners of the penalty area and the center midfielder joins to provide superiority to the 2 rival attackers that

are normally used. This becomes a 4 against 2 if the goalkeeper participates. • In the middle third of the field they execute the session

with 2 playmakers, #5 and #10, or they draw a marklosing diagonal with open midfielders #12 and #17, while defensive wingers #16 and #15 take advantage of the gaps. • In the last third they rotate positions between players

#12, #21 and #17, at times with the posing profile. They constantly use the mark-losing diagonals or the defensive tracks, and they work between lines to accommodate defensive ball passes or triangulate internally using playmakers as pivot. This behavior provokes wide play and ball possession in the mid-third of the field. • Their wingers #16 and #15 participated in initiating

plays, but did not transition into attack as frequently as they could have. Player #5 gave the option of a long pass into the backs of the opponent’s defense or a diagonal game switch, while player #10 tried to infuse rhythm to the game with an aim to complete penetrating passes to hurt the rival. This player seldom reached the opponent’s area, but when he did a goal was scored.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • In terms of defense, the team displayed a stable

behavior with a line of four players #16, #3 and #2/#19 and #15 generating the action, and complemented by 2 defending midfielders #5, #20 or #22 ahead of a line of four. • They only used a defensive line of five against

El Salvador. • Usually all team members came down to defend and

they were tasked with surpassing the ball line when they were defending, thus forming a compact team both in width and depth within the 25m, closing gaps in regards to where the ball was. • Coverage was done mainly by defenders #5, #20 and

#22, when the midfielders took to the wings. • They have mastered defensive closures and, during

the tournament, they showcased this and it was one of their strengths. Only against Mexico were they overwhelmed and they had difficulty seeing them through. • From an anticipation point of view they always had very

good execution both within and in zones where risk was minimal. The wingers, #16 and #15 are example of how to do this.

• They are dutiful defenders, with good marking habits

and when they recover the ball they initiate advances in a defense-attack transition that is well executed. • They are tall and have good jumping timing, as well as

header technique displayed during the competition. • During the group phase they showed compact form,

organization, and were also compact between lines, in particular in the last minutes against El Salvador and Mexico. In Quarterfinals the team was outplayed and disarrangement between their lines became evident. In several occasions, the midfielders defended facing their own goal and had slow recovery. • Plays were always initiated waiting in the mid third

with its own defense, which grew more compact when the rival tried to overflow by one of the wings. A ball dispute was thus generated with numerical superiority or in a reduced space that favored ball recovery or provoked long play from the rival. • Pressure was exercised in the attack-defense

transition; they tried to recover the ball close to where it had been lost, and the team had a high percentage of effectiveness in this regard. In the second halves they clustered around the defensive area running unnecessary risks. Against El Salvador, when they had ball possession in the rival’s pitch, they would lose initiative. • They initiated deep plays when their rival allowed, or,

when they had superiority, they would initiate plays through their wingers or a defender.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • They executed few long direct initiating plays and

were effective when these were executed. By way of example, player #5 would produce long kicks into the backs of the rival’s defense generating goals. In addition, when changing fronts they were constant from the defense. • Their attack came either by the wings with players #17

and #12 or in diagonals trying to overflow the rival’s backs, with triangulations through the center with attacks by player #10, who produced goals, or with direct plays with player #21, taking advantage of his great mobility. The use of wingers was scarce. • Players #12 and #17 were outstanding, especially in

one-one confrontation and imbalance generation. Player #21 displayed great mobility without reaching a relevant role and his scarce goal scoring productivity became manifest.

• Leadership was generated from the midfield, where

the most influential players of the team where to be found (players #5, #22 and #10). These gave rhythm and depth, whereas at the individual level, the skill and overflow was contributed by players #16 y #12. • Counter-attacking plays were seldom tried with the

physical deterioration in the second halves, making it more difficult and isolating players, but player #12 covered this aspect at an individual level. • Their percentage of shots on goal was very low, even

at a tournament level, compared to other teams given their technical level and their players’ experience in high-level matches. • Very poor midfield shots on goal and without the

required quality.

• The wings where the main area of attack, mainly on the

right, with players #12 and #16. • They handled standard situations well and always had

an action for each game situation. They scored a goal as result of a center triangulation; the team seemed like a threat.

THINGS TO IMPROVE • Speed, depth in ball handling and ball control in the

rival’s zone, as well as definition. • Attack coordination development and leveraging

individual talent. • Insisting in ball recovery in more favorable zones in

• Given their elaborate play style and great midfield

ball possession, their attack depth was thinned out, and for this reason they were one of the teams with low number of attacks, low clarity in their attacks and low goal opportunities. They would very rarely finish an attack with a kick and this perhaps was their most deficient point. • They know how to make and create dangerous

attack combinations, however these were not very effective at inflicting harm to their rival. Their low attack productivity was also due to prioritizing ball possession, playing the field’s width and entering the rival’s area in few occasions. • They were good centering the action plays through

the wingers #15 and #16, as well as through the midfielders #12 and #17 on the exterior. They don’t however have someone to establish a forceful presence in the rebound zone. When player #9 participated, this presence was achieved but he played very few minutes in the tournament.

order to initiate attacking plays. • Complete attacking plays with a kick, explore variants

between different rivals and achieve a forceful presence in the rival’s area. • Improve their competitive physical fitness, which

suffered in the second halves. • Improve self-esteem and determination in accordance

to their potential.

COACH ANALYSIS • Very good management, the coach is aware of the phases

and knows the team. Good rapport within the staff.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Johan Venegas

Midfield winger

Organizer. Very skilled and good technique.

Joel Campbell

Midfield winger

Fast player and dominant in attacking.

Bryan Ruiz

Midfielder

Agile, flexible, with very good technique.

Celso Borges

Central midfielder

Disciplined. Strong 1v1 mark, good with anticipation plays, leader.

Giancarlo González

Center back

Good technique and team management. Strong 1v1 mark.

COSTA RICA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE CHART IN THE TOURNAMENT GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

POSITION

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

TYC TRC

-1

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

52.32

Dany Carvajal

0.0

Patrick Pemberton

0.0

Esteban Alvarado

395

83.9

Francisco Calvo

Defender

305

33.9

KEY

Giancarlo Gonzalez

Defender

395

63.9

Michael Umaña

Defender

1.4

Player

Celso Borges

Midfielder

395

125.9

GS Goals Scored

Keyner Brown

Defender

0.0

TYC Total Yellow Cards

Elias Aguilar

Midfielder

113

12.6

TRC Total Red Cards

Dave Myrie

Defender

115

2.8

B Total for Player of the

Alvaro Saborio

Forward

109

19.1

Bryan Ruiz

Midfielder

327

126.3

Jonathan Mcdonald

Forward

0.0

Joël Campbell

Midfielder

285

26.7

Marvin Angulo

Midfielder

0.0

Deyver Vega

Midfielder

10.1

Junior Diaz

Defender

305

23.9

Christian Gamboa

Defender

277

60.8

Johan Venegas

Midfielder

310

44.4

Roy Miller

Defender

244

52.1

David Guzmán

Midfielder

172

14.1

David Ramirez

Midfielder

277

87.8

José Miguel Cubero

Midfielder

226

15.1

Kendall Waston

Defender

0.0

4354

TP Total Playing Time by

Match by Match NA Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Against DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork

TOTAL

HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

CUBA

COACH:

RAÚL GONZALES CUBA

but with character and great will they had an outstanding performance, winning the game against Guatemala (1-0), obtaining 3 points and qualifying to the Quarterfinals. In this phase they didn’t have some players that were critical to the team’s performance and lost 6-0 against USA. The Cuban team closed its performance in the tournament winning only 1 game and losing 3, with 14 goals against and 1 in favor. Cuba needs to solve the team’s off-field issues in order to obtain the emotional stability and total focus that it requires in the competition.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The technical level displayed in all matches was

unstable. In their first match against Mexico, the team showed a low technical level with many bad ball passes and long plays, that ended directly in the Mexican defense. Also, when they had opponent pressure they easily lost ball possession.

The Cuban team qualified to the 2015 Gold Cup after winning fourth place in the Caribbean tournament. After its recent elimination by Curacao from the CONCACAF World Cup qualifying, the team incorporated a group of young and old players so they could perform well in the tournament. This team competes in national events in Cuba. The average player age is 26.2 years. Not all team members traveled together to the U.S. Only 16 players, without the coach, arrived on time for their first match against Mexico, losing 6-0 vs. the Aztec team.

• In their second match against Trinidad and Tobago,

the team improved those technical aspects and they were able to have better ball control without reaching stellar standards. • Players were very isolated and had few attacking

combination plays in the opponent’s field. • Against Guatemala they considerably improved

in comparison to their first match, making 143 good ball passes and only 23 bad ones in the first half of the match.

This team had to face very difficult situations that affected their competitive focus in all matches. This was the result of their abandonment and indiscipline by players that were key to the team’s functioning. Nonetheless, they had great capacity for recovery and were able to qualify to the Quarterfinals after defeating Guatemala.

Cuba lost its first two games (6-0) and (20) against Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago respectively. The team displayed not having an opportunity to go beyond the first round, 1-5-4-1

• Their attacking players tried to use their skills and

feints, creating many dangerous situations that eventually gave them the little -awaited victory. • In spite of this result, the Cuban team was affected by

players deserting, which had an impact on performance and concentration. This was a NAIVE team both in the offensive as well as in defense. • They were technically weak during attacks, as they

lacked a compact attack. They had an offensive mentality, but had technical deficiencies when striking a goal. Their dynamic offensive combinations were very limited due to lack of support.

• In the only match were they demonstrated proper

conditions was against Guatemala. They displayed power in headed clearances and conviction in their aggressive game.

CUBA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH Match

Team

MEX

TRI

GUA

USA

Actual Playing Time

51.33

56.16

49.18

58.15

Total Average

52.21

• They only scored 1 goal in 4 matches and had very little

ball possession in light of their collective technical limitations and the lack of mobility of their players. This also led to lack of presence and support to teammates. • When they were pressured by a tight mark they

displayed technical limitations and would quickly lose the ball

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Mix of good-sized players with some short but hard

working players. • Cuba was not able to maintain a compact defensive

game or a compact attacking game due fundamentally to an absence of support and concentration from their defense to close the gaps behind the attacker’s backs when the team was attacking.

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • In its match against Mexico, they played with only 15

players and without their coach. • The team began with an extremely defensive mentality

in their match against Mexico (1-5-4-1) and with no attacking alternatives (they only surpassed the midfield in 4 opportunities), they found themselves insecure and overly respectful of their rival’s play. • Despite having a large number of players in their

defensive area, they had a weak defensive organization and their functioning, anticipations, marks, strengths and power in one-on-ones was poor. Except for their match against Guatemala, the team had a passive defense, with little hunger for victory and were NAIVE. • Once the missing players and their coach arrived, they

• Their rhythm of play was slow and of low intensity. • Due to the constant technical errors and ball losses,

the players, in particular the attackers, were physically spent trying to achieve ball recovery. The scarce and insecure ball possession represented extra physical work for this team. • The lack of speed and strength yielded their

anticipation efforts ineffective. This was also the case in one-one situations. They had to impose themselves but they were not able to.

established a 1-4-5-1 system, which was the team’s stable formation. This generated some improvement but with the same limitations. The team had an ACTIVE compact play both attacking and in defense. • This was a team that folded back well towards the

midfield trying to establish a compact and solid block. Over and above this, players had great physical exertion, but there was lack of duress to impose themselves against rivals in disputed balls or to strongly pressure them so as to not allow them easy play.

• Offensively, their static play at the defensive line did

not allow them a compact game. They did not close the gaps and when strikers attacked, the team thinned out, allowing for gaps to open in the midfield. • Offensively, Cuba was one of the weakest teams in the

tournament, with only 1 goal scored in 4 games and few attacks that made it into the rival’s area. • The impression that Cuba gave was that this was a

team that was more concerned with avoiding goals than with scoring them. They came to the matches thinking more about their defeat than trusting their game and their potential to achieve victory, except in the match against Guatemala where they had a different mentality and achieved victory.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • Cuba presented a 1-5-4-1 formation proposal in

their first match that did not work properly, as they were only able to group 5 men in their area and the rest ahead of him, with only one striker isolated in

the attack. Mexico was convincing and did not allow initiating plays. The Cuban defense relied only on the quantity of players defending and was very naive, passive and unconvincing. • For the remaining matches, the team used a 1-4-5-1

proposal, improving their organization. Anticipation and marking mistakes, together with lack of conviction in one to one situations allowed them to be easily surpassed. • The team showed better organization against

Guatemala and they marked the Guatemalan strikers with determination. • The players are easily worn out due to scarce ball

possession during initiating plays and the great physical effort they have to endure in order to regroup from positions they put themselves in. • The lack of gap management between the defensive

lines and the strikers opens big spaces and the team thins out, thus producing physical wear down.

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• Improve medium and long distance pass execution, as

• They utilized multiple long passes that were not

effective, as they often missed their objective. They played with one only leading striker (#9 Reyes) who was very isolated and worn down from having to also fulfill his defensive duties. • When they were able to combine player #10’s attacks

and the speed in depth of player #9, they created dangerous situations. • Their attack is limited as they prioritize their defensive

functions by grouping players in the back, limiting the possibilities of providing support and being compact in the attack. • In the four matches they had 21 shots on goal and only

scored once.

well as collective play movement technique and ball possession. • They must work hard to improve their players’

mobility in order to “pass and continue to support” the teammate that has the ball. Have presence at all times. • Improve their play in reduced spaces by pressuring

rivals that are playing one and two touch passes. • Practice several offensive exercises with attacks to the

rival’s area that originate from their end of the pitch (introductory, advanced and competitive). • Improve organization and technical quality in the

execution of standard set piece, as well as corner kicks. • Improve organization in their attack and defense

• They were not efficient in the standard offensive

situation and had very poor corner kick execution, since they lacked precision and technical quality. • They were not able to function compactly during

attacks and the rare attacks were based on the personal inspiration and ability of player #10, and the great physical display of player #9).

THINGS TO IMPROVE

technique, willingness to play and winning mentality. Achieve a compact game. • Improve defensive concentration and strengthen balls

disputes. They need to be stronger, faster and more offensive. • Improve their physical preparation to keep a compact

game throughout the match for this type of event and other competitive tournaments. • Demonstrate in these events, through a change of

• Achieve a strong and winning mentality, avoid off-field

issues that have a critical impact on the team and make them lose focus while on the tournament.

mentality, that they are not only participants but they have what it takes to be stars.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Ariel Martínez

Midfielder

Good technique, fast and skilled.

Jorge Clávelo

Central midfielder

Hard worker and managed the midfield very well.

Maykel Reyes

Forward

Fast, skilled and scorer.

Jeniel Márquez

Central back

Good technique, leader.

Alberto Gómez

Midfielder

Good mobility, hard worker.

CUBA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE CHART IN THE TOURNAMENT GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

POSITION

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

TYC TRC

-13

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

52.21

Sandy Sanchez

0.0

Arael Arguelles

0.0

Diósvely Alejandro

360

-50.0

Andy Vaquero

Defender

270

60.0

KEY

Jenier Márquez

Defender

270

30.0

Angel Horta

Defender

115

2.8

Player

Jorge Luis Clávelo

Defender

360

70.0

GS Goals Scored

Yasnier Napoles

Defender

360

30.0

TYC Total Yellow Cards

Pedro Dario

Midfielder

7.6

Alberto Gomez

Midfielder

320

47.6

Maykel Alejandro

Forward

180

70.0

Ariel Pedro

Midfielder

360

75.0

Keiler Garcia

Forward

0.0

Jorge Luis Corrales

Defender

231

30.7

Aricheell Hernandez

Midfielder

0.0

Adrian Arturo

Defender

270

50.0

Hanier Dranguet

Defender

130

14.4

Liban Perez

Midfielder

11.0

Daniel Ernesto

Midfielder

215

38.9

Yasmani Lopez

Defender

112

12.4

Armando Coroneaux

Forward

9.9

Alain Cervantes

Midfielder

10.6

Felix Guerra

Midfielder

9.2

3987

TP Total Playing Time by

TRC Total Red Cards B Total for Player of the Match by Match NA Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding

TOTAL

Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Against DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

EL SALVADOR

COACH:

ALBERTO ROCA SPAIN

El Salvador was eliminated from the tournament in the first phase, but it left leaving behind a great image due to its technical skills, tactical organization and strong winning mentality. The team must continue to work on gaining more depth in the attack and offensive capacity in order to have incursions into the rival’s pitch with clarity, effectiveness and determination.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The team had good control and possession of the

ball, both on an individual and on a collective level. The team used short, good quality passes. They must improve long passes since only those made from the midfield had a better chance of being precise. • The team had low effectiveness in terms of shots on

goal. This was the reason why they were only able to score one goal in three matches. They did, however, create many goal opportunities. • They rarely created goal opportunities from

The Salvadorian team was formed by a group of talented young players, that underwent conscious preparation under the supervision of a reputed Spanish coach (Alberto Roca). This was the youngest team in the tournament, with an average age of 25 years. The Salvadorians qualified to the Gold Cup after obtaining 4th place in UNCAF’s most recent tournament, which was held in the USA.

the mid range. • The team had good ball possession and combination

play. They used good criteria under pressure from the opponents, who were physically stronger.   • The team displayed good individual skills,

particularly from its captain Arturo Alvarez, and from Pablo Punyed. • Ball passing often gave them speed but this

was not constant.

This is a well-organized team that always uses compact play and has great defensive organization and ball possession, which are fundamental in the defense and midfield areas. The team has players with high individual technical skills, mobility and determination, and will to win. El Salvador was part of Group B, together with Canada, against which obtained a goalless draw, Jamaica, which defeated them in a closely disputed match (0-1), and Costa Rica, against which they had another draw 1-1.

1-4-4-1-1

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

DEFENSE ANALYSIS

• The players are short, strong and a few of them are fast.

• The team used a line of 4 defenders and two defensive

• They do not maintain a high pace during the match.   • They lacked cohesion to maintain compact defensive

and attacking lines. • They were not able to apply constant pressure on the

opponent for the duration of the match. and of their second match was 54:10   • The team´s level of stamina decreased during the

second halves and they were not able to maintain their physical fitness throughout the match.

EL SALVADOR´S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH 1

Team

CAN

CRC

JAM

Actual Playing Time

47.29

54.10

44.56

• Well positioned in the last 35 meters, leaving few open

spaces for the opponent to maneuver and moving side to side of the ball. • They had no defensive variations. Their game was

organized and stable.

• The actual playing time of their first match was 47:46

MATCH

midfielders.

AVERAGE TOTAL

• They tried to apply constant pressure on the opponent.

When the rival crossed the first line, they would drop back to defend, leaving few spaces. It was a supportive team. • The team applied good game principles. In certain

attack areas they would apply pressure on the ball, had good zone coverage and good balance between the midfield and defense areas. They always tried to anticipate aerial plays and had good interceptions. They were successful on one-on-one situations. • Defensive compact play was effective both for wingers

49.05

and for central midfielders. • The team had good anticipating plays, particularly in

aerial plays.

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • The team used the 1-4-4-1-1 basic formation, and

applied minimal changes since the wingers rarely attacked. One of the midfielders was injured during the match against Costa Rica after the three substitutions had been made, so the team switched to a 1-3-34 formation, trying to use the flanks and cover the spaces for the injured player, who was left as last resource.   • The team was not compact at certain times, particularly

in the midfield. The lines were broken with no rotation in their positions, line mobility or change of rhythm.   • They had good ball possession in the midfield but

lacked depth in the attack.   • The midfield was organized using two midfielders who

were parallel to one another, supported by the wingers who moved up and down the wings on the opposite side of the pitch.

• In the matches against Canada and Costa Rica, two

teams that have good aerial play, they were able to resolve well in their favor. • The team lacked compact offensive play. The line

would break in the midfield and attack and there was little support. • The defense did a good job in one-on-one situations,

and always counter-attacked. • They applied pressure in the area where the ball was,

particularly in the midfield. • The team tried to maintain control of the ball starting

from the goal kick or from set pieces. • They lacked determination in attacking plays due to

lack of organization and compact play. • Great defensive tactics in set piece plays.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • The team had few long build-up plays from behind,

and when they used it, they started from the midfield, where they encountered an advanced defense from the opponent.   • They occasionally used well thought-out counter-

attacking and direct attacking plays.   • They used width but lacked depth, and had limited

mobility and progression. The players supported one another when one of them was in possession of the ball and ran with the ball in the midfield, often defeating the opponent in one-on-one situations.   • Good individual attacking skills, but they lacked depth

except for Irvin Herrera (#19).  • Plays were built from the midfield and individually by

the right winger.  • There were some instances of organized and deep

counter-attacking plays.

• Poor shots on goal. • The team did not use long or mid range shots on goal. • They lacked depth and edge in front of goal. • The team used many walls, runs with the ball in the

midfield, and individual incursions using the wings. • Midfielders were not as good as other players.   • The team attacked mainly using the right side of the pitch. • They used elaborate plays for corner kicks and free

kicks from the side of the field.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS • The team had good concentration during the matches.   • They displayed good individual and collective reaction

when they were behind on the score in the match against Costa Rica and were able to obtain a draw during extra time by pressuring Costa Rica on its own pitch.

• The coach constantly communicated with the players

so that they wouldn´t move out of their positions in their zones.   • The team displayed good concentration starting from

the warm-up exercises, which continued throughout the match, and played with intensity during the first minutes of each match, both in the first and in the second halves.

THINGS TO IMPROVE • Improve build-up play from the back; Develop better

technique for shots on goals from long, mid and close range.   • Have more conversions in tactical system and more

use of forward runs by midfielders. • Center midfielders should close gaps with midfielders

to have a more compact play between the lines.  • Lack depth in counter-attack and need to get better

organized to be able to create more goal opportunities from mid and long range. • Need to work on physical fitness to be able to have

more intensity during the 90 minutes.   • The team needs to work on being more aggressive in

the attack.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Derby Carrillo

Goalkeeper

Good and secure with hands and feet.

Alexander Larín

Defender

Good marking and secure with the ball

Richard Menjivar

Central midfielder

Very good technique. Great location. Good on the mark.

Darwin Ceren

Central midfielder

Good on one-on-one, great distribution skills and good providing defensive support.

Arturo Álvarez

Midfielder

Very good individual skills. Decisive and leader.

Pablo Punyet

Forward

Excellent location, great mobility going forward and good individual skills.

EL SALVADOR’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE CHART IN THE TOURNAMENT GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

POSITION

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

TYC TRC

-1

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

49.05

Luis Contreras

0.0

Oscar Arroyo

0.0

Derby Carrillo

270

87.0

Xavier Garda

Defender

270

20.0

KEY

Milton Molina

Defender

270

45.0

Danny Torres

Defender

0.0

Alexander Mendoza

Defender

257

18.6

Richard Menjivar

Midfielder

270

35.0

Darwin Ceren

Midfielder

270

65.0

Jairo Henriquez

Midfielder

1.6

Rafael Burgos

Forward

3.3

Jaime Alas

Midfielder

240

26.7

Nelson Bonilla

Forward

4.6

Arturo Alvarez

Midfielder

212

85.6

Alexander Larin

Defender

270

35.0

Andres Flores

Midfielder

-0.9

GA Total Goals Against

Nestor Renderos

Midfielder

0.9

DD Direction in Defense

Narciso Orellana

Midfielder

0.0

FW Footwork

Henry Romero

Defender

0.0

HW Hand Work

Irvin Herrera

Forward

208

38.1

CE Center Exits

Pabo Punyed

Midfielder

246

62.3

Dustin Corea

Midfielder

24.1

William Maldonado

Midfielder

0.0

2995

TOTAL

GUATEMALA

COACH:

IVÁN SOPEGNO ARGENTINA

change in line-up wasn´t enough, as they were only able to score one goal despite having created many goal opportunities. In its second match against the favorite of its group, Mexico, which had recently obtained a conclusive victory in its first match, the Guatemalan team did 5 changes in line-up, but this wasn´t enough and the Mexicans controlled the match. Guatemala did an amazing job on the defense that allowed them to end the match with a goalless draw, which gave the team the possibility of qualifying against Cuba in its third and final match. Convinced that they would go out on the field to outscore their rival Cuba, the Guatemalan team kept the same basic formation and despite being better in the attack, they were not able to find a destabilizing formula that enabled them to score. On the other hand, Cuba kept creating dangerous goal situations with its counter-attacks, until finally in the 73rd minute the Cubans scored the goal that would send the Guatemalans back home.

La selección de Guatemala se clasificó a la Guatemala qualified to the Gold Cup 2015 by winning second place in the UNCAF (Unión Centroamericana de Futbol) tournament, after having lost in the Final against Costa Rica.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

The team played several friendly preliminary matches in 2015 that included matches against Canada, El Salvador, Mexico, Uruguay and USA, in that order. The team was only able to obtain a draw in one goalless match against El Salvador, and lost the other four.

• Few players felt comfortable with individual

Guatemala´s national team had an average age of 27.5 years, the oldest team in this edition of the Gold Cup. It was part of Group C, together with Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago and Cuba. The outcomes of the matches played were as follows: Guatemala vs. Trinidad & Tobago, 1-3; Guatemala vs. Mexico, 0-0, and Guatemala vs. Cuba, 0-1. The team scored one goal in the Groups phase and conceded 4. In its first match against Trinidad & Tobago, they watched as the Caribbean team scored 3 goals in the first 25 minutes of the match without being able to have an appropriate response until the second half, when they made several changes in line-up and came into the field with a renewed attitude that allowed them to overcome their rival. But this

• The team had an acceptable skill level for

a national team.   dribbling skills. The team lacked speed and explosiveness.   • The midfielders had average quality long passes,

that were used often (33 times) during the 3 matches, with only 8 of them being received by a teammate.   • The quality of mid and close range passes by

midfielders and forwards was much better.

1-3-1-3-2

• They had standard quality shots on goal from

close, mid and long range, with a total of 22 goal opportunities in 3 matches, out of which 9 were directed to the goal, and 6 of them were in the match against Cuba.   • In the match against Mexico the team had no shots

on goal, as was the case in the first half of the match against Trinidad & Tobago.  • They had few combinations, more due to their style

than to pressure from the opponent.   • The players had acceptable skills, particularly the

midfielders.   • The team had average ball circulation in the midfield,

but lacked clarity to move up the field.   • They had better ball possession in the midfield and

defense areas, where they would often form a block to create a numerical advantage. This ball possession slowed down the transition to depth in the attack and would allow the opponent’s defense to organize.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • The team had strong and well-built players for the

requirements and characteristics of the positions they played. They had no outstanding players in terms of speed in the attack. They had problems with the speed and physical strength of the Caribbean opponents.   • Except for the first half of the match against

Trinidad and Tobago, they were able to maintain good rhythm and a competitive game during the tournament.   • The team had compact lines, particularly in the

defense. They left gaps between the lines in the attack.   • They didn’t apply collective coordinated pressure on

the opponent.

GUATEMALA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH MATCH

Team

TRI

MEX

CUB

Actual Playing Time

47.10

45.13

49.18

AVERAGE TOTAL

47.14

TACTICAL ANALYSIS

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• The team used a 1-5-3-2 formation for defensive play

• They often used a 1-3-1-3-2 formation in the attack

when attacked.   • They used a 1-3-1-4-2 basic formation in the offensive

in the attacking midfielders’ area, sometimes using a 1-3-1-2-4 formation where they would be side by side with the forwards and would stay open.  • They worked well until they reached the outside of

the penalty area. In this area, the team lost clarity or forced the attack, final pass, or center pass, without having a clear opportunity to score.   • They lacked speed to defeat the opponent’s defenders

in depth, and therefore lacked surprise and were not able to go up field.   • The team had some ball possession across the

pitch, but with limited line penetration and speed, occasionally allowing the rival’s defense to organize.   • The wingers gave constant support but lacked clarity

in front of goal.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS   • Line of three central midfielders and 2 wingers with 2

or 3 midfielders in front of a line of 5 defenders.   • Defensive line covering the attack with 5 defenders.

in the midfielders’ area, sometimes due to game disadvantages (for example, in the match against Trinidad and Tobago and against Cuba, the formation was 1-3-1-2-4). • They constantly used goal kicks that were long and

ineffective, which lead to losing possession of the ball. • Guatemala tried to use counter-attacking plays,

particularly in their second match against Mexico, but they lacked effectiveness since they do not have a good long passing technique or fast players in the attack. • The team had 22 shots on goal in 3 matches and 9 of

them were to the opponent’s goal. This proves that they didn’t create many goal opportunities. They only scored one goal in three matches. • They lack effectiveness in mid and long range shots on

goal, which they didn’t use often. • They tried to use direct play in attack while relying on

the forwards to lower high balls waiting for a forward or winger, but lacked the ability to win the rebound in these situations. • The team rarely used one-on-one play due to the

players’ physical fitness, since they are slower and heavier than the rivals and lack the technical skills for this.

• Great defensive organization that was only threatened

during the first 25 minutes of the match against Trinidad &Tobago   • Fast attack/defense transitions to form a

defensive block. • Good shifting of marking players and one-on-one duels

with good coverage.   • The team didn’t pressure the opponent during build-up

plays in their own pitch.   • They dropped back to defend their own outside

the penalty area and kept compact lines from this point forward. • Good defense and coverage in defensive aerial play. • Good concentration and tactic with set piece.

• When the team managed to gain ball possession

they had good control, which was lost after reaching the opponent’s area, where they lost depth and effectiveness in the final pass.   • They had good center attacks when they were able

to move forward with speed and surprise the rivals, but this was not the case when they tried to be more confrontational.   • There were no pre-elaborate corner kicks or

set piece plays.

• The team uses direct play but without a definite

concept that allows them to exploit it as last and only resource. • Midfielders have good ball control, but do not take

risks to penetrate or fire shots on goal from the last 25 meters of the opponent’s goal. • It is important to identify the characteristics of each

player that adapt to the team’s game style (i.e. if on the counter-attack, forwards need to be fast). • The team cannot play a tournament of this level lacking

THINGS TO IMPROVE

concentration and coordination, as was the case of the first match against Trinidad & Tobago, where by the 25th minute they were already down by 3 goals.

• The quality of long passes by defenders to forwards.

• Changes in line-up, shifts and substitutions were

• The team does not use build-up play from the back and

wise but late in the match and didn’t affect the final outcome.

instead uses long goal kicks. Whenever the rival leaves gaps, the defenders use this type of play, but this is not a common pattern or game style. They rarely win long balls after rebounds from their forwards and rival defenders.   • They need to move up to the opponent’s pitch to support

the forwards and midfielders in order to be closer to the opponent’s goal, thus creating more goal opportunities by maintaining the pressure (closing gaps).   • The team has many problems with the opponent’s

speed, leaving the defensive line lagging behind 20 meters away from their own goal, and therefore dragging the whole team to their own pitch, from where they control the ball.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Dennis López

Defender

Strong, good aerial play.

Jorge Aparicio

Central midfielder

Disciplined, good on the rebound.

Marco Pappa

Midfielder

Agile, flexible, with excellent skills.

Carlos Ruiz

Forward

Intelligent, dangerous in the opponent’s pitch.

GUATEMALA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE CHART IN THE TOURNAMENT GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

POSITION

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

TYC TRC

-3

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

47.14

Victor Ayala

0.0

Paulo Motta

180

53.0

Ricardo Jerez

-8.0

Ruben Morales

Defender

158

-2.4

KEY

Enoc Vasquez

Defender

270

20.0

Wilson Laiin

Defender

226

15.1

Moisés Hernandez

Defender

173

9.2

Carlos Mejia

Midfielder

140

15.6

Jairo Arreóla

Forward

0.0

Jonathan Marquez

Midfielder

5.1

Edgar Chinchilla

Forward

6.7

Jose Contreras

Midfielder

180

-10.0

Gerardo Arias

Midfielder

0.0

Carlos Castrillo

Defender

0.0

Kendel Herrarte

Midfielder

7.8

Denniss Lopez

Defender

180

50.0

GA Total Goals Against

Marco Papa

Midfielder

197

36.9

DD Direction in Defense

Brandon De Leon

Midfielder

151

16.8

FW Footwork

Stefano Cincotta

Defender

10.0

HW Hand Work

Carlos Figueroa

Midfielder

5.0

CE Center Exits

Carlos Ruiz

Forward

257

53.6

Minor Lopez

Forward

228

47.3

Jorge Aparicio

Midfielder

270

50.0

3011

TOTAL

HAITI

COACH:

MARC COLLAT FRANCE

Haiti had previously qualified to the Quarterfinals of the Gold Cup in 2002 and 2009. The team included only one player from the domestic league, and used 22 players who play abroad in eleven countries in South America, North America, Europe and Asia. For its preparation for the Gold Cup, Haiti only played one friendly match against China, which ended in a 2-2 draw. The team players had an average age of 26.5 years. They have great experience and game routine.

The Gold Cup 2015 was the sixth time that Haiti had participated in the flag event of the Confederation, after having participated in the 2000, 2002, 2007, 2009 and 2013 editions. The Haitians qualified to the Gold Cup after having played the preliminary qualifier round (1st phase) of the Caribbean Cup in St. Kitts & Nevis. They got third place in the final tournament of the Caribbean Cup that took place in Jamaica in November of 2014:

Haiti´s first match against Honduras ended with a 1-1 draw, having scored a late goal that demonstrated the team’s physical fitness and technical skills, but also their technical mistakes in front of the opponent´s goal. In its second match, and after having made four changes to the initial line-up, the team was able to pick up its pace, but despite of this was defeated 0-1 by USA, regardless of having played really well and having pressured the 2013 champions during most part of the match. Knowing that they needed a victory against Honduras to stay in the tournament, Haiti (having made three changes in their basic formation, including the return of 2 of the players originally included in the line-up of their first match), did what was expected of them and defeated the Central Americans 1-0, qualifying to Quarterfinals.

- Preliminary phase: (Saint Kitts) 2: 2 vs. French Guyana   4: 2 vs. Barbados   0: 0 vs. St. Kitts / Nevis   - Final phase: Jamaica  2: 2 vs. Antigua / Barbuda  3: 0 vs. Martinique

0: 2 vs. Jamaica  2: 1 vs. Cuba. The Haitians won the third place in the Caribbean.

1- 4-4-2

Haiti had players with great skill and individual technique, but its biggest strength was the team´s collective determination to fight for victory. At certain times, they had the most attractive soccer of the tournament- agile, creative and powerful - but the team´s lack of capacity to score was its Achilles Heel and the reason for its elimination from the tournament. It was evident that the players understood their role and function within the team´s collective tactical plan, and they applied their practical individual and collective tactics in the defense when necessary. The team was always well organized in the defense, based on a central wall made up by two center backs - Jerome (#3) and Bertin (#6) - and two defending midfielders - Lafrance (#13) and Marcelin (#14) -, which was well supported by an excellent goalkeeper (Placide, #1). They were always compact and had good links between the team´s different lines. The Haitians did a good collective job defending, having conceded only two goals in their Group in three matches, and a total of three goals in their four matches of the tournament.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The team has excellent individual and collective

technique. They are able to play well under pressure from the opponent in reduced spaces, even the defenders in the defensive area. • The team uses good short passes to build the attack,

but also use long diagonal passes in the defense and midfield to change the attack. When they are close to the opponent´s goal, they look for combination plays with short passes between forwards and midfielders. • All players have good mobility that makes them visible

and supports their teammates. • They are excellent in the 1vs1 and rarely lose. • They had good headers in the defense and midfield.

The forward, Belfort (#9), is an expert at build-up play in the attack. • Some of its players – Guerrier (#7), Millien (#11),

Nazon (#20) – are highly skilled and creative, and destabilize the opponent´s defense with their dribbling and high speed. • Their mayor weakness was their lack of edge in front

of the goal, not only due to technical deficiencies, but also due to the fact that they would rush and make the wrong decisions.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

In the attack, they tried to use the width of the pitch, and to leverage the speed and creativity of its defenders and forwards on the wings.

• The team has excellent physical fitness preparation,

At the end, Haiti’s performance was similar to what it had been in past editions of the Gold Cup, demonstrating a substantial improvement in its organization and tactical discipline since the qualifiers to the Caribbean Cup in late 2014.

• They had strong individual and collective mental

After all, they only conceded three goals in four matches.

• Their physical and mental capacity allows them to have

However, despite of their high quality in ball possession and creative attacking plays, the Haitians were only able to score two goals due to their poor technique in front of goal and deficient decision making in goal opportunities, a constant in all of its matches.

• They maintain the pressure on the opponent in the

both in general and specifically. • Players are usually tall, strong and very quick.

preparation. • Great capacity to maintain the rhythm and intensity

throughout the match. They displayed a good level of individual and collective concentration in every match. a good compact game between the attack and defense lines throughout the match. midfield or in their own pitch according to the game. The forwards are the first ones to apply collective pressure with great athleticism. • In the three Group phase matches, Haiti had an actual

playing time of 49:48 in the first match, 54:24 in the second match and 55:00 in the third match. They increased the actual playing time with each match,

having a time of 51:21 in the match against Jamaica in Quarterfinals. Their total average was 52:48. This total average is still below the actual playing time of the Brazil World Cup 2014, which was 55:14.   • The team had excellent technical skills and ball

possession.

HAITI´S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH: MATCH

Team

PAN

USA

HOND

JAM

Actual Playing Time

49.48

54.24

55.00

51.21

AVERAGE TOTAL

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • The team organized quickly in the defense transition

with a 1- 4-5-1 basic formation.   • The two central midfielders – Jerome (#3) and Bertin

(#6) – and the defending midfielders  – Lafrance (#13) and Marcelin (#14) – formed a defensive block in the center, and a forward would drop back to the midfield to support the midfielders. They were very compact in the midfield and had great physical strength and power. They were hard to overcome in aerial play.   • Forwards initiated the defense leading the team with

52.48

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Good direction by their coach and coaching staff,

with good use of a well-defined line-up and precise substitutions at the right times.   • The team had a very stable basic formation of 1- 4-4-2,

with attack and defense variations 1-4-5-1 and 1-3-52. In general, they had a regular line-up for the whole tournament. Good substitutions in the second halves that added speed and rhythm. • They used a defensive system with two central

midfielders and two defensive midfielders that had excellent technique and physical fitness, who were responsible for the team’s strength and tactical organization.   • This team had a very good tactical organization thanks

to the excellent skills of its two central midfielders, #14 and # 13, and the individual skill of the attackers, who were very fast and skillful. Haiti added color and creativity to the event with its dynamic and fun game.   • They often used the width of the pitch, particularly

down the wings, with fast and skillful players (#7 and # 11) who were capable of toppling the defensive lines of their opponents with their fast dribbling.   • They generated multiple goal opportunities and

dangerous plays in the opponent’s penalty area, but their poor technical level and decision-making skills in front of the goal sealed their elimination.   • In the defense, the team pressured the opponents in

the midfield and in their own pitch, depending on the rival and on the match.

great athleticism and organized in a compact line with the five midfielders and four defenders. They left no gaps between players or lines. Hard and determined in 1vs 1 and aerial plays.   • The team typically defended in the midfield (for

example against • Panama), but it was done according to the rival or the

situation. They dropped back to defend and regain ball possession (for example against the USA and Honduras in the second half, when it was up by one goal).   • The wingers closed lines towards the center to

maintain their compact play and pressure in the midfield, and supported the work of the wingers on the flanks, by marking the opponent’s wingers.   • They were generally good on the mark and defensive

coverage, but allowed two of the three goals due to individual mistakes (one against Panama and another against Jamaica, losing 1-0).   • Strong defenders in one-on-one plays and with good

individual capacity to resolve the collective’s defensive mistakes.   • The team has a fast defense transition and applies fast

pressure in the area where the ball is in order to slow down counter-attacks.   • They had no problems defending in standard situations

and corner kicks thanks to their excellent goalkeeper, Placide (#1), who is very secure in the air and displayed a high competitive level and game routine. He was considered the 2nd best goalkeeper in the tournament.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • In the attack, the team applied several variants when

they had ball possession in quick transitions (1-24-4). The team played its last match using a 1-4-3-3   basic formation.

• They usually attacked with 6 players. The wingers

advanced to the midfield and the central wingers advanced in front of the team. The two defending midfielders – Lafrance (#13) and Marcelin (#14) – were responsible for moving the ball from the defense to the offensive. They were always available to receive the ball from the defenders and to support the forwards thanks to their physical capacity and high technical level.   • They built their attacks with short passes from the

back, using the four players on the wings, and also alternated with long diagonal passes and game changes. They also used long forward passes to the forwards, looking for headers by Belfort (#9), who is strong in aerial play and therefore created gaps for Nazon (#20), who is quick and skillful in the rebound.   • Haiti also played with high rhythm towards the end of

the match, depending on the rival and the score  – for example, against USA, looking for a draw with quick counter-attacks; and against Honduras, to protect their goal advantage, they played with greater ball possession in the midfield.   • The team depended greatly on the speed and skill of

the central midfielders Guerrier (#7) and Millien (#11) or Maurice (#21) to penetrate using the width. Both players and #20, Nazon, easily overcame the their opponents in the 1vs1.   • The central midfielders also played by the center,

leaving gaps on the wings for the midfielders to advance. Alcenat (#2) and Jaggy (#4), both very good players with the ball, constantly supported the attack, seeking combination plays with the forwards through the center of the field.

• The team remained calm in any part of the pitch

and also under pressure from the rivals; even the defenders were calm in the defensive zone. They always played with support and with passing options in each situation, and created individual and collective goal opportunities. Good mobility to obtain visibility and support the player with the ball. • The team’s mayor weakness was their lack of

technique and edge in front of the goal, and the mistakes they made making decisions in the opponent’s area. They missed many goal opportunities in all of their matches and lost against Jamaica due to this, despite of their technical and tactical superiority throughout the event.

THINGS TO IMPROVE • Improve technique in front of the opponent’s goal and

decision-making to score goals and be forceful and effective inside the area. • Tactically, clearly define decision making in the

counter-attack. • On the defense, improve the individual concentration in

the defense zone. • Better use and effectiveness in standard offensive

situations. • Achieve greater discipline and stability in the

collective. Group cohesion that affects the collective (abandonment of two key players for the team).

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Johny Placide

Goalkeeper

Excellent goalkeeper. Secure, skillful with good distribution.

Jerome Merchack

Center back

Very secure defender, skillful with the ball.

Frantz Bertin

Center back

Very secure defender, skillful with the ball.

Wilde-Donald Guerrier

Winger

Amazing player, fast and skillful.

Kevin Lafrance

Central midfielder

Tactically disciplined and very good with the ball.

James Marcelin

Central midfielder

Tactically disciplined and very good with the ball.

Duckens Nazon

Forward

Highly skilled, quick and dangerous.

HAITI’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

POSITION

TYC TRC

-1

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

52.48

Johny Placide

360

136.0

Steward Ceus

0.0

Jaafson Origine

0.0

Jean Alcenat

Midfielder

250

32.8

Jerome Mechack

Defender

360

55.0

Kim Jaggy

Defender

360

55.0

Jean Jacques Pierre

Defender

35.0

Frantz Bertin

Defender

270

60.0

Wilde Donald Guerrier

Midfielder

336

94.3

Reginal Goreux

Defender

173

19.2

Kervens Belfort

Forward

123

35.7

Jeff Louis

Midfielder

117

28.0

Pascal Millien

Midfielder

133

14.8

Kevin Lafrance

Defender

251

57.9

Sony Norde

Forward

1.9

Sebastien Thuriere

Midfielder

5.2

GA Total Goals Against

Judelin Aveska

Defender

181

20.1

DD Direction in Defense

James Marcelin

Midfielder

339

107.7

FW Footwork

Soni Mustivar

Midfielder

0.0

HW Hand Work

Bitielo Jean Jacques

Defender

0.0

CE Center Exits

Duckens Nazon

Midfielder

244

117.1

Jean-Eude Maurice

Forward

245

42.2

Jean Marc Alexandre

Midfielder

180

0.0

Junior Monuma

Midfielder

0.0

4076

TOTAL

KEY TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Cards B Total for Player of the Match by Match NA Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players

HONDURAS

COACH:

JORGE LUIS PINTO COLOMBIA

score of 3 – 1 against Honduras. In the second match, Honduras defeated French Guyana 3 –0, and also won in the global match with a final score of 4 – 3. For the Gold Cup, Pinto summoned the players that he considered were in optimal shape, a mix between players playing abroad and in local leagues, and planned the following 4 preliminary friendly matches: Honduras vs. El Salvador, 2 – 0, Honduras vs. Paraguay, 2 – 2, Honduras vs. Brazil, 0 – 1, Honduras vs. Mexico, 0 -0. The average age of the players is 26 years. Honduras has been historically known for being a strong team that uses direct play, but the arrival of South American coaches has been transforming this concept. This coach intends to incorporate substantial changes to the game structure.

Honduras is one of the great representatives of the UNCAF (Central American Football Union). After the Brazil World Cup 2014, and as a result of the criticism received for its poor performance, the directives of FENAFUTH decided to change the head coach. While undergoing this reform, Honduras participated in the UNCAF tournament that took place in the USA. The team’s results in this tournament were poor, having obtained only one victory and 2 defeats. They played against Nicaragua in a match that ended with a tight 1-0 victory for Honduras and that gave them the right to play against French Guyana, as Caribbean representative, to earn a spot to participate in the Gold Cup 2015.

With a 1-5-4-1 basic formation that transitions as the game changes in the midfield after losing ball possession, the team pressures the opponent and moves to a 1- 4-3-3 formation. In the opponent’s area, the tactical formation transforms into a 1-3-3-4 with the players in the offensive. This tactical system proved to be dynamic and effective in the first match against USA. The team lost the match 2-1, but left a good impression, displayed interesting game concepts during the

After the team’s deficient performance, the Federation appointed a new coach, Mr. Jorge Luis Pinto, Colombian, who had been the head coach of the Costa Rican team that had obtained excellent results in the last World Cup. Pinto started working with the Honduran team to prepare for the match against French Guyana. In the first match, French Guyana won with a

1- 4-4-2

match and had defense/attack and attack/defense transitions. The team showed a drastic slow down in its second match against Panama. The Panamanian team proved better in the first half based on ball possession, which led to a goal in the 21st minute, scored by Luis Tejada. Honduras was able to draw the match with a penalty shot, but this was the premonition of what was to come in the next match. In the third match against Haiti, the coach tried several strategies, looking for changes that would allow the team to increase the competitive level of each player and achieve greater strength and depth in the attack, their weakest point. They only scored 2 goals in three matches and bet all on the change in tactical system that was being used. The coach changed the 1-5-4-1 formation to 1-44-2, substituting a defender and playing with two attacking forwards. At the beginning, the team’s functioning was uncertain, ball circulation was hindered by bad passes, there was no dynamic or depth and the intensity was low. Honduras lost 1-0 against Haiti in a demonstration of poor football. They lacked ability to score and power in the opponent’s area. And in addition, Haiti played a great match. Honduras was eliminated from the Gold Cup 2015 tournament with these results: Honduras vs. USA, 1-2, Honduras vs. Panama, 1-1, Honduras vs. Haiti 0-1. The team scored 2 goals in favor and conceded 4, accumulating a total of one point after the matches. Regardless of the negative outcome, this team had a superior level than the Honduran team that played the UNCAF tournament. They displayed more spirit and determination to fight.

Honduras will have to think about this early elimination and do a profound analysis of where they want to start. This team needs to learn how to be determined, effective and have depth in the attack. They have a good coach and excellent players to achieve this.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • This team had good individual and collective technique,

and players that are skillful and have good ball control, even under pressure from the opponent. • They did a good job at short and long passing from

the back and midfield, but lost efficacy in front of the opponent’s area. • Honduras had a deficient quality in terms of shots on

goal. They often used mid range shots on goal that were ineffective. The team only scored 2 goals in 3 matches and missed many goal opportunities. • Their ball possession was based on fast passing, but

was hindered in reduced spaces and under pressure from the rivals. • Honduras had players with excellent individual skills

such as Andy Najar #17, Mario Martinez #10 and Carlos Discua #7, who are always on the offensive. • The team lacked clarity to create plays that allowed

the team to reach the opponent’s area.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Players had different physical features; they were

strong, fast and tall.   • The players had good athleticism and were able to

maintain good rhythm and intensity for the duration of the match.   • They used a compact game between the attack and

defense lines during the match. • They had the ability to apply collective constant

pressure on the opponent in many parts of the pitch.   • The players were strong defenders and could be

powerful in aerial duels and in one-on-one situations. They were quick in anticipation and coverage.

HONDURAS’ ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH: Match

Team

USA

PAN

HAITÍ

Actual Playing Time

47.33

36.22

55.20

AVERAGE TOTAL

46.12

TACTICAL ANALYSIS

DEFENSE ANALYSIS

• Tactical system used was 1-5-4-1 and 1-4-4-2

• The team used 5 defenders in the 35 meters zone and

and variants.   • During the match, and depending on the player’s

response, the formation shifted. The most commonly used variants were 1-5-4-1 in the defense zone, 1-4-3-3 in midfield, and 1-3-3-4 in the last third.   • The dynamic of the first basic formation used was

very good in the first match. The game was compact, had mobility and was intense, but this did not last throughout the next two matches of the tournament.   • The team bet on ball possession, which was effective in

the midfield, and diluted towards the opponent’s goal. This was the team’s weakest point. They need to work on forcefulness, clarity and effectiveness to reach the opponent’s area. • The midfield was organized by four midfielders in

addition to the wingers, giving them width and depth in terms of mobility during the match.   • Most attacking plays occurred using the wings but

lacked clarity for center shots. In the attacks by the center, the players would turn to penetration passes opposite the defenders, but the striker was not effective in finishing.

2 central midfielders to close the gaps in the center of the field and the width during attacks using the wings. • In the defense, the whole team would drop back

to the midfield. • The team did a good job applying defensive

concepts such as pressing, coverage, closing gaps and anticipations. • The mid fielders and central midfielders constantly

used defense-attack transitions. • They had good defensive aerial play on the wings

and center. • The team was always compact between the lines. • After losing the ball, the team would pressure the

rival, but when the ball couldn’t be recovered, they would drop back to the midfield. • Midfielders and central midfielders always participated

in ball possession to build-up play from the back. • The team lacked concentration in set pieces; 3 of the 4

goals that were conceded were due to lack of defensive alertness.

ATTACK ANALYSIS

THINGS TO IMPROVE

• Build-up play from the back with the idea to control the

• Use of individual and collective resources by knowing

ball and very few long build-up plays.   • They used the wide range of the pitch and attacked

using the wings with the wingers. In the center they constantly used passes behind the opponent defenders’ backs, seeking to have depth in the attack.   • The quality and individual talent of some players

got diluted.   • Offensive plays always started in the midfield and from

this area they executed defense/attack transitions.   • They used long and mid range shots on goal. The team

lacked conviction in finishing shots.   • Ball circulation was only productive in the midfield

where they had greater space and not as much pressure from the opponent. They lacked precision, mobility and criteria in the third half of the pitch.

the areas, employing speed, precision, mobility and intensity. • Better decision-making near the opponent’s goal. • Improve the tactical knowledge of the players for

enhanced game performance. • Quick response to attack/defense transitions. • Work on maintaining concentration in defensive play,

particularly with set piece plays by the opponents. • Optimization of finishing plays and forcefulness in the

opponent’s area. • Creation of references for players in highly difficult

opponent’s goal. • Improve physical strength to enhance the technical skills.

• Constant assists through the center in wing play.   • Not very good at pre-elaborate standard plays, such as

corner kicks, free kicks and throw-ins.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Johnny Palacios

Defender

Determined, good aerial play, good on the mark.

Maynor Figueroa

Defender

Excellent in defense.

Bryan Beckeles

Defensive winger

Good in defense and attack.

Mario Martínez

Forward

Dynamic, good left technique.

Andy Najar

Midfield winger

Skillful and talented in attack.

HONDURAS’ OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART GOALS SCORED:

NAME

Luis López

GOALS AGAINST:

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

TYC TRC

Orlin Vallecillo

Donis Escober

270

Wilmer Crisanto

Defender

Maynor Figueroa

-2

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

0.0

270

Defender

270

Luis Garrido

Defender

Henry Figueroa

Defender

137

Bryan Acosta

Midfilder

177

Carlos Oiscua

Midfilder

114

Román Castillo

Forward

Anthony Lozano

Forward

Mario Martínez

46.12

33.0

27.0

KEY

45.0

0.0

30.2

19.7

47.7

3.3

226

55.1

Midfilder

168

48.7

Romell Quioto

Midfilder

4.7

Bryan García

Defender

0.0

Eddy Hernández

Forward

100

11.1

Boniek García

Midfilder

0.0

GA Total Goals Against

Erick Andino

Forward

6.9

DD Direction in Defense

Johnny Leverón

Defender

0.0

FW Footwork

Andy Najar

Midfilder

241

91.8

HW Hand Work

Alfredo Mejía

Midfilder

180

35.0

CE Center Exits

Jorge Claros

Midfilder

180

10.0

Brayan Beckeles

Defender

270

35.0

Johnny Palacios

Defender

270

35.0

3007

TOTAL

POSITION

JAMAICA

COACH:

WINFRIED SCHAEFER GERMANY

Prior to the Gold Cup, the team participated in the Copa America, where it played against top-level national teams and had good performances. This event helped the Jamaican team in their preparation to start building a stable, strong and experienced team. In its outstanding performance at the Gold Cup, the Jamaican team displayed stability in its lineup and substitutions at the precise moment. They had great tactical discipline and organization during all matches, which allowed them to grow competitively with each new match. Jamaica was part of Group B, together with Costa Rica, against which it obtained a 2-2 draw in its first match. The team defeated Canada in its second match 1-0, and obtained the same result against El Salvador (1-0), to qualify first in its group. Jamaica played against the strong Haitian team in Quarterfinals and won 1-0 in a tight match where the Haitians had the leading role.

The Jamaican team qualified to the Gold Cup 2015 by becoming champions of CFUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s last tournament. This team is undergoing a deep process, and is focusing on once again becoming a global headliner. The players had an average age of 26.2 years. Most players play abroad in the United Kingdom and the USA.

In Semifinals they played against USA, winning 2-1 with a solid defensive line, control of the ball in the midfield and intelligent counter-attacks. The team had excellent athleticism; they were mentally strong and had a winning mentality. This, together with their tactical discipline, led the team to the Final against Mexico.

This team is evolving and has matured and defined its style, and has an European coach (German), Winfried Schaefer, who is experienced in directing teams at world cups. The team displayed a good technical level; they were dynamic, balanced and tactically organized, had a good rhythm in competition, a solid defense and outstanding individual players. Jamaica played six friendly matches in preparation for the Gold Cup that concluded with the following results: four matches won, one draw, and one loss, with 8 goals for and 6 against. Matches played: JAM vs. CRC (2-2), JAM vs. ESV (1-0), JAM vs. CAN (1-0), JAM vs. HAITI (10), JAM vs. USA (2-1) and JAM vs. MEX (1-3).

63 1-4-2-3-1

Despite having lost the Final match 1-3, the team showed why they deserved to play against Mexico for the Cup. It was evident that this team has had a notable improvement in terms of technique, tactic and physical fitness. Jamaica is on a path to developing top-level football. The majority of the team’s players play abroad in British leagues and have great experience and high competitive levels. The head coach did a very good job, as did the group of coaches.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The Jamaican team was one of the national teams

that knew how to compete using technique as part of its football proposal. Individually and collectively, the team used passing, incursions, ball kicks with different contacts, short and long effective passing, and an outstanding aerial play. This allowed the team to have greater percentage of ball possession in the Group phase. • They used short passes from the back. Defenders had

good technique in managing circulation from the back and solid floor ball kicks. They would find rhythm in the midfield, play short passing in triangles and long elevated passing above the lines; the midfielders #15, #17 and #10 were outstanding. • Shots on goal were low in regards to the technical

quality displayed, being this an aspect in which the team was average. However, they placed third in shots on goal with a total of 63, which led to 8 goals in favor. • The team did not use as many shots from mid range

as they could have, losing their determination in the last third. • They were very good in ball possession, which was

one of their strengths. The team lost few balls in short passing in closed spaces. Midfielders #15, #17, #10, #19 and #20 made a difference when the midfield got crowded.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Players were strong, tall, quick, powerful and had good

skills. They displayed great athleticism and will in all of their actions, which compensated for the moments when the opponent had superior tactic and technique.   • Strangely, player #3 had a deficient performance

during the Final that generated two goal opportunities for the rivals, after having had a good performance during the rest of the tournament.   • Jamaica’s rhythm and game intensity is worth analyzing,

since they had a hard time in this aspect in the match against the USA and against Mexico, where the rivals had more ball possession and the team started to stretch out after the first twenty minutes. Tactically, they worked on recovering in the midfield. Those players who were more dynamic and quick would hurt the team with short ball kicks and position rotation.   • They had the ability to maintain a compact game

both in the attack and in defense in the fifth and sixth matches, after the tournament was well under way. They had a harder time maintaining the rhythm. Against the USA, they were able to win due to their effectiveness in scoring goals, but were surpassed in control and match rhythm.   • In the match against Mexico, the team would lose ball

possession at times and had a hard time recovering the ball, particularly in the midfield. They obtained better results when they applied pressure on the opponent in the last third than if they pressed in the midfield or defense.   • At times the team would stretch out and lose the

collective block, which contributed to the high physical individual exhaustion in overlap runs or defensive drop backs. This occurred in the last two matches.

JAMAICA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH:

• Jamaica had skillful and fast players (#11, #9, #10,

#22) that would win in one-on-one situations and had to be surpassed in order to be controlled.

• The team had good aerial game, particularly in the

defensive line and by the defensive midfielders.

Match

Team

CRC

CAN

SLV

HAI

USA

MEX

Actual Playing Time

54.02

50.28

44.56

51.21

48.35

51.02

AVERAGE TOTAL

46.12

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Basic formation used was 1-4-2-3-1 and 1-4-4-2.   • The team used the following variants: in the defensive

area 1-4-5-1; in the attack was after the half-line, 1-31-4-2; and when they waited in the midfield 1-4-4-2.   • The team was usually compact in the defense,

particularly when they stood in their defensive area (1-4-5-1); They used zone marking in regards to the ball and depending on the area where they wanted to recover.   • They were aggressive on the wings, where the

midfielders and wingers would group on the right (#19 and #22) and on the left (#20 y #10).   • The team had efficient ball possession in the midfield

and they were outstanding in controlling the game when they had the ball.   • They were organized in the build-up from the back,

with the wingers allowing the team to step up and the midfielders controlling the ball with a solid midfield and good rhythm.   • They were strong in one-on-one situations and aerial

ball dispute.   • Their strength and physical fitness were defining

factors in their game strategy, both in the attack in the defense.   • The team alternated organized come outs from the

back with ball control in the midfield, with effective long build-up plays, thanks to the speed of their forwards and the mobility of its attackers.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • The team used a defensive line of four (#19, #3, #4,

#20), in addition to 4 midfielders that worked behind the ball line (#10, #17, #15, #22) and an attacking midfielder that kept close to the opponent’s defensive midfielder, (#9), and an attacker for rapid counterattack (#11).   • They would use different defensive variants when the

wingers used the flanks, when two of them attacked, or when they moved forward to exit through the center with a defensive midfielder.   • Great defensive organization with support and

relief in their own pitch, using 2 central midfielders and wingers.

• They also had well defined coverage with good

defensive restructuring by the two defensive midfielders (#15 and #17).   • The wingers were outstanding. They closed gaps

on time, moved within the right spaces and were demanding and strong on the mark.   • Good use of anticipation by defenders and defending

midfielders thanks to their speed and power.   • Strong and effective in one-on-one situations,

particularly down the wings. The wingers and midfielders were good on the mark in this area and quickly contributed in counter-attacks.   • The team was one of the best teams in the tournament

in defensive aerial play. • The used a compact game between the lines during

the first 4 matches. In the last two matches, this was a determining factor. In the midfield the team was deficient in the center and in the rhythm to recover and regain ball possession. When they lost ball control recovering it took a long time.   • They pressured on set pieces, throw-ins, goal kicks or

fouls in the opponent’s pitch. They moved three players forward and supported the midfield, having good recovery.   • They always managed to play from the back in an

organized manner, with passes from behind, and crossed the last third with a controlled ball, skipping lines or changing fronts when the rival tried to pressure their exit.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • The majority of the team’s long direct plays were

effective, but they alternated them with controlled ball build-up plays from the midfield and the defensive line.   • Jamaican players are fast, skillful and good on one-

on-one duels. Players #22, #10, #9, #11 always won in these cases. • They were good at shifts in play and deep ball passes

to exploit the strength and speed of the midfielders and wingers. They scored 8 goals and constantly created goal opportunities in all matches.   • The team generated plays around the ball handling and

technical skills of its two central midfielders (#17 and #15), who were technical and intelligent and provided rhythm and continuity to different actions with long deep ball passes or deep passes through the middle.

• The defense/attack restructuring was rarely used. The

team stretched out and would only attack with two or three attackers.   • The team lacked forcefulness and effectiveness in

shots on goal in comparison to the amount of goal opportunities it created. Despite of this, they were third in shots on goal, but were able to score only 8 goals.   • Low use and effectiveness of mid range shots.   • In their pitch and last pitch, Jamaica was one of the

teams with best combination play and ball possession, but in the opponent’s area, they were shy in taking risks to finish, although they had the attributes to have oneon-one plays and overlapping runs using the wings.   • They shot good quality centers on the rival’s area, but

not as often as they should have, and typically in duels or dispute situations.   • The team mainly attacked from the midfield, with

triangulation and wall, or individual play.

THINGS TO IMPROVE • Better use of goal opportunities and efficacy in shots

on goal, and better use of passing in last third. • Learn to read the game in relation to what the rival is

doing. Improve defense/attack transition. • Less use of centers, better support of central

midfielders down the middle of the pitch. • Take more risks in confrontations in the opponent’s

area, and shoot more shots on goal. • Maintain intensity and rhythm for the duration

of the match. • Continue to grow in terms of self-esteem, learn that

finals are won. • Team management was one of the best in the

tournament, with a coach who is intelligent and knowledgeable about the team’s qualities.

• They tried standard pre-elaborate distraction plays in

corner kicks, but in diagonal direct kicks they did them directly, in hopes of obtaining a shot by winning in the jump and heading.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Rodolph Austin

Central midfielder

Organizer, leader, skillful and technical.

Je-Vaughn Watson

Central midfielder

Organizer, good on the mark, good technique.

Darren Mattocks

Forward

Quick, skillful, destabilizing, good scorer.

Westley Morgan

Center back

Strong on the mark, technically very good.

Garath McCleary

Winger

Good technique, destabilizing, good scorer.

Adrián Mariappa

Defensive winger

Tough on the mark, good technique.

Kemar Lawrence

Defensive winger

Good on the mark, good technique.

JAMAICA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

POSITION

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

TYC TRC

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

50.36

Andre Blake

0.0

Dwayne Miller

203

44.6

Ryan Thompson

339

43.7

Christopher Humphrey

Midfielder

2.7

KEY

Michael Hector

Defender

355

69.4

Westley Morgan

Defender

540

75.0

Player

Alvas Powell

Defender

2.6

GS Goals Scored

Lance Laing

Defender

5.6

TYC Total Yellow Cards

Andre Clennon

Forward

0.2

TRC Total Red Cards

Michael Seaton

Forward

0.3

B Total for Player of the

Giles Barnes

Forward

486

154.0

Joel McAnuff

Midfielder

529

192.8

Darren Mattocks

Forward

241

51.8

Demar Phillips

Defender

0.0

Allan Ottey

Forward

0.0

Je-Vaughn Watson

Midfielder

450

65.0

Joel Grant

Midfielder

6.0

GA Total Goals Against

Rodolph Austin

Defender

540

235.0

DD Direction in Defense

Simon Dawkins

Midfielder

351

54.0

FW Footwork

Adrian Mariappa

Defender

540

87.0

Kemar Lawrence

Defender

540

104.0

Jermaine Taylor

Defender

279

31.0

Garath McCleary

Midfielder

510

143.7

Omar Holiness

Midfielder

0.0

Sean Mcfarlane

Defender

0.0

3007

TP Total Playing Time by

Match by Match NA Total substitutions in

TOTAL

regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players

HW Hand Work

CE Center Exits

MEXICO

COACH:

MIGUEL HERRERA MEXICO

In the qualifying round the team had a notorious lack of capacity to score. They had many goal opportunities but were not able to be impactful and efficient in the shots on goal, despite having scored 10 goals, 6 of which were against a weak Cuban team and 4 against Trinidad and Tobago. This was an aspect that continued throughout the tournament. In the Quarterfinals match held in Newark (New Jersey) against Costa Rica, Mexico took the lead when it scored a goal in the 120” minute by a penalty shot. In the match for the Semifinals that took place in Atlanta (Georgia), the team played against Panama in a very controversial match. In this match, Mexico scored a goal by penalty shot in the 90” minute, obtaining a draw that forced the teams to go into extra time. The Mexicans scored a second goal, once again by penalty shot, which gave them a 2-1 lead over Panama, granting them a ticket to the Final.

Mexico is one of the teams in CONCACAF that directly qualifies to compete in the Gold Cup. This year it participated as guest in CONMEBOL’S Copa America 2015 in Chile; Only one player (Jesus Corona) was part of the line-up in both tournaments. Mexico had a team with an average age of 27.4 years. In preparation for this event, it played 5 friendly matches against the following countries: Mexico (3) – Guatemala (0); Peru (1) – Mexico (1); Brazil (2) – Mexico (0); Mexico (2) – Costa Rica (2) and Mexico (0) – Honduras (0).

The Final match for the Gold Cup 2015 was held in Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) between Mexico and Jamaica. Mexico was able to play a better match, obtaining a clear and forceful win over the “Reggae Boyz” with a score of 3-1 in 90 minutes of game, with great athleticism, technical and tactical skill and scoring ability. Mexico was known for being the team with the greatest and best ball possession and mobility of the tournament, with an average of 81.16% effectiveness in passing during the 6 matches played. But this effectiveness was not reflected in the scores due to the lack of precision of the shots on goal in the last 25 meters. It is worth highlighting that the majority of teams that played against Mexico used a defensive tactical system, placing many players in the 35 meters mark in front of their goal.

It obtained one victory, one defeat and 3 draws, with 6 goals in favor and 5 against. Mexico was part of Group C in the Gold Cup, together with Cuba, Guatemala and Trinidad & Tobago. The results of this phase were as follows: In Chicago (Illinois) against Cuba, the Mexicans won 6-0; in Phoenix (Arizona), the match against Guatemala ended in a draw (00), and in Charlotte (North Carolina) they also ended the match with a draw against Trinidad & Tobago (4-4). The team had 1 win, 2 draws and 0 defeats, earning 5 points and moving on to the Quarterfinals behind Trinidad & Tobago, first of its Group with 7 points.

1- 4-4-2

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The team had good individual and collective technique,

specially its goalkeeper. The players had great mobility that allowed them to be seen and have wide ball possession. They had good control of the ball while moving and good speed.   • They had good quality short and mid range passes even

MEXICO’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH: Match

Team

CUB

GUA

TRI

C.R

PAN

JAM

Actual Playing Time

51.33

45.13

50.19

54.30

48.34

51.02

AVERAGE TOTAL

50.05

with a one and two touch game in the opponent’s area.   • The team had excellent combinations and clear ball

possession under pressure from the opponent in the entire pitch.   • There were some skillful individual plays and dribbling

in one-on-one situations, particularly by players #18, #9, #21, #22, #7 and #8.   • They had good level in ball passing speed to avoid

pressure from the rivals.   • The quality of shots on goal was not very consistent

due more to lack of attempts than lack of direction. The team used too many side passes in front of the opponent’s area and had low penetration

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Mexico used a 1-4-4-2 basic formation. • The tactical offensive variant was 1-4-2-4 and

sometimes 1- 2-4-4, with permanent support from the wingers in the attack. • The team had constant tactical behavior, was always

organized and disciplined, and was compact and aggressive when applying pressure on the rival. • The team functioned well on rotation and synchronized

coverage in attack and defense. • They had effective ball possession with clear

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Mexico had fast and agile players in the attack, who

were strong and had the appropriate characteristics for each position. They were of average height.   • The team was able to maintain a solid scheme without

stretching out during the match due to their physical fitness level.   • All players had good athleticism and movement,

particularly the defensive wingers.   • The players had a high level of concentration,

particularly on the mark, thanks to their physical fitness level.   • The team’s high maturity level allowed them to

maintain the rhythm of the game without becoming overconfident.   • They had strong but not fast defenders, particularly

the center backs. • The midfielders and forwards were agile and fast. • The team is compact both in defense and in attack.   • Players had an excellent mentality and high

concentration level during the 120 minutes of the matches with extra time.

distribution from the goalkeeper and control of the ball in the opponent’s area, on the width of the pitch. • Mexico used a tactical defensive formation of

1-5-3-2, with fast transition from attack to defense in all matches. • They used an attacking variant of 1-3-3-4 and

sometimes changed to a 1-3-2-5, depending on the urgency during attack. • They constantly used the wingers on the flanks to open

up spaces; they would stay in the midfield and if the score required it, they would act as attacking wingers up field. • The team had a good and solid formation. • They used good distance between the lines that made

them appear compact and solid. • The players had great ball possession and position

rotation that enabled them to have wide control of the midfield. • The team had many and very constant goal

opportunities, but experienced limitations in converting them into goals.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • The team used two center backs and two defensive

wingers in addition to two central midfields in front of the defensive line in the first two matches.   • They used three center backs and two defensive

wingers and one central box-to-box midfielder, supported by two midfielders that helped to form a solid defensive structure, in the last four matches.   • They had good anticipation skills, particularly the

defenders.   • The team is good in defensive aerial play. • They are good at pressuring the rival in the midfield

with support from the defenders, who coordinated their movements between the lines. • The team used build-up plays from the back starting

from the goalkeeper, with the support of the center backs and defensive wingers.   • Good organization in shots with set piece.

• The team tried to pressure when they lost

possession of the ball or dropped back to form a tactical defensive figure.   • Strong in one-on-one defense and good use of

coverage given that they are not very fast, particularly the center backs.   • Their defense was intelligent and they were not

surprised by counter-attacking plays.   • The team stands in the midfield and from there they

pressure the rivals when they cross into their compact zone, which is about 30 to 35 meters, and which they try to maintain during the match.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • The team used an attack formation of 1-3-1-4-2 or 1-3-

1-2-4 depending on the match.   • They were good at applying wide range attacking

plays, mobility, fast and precise walls and ball passing through the center.

• They used one-on-one in set piece tactics.

• The team used the wings with the support of the

wingers and midfielders.

• They used few mid and long range shots on goal

despite having very technical players.

• They had variants in the attacks on the left side of the

pitch, on the center and on the right side of the pitch; they looked for combinations through the center.   • The players were strong and courageous in the aerial

game, and had plays with set piece where the central midfielders played a staring role. • They tried to build the plays from the defenders and

sometimes relied on their goalkeeper, who had good distribution with short passes.   • Their mid range shots were acceptable, but they had

problems scoring because their forwards are not tall or experts in this type of play.

• The team had few clear goal opportunities. It was hard

for them to penetrate the defense with many players waiting in the penalty area.

THINGS TO IMPROVE • Although Mexico had superior ball possession, it

lacked penetration in the last 20 meters and had deficient skills in mid and long range shots on goal to break the rival defenses in the matches following the Group phase. • The team didn’t have forwards that had the ability to

score in the attack. Many of the players were technical and skillful, but short and with characteristics that were more apt for destabilizing on the wings and providing centers or assists. • Since in the majority of Mexico’s matches the

opponents were waiting for the team in their own pitch and were seeking to counter-attack, it would be convenient for the team to have at least one center back that is quick and can counteract and prevent these actions.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Andrés Guardado

Volante mixto

Líder, goleador, defiende muy bien y ataca. Muy hábil y tecnico.

Jonathan Dos Santos

Volante central

Excelente posesión y distribución, disciplinado.

Paul Aguilar

Carrilero

Ágil, dinámico y muy buena técnica atacando y defiende bien

Héctor Herrera

Volante mixto

Muy buena técnica, excelente distribución.

Francisco Rodríguez

Defensa Central

Buena técnica y dirección equipo.

Jesús Corona

Delantero

Habilidoso, inteligente y goleador.

Uribe Peralta

Delantero

Goleador y jugador oportuno

Carlos Vela

Delantero

Jugador hábil e inteligente con buena técnica.

MEXICO’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

POSITION

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

TYC TRC

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

50.05

Moisés Muñoz

0.0

Jonathan Orozco

0.0

Guillermo Ochoa

617

139.6

Francisco Rodríguez

Defender

617

63.6

KEY

Yasser Corona

Defender

169

8.8

Miguel Herrera

Defender

0.0

Diego Reyes

Defender

617

58.6

Héctor Herrera

Defender

391

75.4

Miguel Layún

Defender

562

89.4

Jonathan Dos Santos

Midfielder

559

152.1

Tecatito Corona

Forward

239

91.6

Giovani Dos Santos

Forward

30.2

Carlos Vela

Forward

469

131.1

Javier Orozco

Forward

-2.7

Héctor Moreno

Defender

171

19.0

Antonio Ríos

Midfielder

0.0

Jorge Torres

Midfielder

3.2

Andrés Guardado

Midfielder

572

342.6

Oribe Peralta

Forward

576

134.0

Jesús Dueñas

Midfielder

-0.4

Carlos Esquivel

Forward

221

24.6

Paul Aguilar

Defender

610

99.8

José Juan Vázquez

Midfielder

157

17.4

TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored

TYC Total Yellow Cards

AUTOGOL TOTAL

1 6820

TRC Total Red Cards B Total for Player of the Match by Match NA Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players

GA Total Goals Against

DD Direction in Defense

FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

PANAMA

COACH:

HERNÁN GÓMEZ COLOMBIA

Panama was part of Group A in the Gold Cup tournament, together with USA, Honduras, Haiti. The team qualified as third best in the Group after having obtained the following results: Panama 1—1 Haiti Panama 1—1 Honduras Panama 1—1 USA The team got 3 points with 3 goals for and 3 against, qualifying to the second round against Trinidad and Tobago. In Quarterfinals, Panama faced the Trinidadians, the first team of Group C, in a match that ended in a 1-1 draw in the official 90 minutes, and continued like this during the 30 minutes of extra time, to finally end in a 6-5 victory by penalty shootouts. This earned Panama the right to face Mexico in the Semifinals.

In the past decade, Panama has been one of the Central American teams that has shown great advances. Its national teams, at all levels, have been headliners in UNCAF, CONCACAF and FIFA tournaments. The Panamanian team qualified for the Gold Cup 2015 by obtaining third place in the past edition of the UNCAF Cup. The team has an average age of 25.6 years. Led by head coach Hernan Dario Gomez, the team continued to prepare with 17 international league players and 6 Panamanian league players. Of the 23 players, 11 played in the team that got second place in the 2013 edition, by losing 1-0 to the USA in the Final match that took place in Chicago.

In the match for the Semifinals, Head coach Gomez made substantial line-up changes. Blas Perez was not part of the line-up and some players easily rotated positions without affecting the collective game. The match ended in a 1-1 draw in the official 90 minutes, but Mexico ended winning the controversial match in the 30 extra minutes with a 2-1 score. Panama played a sixth match for third place against the USA. It was impressive to see Panama overcoming the USA in many parts of the game, creating goal opportunities that the team didn’t manage to convert.

To prepare for the Gold Cup, Panama played 4 friendly matches with the following results:

Trinidad y Tobago 0 – 1 Panama Panama 2 – 1 Costa Rica Panama 1 – 1 Ecuador Ecuador 4 – 0 Panama 1-4-5-1

The match once again ended in a draw in the official match time, and once again Panama played the 30 extra minutes, which ended with the same result, leading the teams to penalty shootout. Panama won 3-2 and had a final outcome of Panama 4—3 USA.

By penalty shots: For 8 – Against 6

Under Hernan Dario Gomez’s leadership, Panama has strengthen its game philosophy based on a 1-4-4-2 basic formation, that is founded on applying pressure by zone and strengthened by an attacking and defending block, in which ball possession is key.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

Panama grew in terms of the way it functioned and as a team in each match played this tournament. Its game philosophy was enriched by having players with great talent and by the following characteristics: •

•

Compact play between the lines to facilitate triangulations, support, walls, etc.

The team held third place in the general rankings table of the “GOLD CUP 2015” tournament.

• The team had good individual and collective technique

in terms of ball control. They had organized build-up plays from the defensive line and midfield. The team has three excellent central midfielders (#20, #11 and #6) that are capable of constantly creating dangerous situations in the opponent’s area.

• Good quality short and long range passes in the

defensive area, midfield and in attack.

• They had good vision for shots on goal but lacked

effectiveness and impact in the attack.

• The team rarely used mid range shots on goal and had

deficient effectiveness.

• Panama had good quality and was resourceful in

ball possession under pressure from the opponent, particularly in the midfield.

• The team had players who had great individual skill

and game intelligence. Left winger Alberto Quintero #19 and right winger Valentin Pimentel #2, are important players in the offensive scheme who thanks to their dribbling capacity destabilize the opponent’s defensive lines.

•

Pressuring the opponent after losing the ball or dropping back to the midfield.

•

Use of principles such as wide range, mobility, precision, speed and intensity.

• El goalkeeper Jaime Penedo was technically skilled.

The team attacked often using the wings but lacked effectiveness scoring.

• This is a well-balanced team in terms of the technical

•

Ball possession, fair play in passing, with ball circulation using the width and depth of the pitch and surprising the opponent with deep passes.

Total: For 14 goals, Against 13 goals.

•

The two defensive lines of 4 had tactical discipline and played in a coordinated manner.

•

Great winning mentality in all situations.

•

Its worth highlighting that Panama was the only team that played three extra times, proving its great physical fitness and capacity to maintain its game identity in each match. The final results for Panama were as follows:

Goals scored in official playing time: For 6 – Against 6 In extra time: For 0 – Against 1

He has good aerial play and has good long passing skills from the back.

level of all its players. The team has good young reserve players that allow us to predict that it will soon we a leading member of CONCACAF.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • The players were strong, powerful, fast and tall. They

had a winning mentality, will and character. • The players had good physical fitness that allowed

them to maintain the dynamic.   • The team proved that they could keep a high intensity

rhythm when required and also that they could control the match’s rhythms.

• They demonstrated the capacity to have a compact

game between the defense and attack lines in all matches regardless of having to play 120 minutes of extra time in 3 matches.  • Due to their playing style based on ball possession,

the pressure on the rivals to regain possession was relative.

PANAMA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH: Match

Team

HAI

HON

USA

TRI

MEX

USA

Actual Playing Time

49.48

36.22

51.58

50.12

48.34

AVERAGE TOTAL

50.39

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • The team got organized in the last 40 meters with

2 lines that worked very well together; strong and secure in 1vs1 and aerial play.

• The team dropped back to the midfield and

organized its lines to have compact play.

• They knew how to apply the principles of the game

such as pressure, coverage, close-ins, closing down the angle and anticipation with quality thanks to their speed and power.

• They were effective in one-on-one situations and

were available in counter-attacks.

• They had good defensive heading in corner kicks, 48.09

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • The basic formation used was 1-4-4-2.   • The defensive variant was 1-4-5-1; in the attack, they

centers and rival goal kicks.

• They maintained a compact game between the

defense and attack lines.

• They pressured as soon as they lost ball possession

or dropped back to the midfield. They had a strong winning mentality in the defensive functions.

• The last line of 4 is dynamic and participated in ball

possession and the team’s starting style

changed to 1-3-3-4

• With each match, the functioning and organization

within the system used became clearer.

• The team’s line-up was based around its spinal cord, the

goalkeeper Penedo who played every match. The center backs (#3 and #5) were the basis of the team’s lineup; the defensive wingers rotated, as well as did some players in the midfield, such as #2, #11 and #13. On the attack the team had #7 Blas Perez and Luis Tejada #10, who is a team veteran, as well as the young #9.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • The team rarely used long direct starts and when

they did they were effective using #7 Blas Perez, who won the ball and was joined by his peers during the rebound, particularly by (#10) Tejada.

• The 1-4-4-2 formation allowed them to have width

and depth in the offensive, and to open gaps based on their mobility that allowed them to penetrate.

• Panama was one of the team with the most stable

line-up and changes made. This contributed to its performance in the tournament. In the midfield, some outstanding players that gave stability to the team were Gabriel Gomez #6 and Anibal Godoy #20, central midfielders with great character and solid game, and great technical skill.

• The team’s ball possession strengthened in the

midfield, with good positioning of players that enabled secure circulation of the ball. Their major problem was the lack of forcefulness and effectiveness in the finishing area.

• The midfield was strong with the grouping of the

defensive wingers and number #10, Tejada, who formed a block that allowed the team to have support, triangulations, changes in direction and good ball passing in this area.

• The players had good individual skills on the wings and

center in the attack. The outstanding players among them were #19 Alberto Quintero, #7 Blas Perez, #20 Amilcar Godoy, #10 Luis Tejada and #11 Armando Cooper, among others. Player #19 Alberto Quintero is capable with his dribbling to break up the rival defenders.

• The midfield was the point where the team elaborated

the attack thanks to their mobility, position rotations and creativity.

• They would transition from defense to attack in any

part of the pitch.

THINGS TO IMPROVE • Learn to increase the speed of the attack in the

opponent’s area by using good individual and collective control of the ball in order to create gaps, and support by using intelligent passes that increase the effectiveness and clarity in the finishing kick, through the wings and center.   • Increase the speed in the attack/defense transition. • Concentrate on the rival’s movements in the area   • Manage to have greater impact in the attack in order to

• The team rarely used mid and long range shots on goal.

gain clarity and effectiveness with shots on goal within the opponent’s area.

• Depth in the attacked was balanced with attack using

the wings, were the team lacked the ability to score.

• They used combinations between the lines to maintain

the idea of defense block and attack based on support, walls, runs with the ball, incursions or facing one-onone situations in the finishing area.

• The attacks using the wings ended with good assists.

The three goals were scored with assists using the wings.

• The team knew how to use pre-elaborate plays in

corner kicks, throw-ins and free kicks.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Jaime Penedo

Goalkeeper

Leadership, experience.,

Blas Pérez

Forward

Strong, scorer, good with headers, fast.

Alberto Quinteros

Midfield winger

Agile, dynamic and with good technique.

Amílcar Godoy

Central midfield

Has character, balance, creator of offensive plays.

Luis Tejada

Forward

Fast, scorer, has game intelligence.

Gabriel Gómez

Central midfield

Balanced, with character, Generates ball possession.

Román Torres

Center back

Great quality defender, fundamental defense axis

Harold Cummings

Center back

Fast, good in one-on-one situations.

Armando Cooper

Box-to-box midfielder

Strong player, destabilizing.

PANAMA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

POSITION

TYC TRC

-1

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

47.69

Jaime Penedo

522

136.0

Luis Mejia

124

17.8

José Calderón

0.0

Valentín Pimentel

Midfilder

381

52.3

Harold Cummings

Defender

646

61.8

Alfredo Stephens

Midfilder

7.1

Román Torres

Defender

646

161.8

Gabriel Gómez

Midfilder

300

48.3

Blas Perez

Striker

300

105.3

Gabriel Torres

Striker

5.3

Roberto Nurse

Striker

191

46.2

Luis Tejada

Striker

420

108.7

Armando Cooper

Midfilder

556

83.8

Adolfo Machado

Defender

513

37.0

Camargo Canizales

Midfilder

177

19.7

Erick Davis Grajales

Defender

466

58.8

GA Total Goals Against

Rolando Blackburn Ortega

Striker

16.8

DD Direction in Defense

Luis Henriquez

Defender

214

-6.2

FW Footwork

Pinzón Camaño

Midfilder

3.7

HW Hand Work

Quintero Medina

Midfilder

640

221.1

Godoy Lemus

Midfilder

436

93.4

Abdiel Arroyo

Striker

183

20.3

Angel Patrick

Defender

0.0

6948

TOTAL

CE Center Exits

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

COACH:

STEPHEN HART TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

The team scored 10 goals and conceded 6 in the 4 games played, but the technical group was never happy with the offensive performance, a fact that became evident in the match for the Quarterfinals when they only had 6 shots on goal in 120 minutes. The team’s defense was very well organized, especially with two lines of four men that made up a block of 8 men. They were also backed by the 2 goalkeepers throughout the 4 games. The forwards provided support in defensive kicks (free and corner kicks). Kenwyne Jones played an outstanding role in these kicks, displaying his physical power and aerial play. The midfielders were efficient and played an important defensive role, but lacked on the attack.

One of the four Caribbean teams that qualified to the tournament. The average age was 26 years. The Trinidadians performed very well in the initial part of the Gold Cup, qualifying first in their Group (C), even surpassing Mexico. The team used 18 players throughout the tournament. It made six changes to the initial line-up for their third game after qualifying to the Quarterfinals, mainly to give a rest to some of its main players, one of whom had an injury, Jan Michel (#21), the goalkeeper. The team began the tournament with a technical group that wasn´t pleased with the preparation, since they had only played two friendly matches. Moreover, they lost four of its main players due to injuries before the tournament started, including Kevin Molino, the team’s leading scorer in the Caribbean Cup.

The midfield wingers showed good technique and speed, but were not consistent enough to create trouble for their contenders. They often decided on ball incursions instead of passes, when the pass was the best choice. Defensive midfielders never managed to support the forwards since they were always too far away to support in offensive possession. For most of the tournament they defended well, were compact and left little space for their opponents in the midfield, forcing the opponents to play the wings. This forced the opponents to shot the ball above the defensive line, where they usually surpassed the rivals with their aerial play.

Their game consisted of a mix of combinations and counter-attack direct play, which did not work very well due to the lack of attackers when the ball was directed with long passes at #9, Kenwyne Jones, since it was difficult for the team to have more men attacking compactly.

1-4-4-2

They displayed solid physical strength, as well as drive and will, becoming an example of courage in the match against a powerful Mexico. The team had good collective and individual play, particularly by #6 Abu-Bakr, who was one of the tournament’s most consistent players, and #4 Sheldon Bateau. Both players were good at ball interceptions and very effective in aerial plays. Defensive wingers were solid in defense, although they did were not very good on the attack. The technical group kept the team motivated throughout the tournament. Tactical preparation was good, particularly in the match against Guatemala, where they applied pressure from the start and won the match. It was disappointing to have the team leave the tournament by losing in penalty kicks against Panama, but the team should be proud of the way in which they performed at the Gold Cup 2015.

• They often looked for long aerial play with #9 Jones,

who tried to get the ball and pass it to a teammate in the rebound. It proved its efficacy, but not always. • Trinidad & Tobago showed it is a team with great

potential for technical development, which together with its innate physical strengths provides it with the ability to become an efficient team. • The team must alternate its attack characteristics with

fast and skilled players and not depend only on Jones.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Mainly big, strong and fast players with good physical

fitness, able to sustain high intensity in the matches and to be compact in the defense lines, but not in the attack lines. • The team kept constant pressure on their opponents,

individually and collectively, but with few goal opportunities (they conceded 6 goals in 4 matches, with 4 of those goals being conceded in their match against Mexico). • Great physical power and jumping skills to dispute

ECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Good individual and collective technique, which

allowed them to get to the ball quickly and control it, even under pressure from the opponent. • Good quality in short passes during the matches, but,

as it became evident in the Caribbean Cup, their long passes to player Kenwyn Jones were not effective, since almost 50% of them failed (61 out of 119). • They scored 10 goals in the tournament, an average of

less than 8 shots on goal per match. • Little combination game; except for the first half of the

first match against Guatemala, in which they had 30 minutes of strong offensive play. • During the following matches the team was not

compact on attack and when they showed motivation, as was the case in the match against Mexico, they displayed their full potential on the attack.

• Players with good technique and skills (#13, #3 and

#11) but lacking consistency and determination to cause trouble for their opponents, mainly due to offensive instability.

aerial plays. • Skillful and very quick in counter attacks. • Very strong on one-on-one ball dispute and in aerial

play.

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH Match

Team

GUA

CUB

MEX

PAN

Actual Playing Time

47.10

50.16

50.19

50.12

Total Average

49.39

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • The team played 1-5-3-2 against Guatemala on their first

match, but went back to a more comfortable line-up of 1-4-4-2 throughout the tournament, with minimum or no variation despite match conditions. • They used 18 players in the 4 matches played. Their main

goalkeeper was injured in the second match and he had to quit the tournament. Audrey Dadid, #2, began playing as left-winger in the first match and was replaced by #17. He played again in the third match as right-winger. • They played the first match with a line-up of 5 defensive

players and 3 midfielders in front of the defensive players, but Guerra, #11, was an addition to form a 9 player block, forcing the opponents to attach on the wings or to make long passes above the defense line. • The team later switched to a more orthodox defense

tactic (1-4-4-2), with a 2 line block made up of 4 players and the goalkeeper; for free kicks, Kenwyne Jones, # 9, came down to help and defend. • They applied combinations to try to play from their own

field, passing the midfielder; they sought long balls, which were mostly won by # 9, but the opponent’s defensive players usually took the second ball. • Good defensive organization and compact team that

displayed coverage and relays, but lacked in attack. • In attack, they mostly showed individual and not collective

efforts. Its main attacker was #9. He managed to gain aerial balls very often but on the rebound was taken by the opponent’s defensive players since he was alone. • Little attack mobility from the two attackers; little

• Little defensive variation in the 4 matches, with center

midfielders playing a key role and placing them in front of the center backs when the team was attacking. • Good anticipation from the midfielders (2 center backs

and 2 defensive midfielders), recovering many balls. • The defense played compactly, leaving little room to

the opponents, but they tended to separate from the rest of the team and it took them a long time to get back to the attack zone after playing long balls. • Good in one-on-one play, taking advantage of their

physical strength and speed to beat the opponents. • An overcrowded midfield forced opponents to play

openly or to use long or diagonal balls below the defense line. • They got the majority of the balls in the area in center

free kicks or in movements from player #9, whose height and physical fitness allowed him to dominate these balls, with the help of #6 and the goalkeepers.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • The team’s only 2 attack players were not supported

by their teammates when they had the ball. They rarely attacked and most of the matches ended without shots on goal. • The 1-5-3-2 and 1-4-4-2 line-up relies a lot on

midfielders and wingers, and on defensive midfielders moving to a supportive offensive position, as well as on ball handling. Aside from the first half of the first game, this line-up was never used again in the tournament.

support from the midfielders and wingers, which made ball possession for long periods very difficult.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • They defended well throughout the tournament. The

two center midfielders and the four defensive players had good performance. • They used a 1-5-3-2 in the first match that proved to

be a good defensive line-up; but they ended up playing 1-4-4-2 for the rest of the tournament. • The most serious problem they faced was the lack of

concentration in the matches, allowing the opponent to easily score a goal.

• A structure in attack play was not evident. The

team relied mostly on what #9 Kenwyne Jones, who dominated the ball and had great impact on the match against Mexico, could accomplish, but he never managed to hold on to the ball successfully. • The attack was based on aerial balls directed to #9.

This was his great strength but he lacked mobility. Players #3, #13 and #20, had more skills and mobility, but lacked consistency (the absence of player Molino was evident). • They never attacked compactly; their 10 goals in the

tournament were scored mostly out of individual capacity rather than due to collective combinations on their opponents.

THINGS TO IMPROVE • Effectiveness in the usage of long passes. • Shots on goal from mid and close range. • Improved level of concentration during the match. • Incorporate more attack players; be more compact in

terms of offense. • Better and higher level of mobility by attacking players. • Better use of free kicks and corner kicks. • Alternating the striker with players of different

characteristics.

• Not enough combinations due to the lack of support or

excess of individual plays that were not as successful as the one-on-one game, but their speed managed to create difficulties for their opponents. • They focused their attack on looking for #9. They

shortly demonstrated during the first half of the first match that they can be dangerous and effective on the wings, especially with the speed and skill of #3 and #13, who could be more effective if they had more support and the company of more attack players. • Lack of good ideas and performance in situations that

favored them.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Sheldon Bateau

Center backs

Solid aerial play. Scored 2 goals. Leader.

Radanfah Abu-Bakr

Center backs

Strong in defense, very confident in one-on-one.

Lester Peltier

Central midfielder

Very good technique. Team organizer. Great location.

Kenwyne Jones

Forward

Apathetic at times. Dangerous player due to his physical power and strength. Leading scorer.

Andre Boucaud

Central midfielder

Very good technique. Another leader. Organizer.

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE CHART IN THE TOURNAMENT GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

GOAL DIFFERENCE::

POSITION

TYC TRC

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

49.39

Marvin Phillip

258

16.7

Jan Michael

135

29.0

Adrian Foncette

0.0

Aubrey David

Defender

180

20.0

Joevin Jones

Midfielder

380

109.2

Sheldon Bateau

Defender

390

128.3

Daniel Cyrus

Defender

300

23.3

Radanfah Abu Bakr

Defender

300

38.3

Jonathan Glenn

Forward

0.0

Khaleem Hyland

Defender

246

61.3

Kenwyne Jones

Forward

390

110.3

Willis Plaza

Forward

4.1

Kadeem Corbin

Forward

0.0

Atualla Guerra

Forward

162

8.0

Cordell Cato

Midfielder

257

78.6

Andre Boucaud

Midfielder

150

56.7

GA Total Goals Against

Dwane James

Midfielder

16.8

DD Direction in Defense

Rundell Winchester

Forward

0.0

FW Footwork

Mekeil Williams

Defender

300

13.3

HW Hand Work

Yohance Marshall

Defender

45.0

CE Center Exits

Kevan George

Midfielder

390

73.3

Keron Cummings

Midfielder

195

71.7

Lester Peltier

Midfielder

153

17.0

4329

TOTAL

USA

COACH:

JĂ&#x153;RGEN KLINSMAN GERMANY

In its first match against Honduras, the USA obtained a difficult and hard disputed victory (2-1), but it showed difficulties in its deep attacking plays and effectiveness, problems that persisted throughout the tournament. In its second match, USA defeated Haiti (1-0), but this tight result could have been different due to the competitive quality displayed by both teams in the field. After this match, the players began switching positions in the line-up, making it the most instable team in terms of line-up and player changes. The third match against Panama resulted in a draw (1-1) and the match was very even. Panama had strong winning options. Again, the team was affected by a large amount of changes in line-up and lack of depth in attacking plays. When the stage ended, it was uncertain who the main USA players were.

The USA team came to the Gold Cup 2015 as a winner. Since its first appearance in the Gold Cup in 1991, the USA has become a power team within the Confederation (five-time champions in 1991, 2002, 2005, 2007 and 2013), as well as a solid national team internationally, getting to the Quarterfinals in the last two FIFA World Cups (2010 and 2014). The team had solid preparation, having played 8 friendly matches prior to the tournament and winning 5 of them (2-0 vs. Panama, 2-0 vs. Mexico, 4-3 vs. the Netherlands, 2-1 vs. Germany, 4-0 vs. Guatemala), having one draw (1-1) vs. Switzerland, and losing 2, 2-3 vs. Chile and 2-3 vs. Denmark. The team scored 19 goals and conceded 11.

The USAÂ´s national team had a core of experienced players, including 17 that had been in Brazil 2014. The average age of this team was 26.8 years during the first stage, and after the three changes in the Quarterfinals, it was 27.5, the same average as Guatemala. The question is whether the USA used this tournament to experiment with new players and combinations. It changed its line-up from match to match; 7 players were changed for the second match and 9 for the third. They also placed

The USA was a favorite to hold the title it had won against Panama in 2013. In this Gold Cup, the USA national team displayed little of its track record and disappointed many.

It was part of Group (A), alongside Panama, Honduras and Haiti, teams that became a hurdle for the USA. 1-4-4-2

players in different positions. Before the match against Cuba in the Quarterfinals, 3 new players were added to the team, and 3 of the initial players were discharged. The fact that the USA never had a stable line-up undermined the team’s stability and cohesion. 3 changes took place in the match for the Quarterfinals, and 2 in the match against Jamaica during the Semifinals. Ironically the USA was disqualified due to its defeat (2-1) against Jamaica, in a performance that was arguably their best performance of the tournament. The match for the third place came to a sad end for the defending champions. They lost by penalty kicks against Panama, a team that was eager to avenge their 2013 defeat and to rescue their 2015 performance. Unexpectedly, the USA ended up in fourth place. The team had an excellent goalkeeper, (#1) Guzan, and focused on its backbone of 5 players, 2 center backs: Alvarado (#13) and Brooks (#6); 2 central midfielders: Beckerman (#5) and Bradley (#4), and finally, its forward, Dempsey (#8). But the team seemed unable to keep the defensive discipline and organization in the mid field. They could not play compactly in the mid field, and left many spaces open for the opponent’s midfielders. They also failed in marking and in efficient defense coverage, particularly in the penalty area. The USA attacked the wings with midfield wingers and defensive wingers. They scored 3 goals with centers coming from the wings. They also tried to exploit possession in central areas with combinations of the midfielders and the defense, particularly near the opponent’s penalty area. However, they were undone due to bad passes in the mid field, especially bad long passes coming from the defense.

Its most effective attack player was Clint Dempsey (#8), the tournament’s leading scorer, and Michael Bradley (#4), who posed a threat with his speed from the mid field to support the forwards. The USA also took advantage of free kicks. In fact, this was their mayor strength and they ended up scoring 4 goals using this method.

In the end, the USA lacked a stable line-up and its defense was too frail; they needed more compact play in the mid field and they relied excessively on an attack player, which prevented them from defeating the more determined and betterorganized Jamaican and Panamanian teams.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Midfielders and defensive players have a good level of

individual and collective technique, but not so much the forwards. They are able to control, pass the ball and play under pressure and at first touch, but there is not one single talent, a player with special attacking skills that can make the difference. • They build their attack with short passes, but can also

do long passes, especially Bradley (#4) and Beckerman (#5), aiming at changes in the game. • They have good technique for shots on goal from

different distances and are able to score from inside and outside the penalty area. • They have good heading techniques, both in attack

and defense. • The goalkeeper, Guzan (#1), has excellent ball handling

technique, as well as hand and feet direction. • They are generally solid in one-on-one defensive play,

were they display power and strength.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • Most players are quick, powerful, tall and strong. • The team has an outstanding physical fitness: they

can maintain the pace until the end of the match, for example in the match, against Haiti. Nonetheless, they showed physical exhaustion in the second half of the match against Panama for third place. • They lost their defensive organization at times, but this

was due not to lack of physical resources but to lack of tactical discipline in the mid field.

USA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH Match

Team

HON

HAI

PAN

CUB

JAM

PAN

Actual Playing Time

47.13

54.24

51.28

58.15

48.35

50.39

• They play using the wide range and many play changes,

seeking lateral and central penetrations (they scored 3 goals using this technique). Total Average

52.049

• They take advantage of standard situations (scoring

4 goals in these situations), thanks to Bradley’s technique, height and power in aerial play.

ANÁLISIS EN DEFENSA

TACTICAL ANALYSIS

• The team used a 1-4-4-2 basic formation approach,

• Stable approach 1-4-4-2 formation with an attack

• The block of center backs and midfielders made up the

variation. • Defends and applies collective pressure in the mid

field against any opponent. • Usually well organized in the pitch in attack and

defense; sometimes, there is a lack of concentration and compact play in the mid field. • Center midfielders Gonzalez (#3) or Alvarado (#13) and

center backs Bradley (#4) and Beckerman (#5) are the foundation of the team; they divide the work between two contentions- Bradley attacks more and Beckerman is always near the defense. • They seek ball control on the attack and hence, control

with stable organization of its defensive line. basis of the collective defense. • The forwards pushed the opponent’s defense with the

support of Bradley and the midfield wingers Bedoya (#11) and Zardes (#20). • Generally well organized. There were cases in which

they lost organization due to because Bradley’s slow transition to defense, who prioritizes offense more than the defenders and midfield wingers. Sometimes they look like 2 teams because they are not compact in the mid field. • They often lack good marking and coverage. At times,

the goalkeeper acted as a defender outside the area.

the pace of the match.

• The midfield wingers did a good job of closing in on

the center of the pitch and supported the work done by the wingers with marking and pressure on the opponent wingers. • They are very effective in one-on-one situations. • They display good defensive heading (although they did

not score that way) and in attacking heading (scoring 3 header goals).

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• They transition quickly to attack and counterattack

using Bradley (#4) and Johannsson’s (#9) speed. • They scored 12 goals out of 60 shots on goal (an

average of 10 shots on goal per match). Most of them, 6, from inside the penalty area, 5 from the box and 1 from outside the penalty area. • The team lacked clarity and effectiveness in attack

combinations near the opponent’s area; attackers did not work together. Bradley improved this situation with his offensive support. • One of the team’s strengths is that they applied pre-

elaborate plays in corner kicks, throw-ins and free kicks. This lead to most goals being scored this way due to strong physical power in aerial play.

• They play 1-2-4-4 or 1-2-3-1-4. • The team has good basic technique level, and

defenders and midfielders can play well on passing at first touch under pressure and in narrow spaces, but not the strikers. • They build their attack from the back with short and

long passes to change the game and the spaces, but they make bad passes. • Central midfielders divide the responsibility among

them, with Beckerman (#5) passing the ball on the defensive and Bradley (#4) supporting the forwards with his speed and reach in dangerous positions. • They attack from the wings, looking for lateral

penetration to pass centers. Wingers support the attack from the left. 4 out of 12 goals came from center passes, 3 from the left.

THINGS TO IMPROVE • Their long passes and combination penetration. They

need skilled midfielders, with offensive creativity and aptitude. • Their lack of compact game in the mid field; collective

transition to the defense after the attack; marking and defense coverage. • A more compact game, eliminating the split of the team

in two when they slowly shift to defensive coverage. • Selecting and maintaining a stable line-up for an event

of this level and responsibility.

• Forwards move throughout the pitch and mix with

midfield wingers in the opponent’s area aiming for center shots on goal. 5 of their goals happened that way.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Brad Guzan

Goalkeeper

Excellent goalkeeper, he is in control

Michael Bradley

Central midfielder

Works hard, attacks and scores

Kyle Beckerman

Central midfielder

Organizer, provides coverage and support to teammates

Clint Dempsey

Forward

Scorer, intelligent and hard worker

Alejandro Bedoya

Midfield winger

Good wing attack, he centers passes

USA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE CHART IN THE TOURNAMENT GOALS SCORED:

NAME

GOALS AGAINST:

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

POSITION

TYC TRC

Brad Guzan

574

Nick Rimando

William Yarbrough

Deandre Yedlin

Midfielder

Omar Gonzalez

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

52.04

184.8

0.0

242

28.9

Defender

270

65.0

Michael Bradley

Midfielder

574

214.8

Kyle Beckerman

Midfielder

306

69.0

Player

John Brooks

Defender

394

68.8

GS Goals Scored

Alfredo Morales

Midfielder

136

15.1

TYC Total Yellow Cards

Clint Dempsey

Forward

472

297.4

TRC Total Red Cards

Aron Johannsson

Forward

390

100.3

B Total for Player of the

Mix Diskerud

Midfielder

115

27.8

Alejandro Bedoya

Midfielder

239

78.6

Ventura Alvarado

Defender

360

30.0

Greg Garza

Midfielder

7.3

Tim Ream

Defender

214

23.8

Brad Evans

Defender

256

28.4

Team Players

Jozy Altidore

Forward

104

26.6

GA Total Goals Against

Chris Wondolowski

Forward

141

15.7

DD Direction in Defense

Graham Zusi

Midfielder

158

17.6

Gyasi Zardes

Midfielder

403

71.8

Timmy Chandler

Defender

322

22.8

Fabian Johnson

Defender

487

66.1

Joe Corona

Midfielder

169

18.8

Damarcus Beasley

Midfielder

3.8

Alan Gordon

2.2

6446

KEY TP Total Playing Time by

Match by Match NA Total substitutions in

TOTAL

regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all

FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

TEAM AND PLAYER AWARDS 92

IV. TEAM AND PLAYER AWARDS

BEST PLAYER:

TOP SCORER

ANDRÉS GUARDADO MEXICO

(7 GOALS) CLINT DEMPSEY USA

BEST GOALKEEPER

FAIR PLAY AWARD

BRAD GUZAN USA

JAMAICA

TOURNAMENT’S DREAM TEAM: Goalkeeper

Brad Guzan

USA

Right wing back

Paul Aguilar

Mexico

Left wing back

Kemar Lawrence

Jamaica

Center back

Román Torres

Panama

Center back

Westley Morgan

Jamaica

Center midfielder

Jonathan Dos Santos

Mexico

Center midfielder

Andrés Guardado

Mexico

Center midfielder

Rodolph Austin

Jamaica

Right back

Armando Cooper

Panama

Left back

Armando Quintero Medina

Panama

Forward

Clint Dempsey

5 1

8 18 19

USA

4 20

STATISTICS

A. MATCH RESULTS (GROUP, QUARTERFINALS, SEMIFINALS AND FINAL) JULY 7TH

JULY 8TH

JULY 9TH

JULY 10TH

JULY 11TH

JULY 12TH

JULY 13TH

Panama

1-1

Haiti

USA

2-1

Honduras

Costa Rica

2-2

Jamaica

El Salvador

0-0

Canada

Trinidad & Tobago

3-1

Guatemala

Mexico

6-0

Cuba

Honduras

1-1

Panama

USA

1-0

HaitĂ

Jamaica

1-0

Canada

Costa Rica

1-1

El Salvador

Trinidad & Tobago

2-0

Cuba

Guatemala

0-0

Mexico

Haiti

1-0

Honduras

Panama

1-1

USA

JULY 14TH

JULY 15TH

JULY 18TH

JULY 19TH

JULY 22ND

Jamaica

1-0

El Salvador

Canada

0-0

Costa Rica

Cuba

1-0

Guatemala

Mexico

4-4

Trinidad & Tobago

USA

6-0

Cuba

Jamaica

1-0

Haiti

Trinidad y Tobago

1-1

Panama

Penales

2-3

Mexico

1-0

Costa Rica.

USA

1-2

Jamaica

Panama

1-2

Mexico

THIRD PLACE JULY 25TH

USA

1-1

Penales

5-6

Panama

FINALS JULY 26TH

Jamaica

1-3

Mexico .

B. GROUP TEAM RANKING TABLE GROUP A

POINTS

USA

HAITI

HONDURAS

-2

PANAMA

GROUP B

POINTS

Costa Rica

El Salvador

-1

Canada

-1

Jamaica

POINTS

Mexico

Trinidad & Tobago

Cuba

-7

Guatemala

-3

GROUP C

KEY

100

MP: Matches Played

MD: Matches Draw

D: Goal Difference

MW: Matches Won

GF: Goals For

YC: Yellow Cards

ML: Matches Lost

GA: Goals Against

RC: Red Cards

NOTE: The first two positions of each group and the two best thirds qualified. Group A was the strongest with 2 of its teams finishing in the top 4 of the tournament.

C. OUTSTANDING PLAYERS BY MATCH GAME

MATCH

NAME

PLAYER #

COUNTRY

Panama vs Haiti

Quintero Medina

Panama

USA vs Honduras

Clint Dempsey

USA

Costa Rica vs Jamaica

Rodolph Austin

Jamaica

El Salvador vs Canada

Arturo Alvarez

El Salvador

Trin. & Tob. vs Guatemala

Joevin Jones

Trinidad & Tobago

Mexico vs Cuba

Oribe Peralta

Mexico

Honduras vs Panama

Andy Najar

Honduras

USA vs Haiti

Clint Dempsey

USA

Jamaica vs Canada

Rodolph Austin

Jamaica

Costa Rica vs El Salvador

Celso Borges

Costa Rica

Trin. & Tob. vs. Cuba

Andre Boucaud

Trinidad & Tobago

Guatemala vs Mexico

Andres Guardado

Mexico

Haiti vs Honduras

James Marcelin

Haiti

Panama vs USA

Godoy Lemus

Panama

Jamaica vs El Salvador

Rodolph Austin

Jamaica

Canada vs Costa Rica

Bryan Ruiz

Costa Rica

Cuba vs Guatemala

Maykel Alejandro

Cuba

Mexico vs Trin. & Tob.

Keron Cummings

Trinidad & Tobago

USA vs Cuba

Clint Dempsey

USA

Jamaica vs Haiti

Joel McAnuff

Jamaica

Trinidad & Tobago vs Panama

Jaime Penedo

Panama

Mexico vs Costa Rica

Andres Guardado

Mexico

USA vs Jamaica

Rodolph Austin

Jamaica

Panama vs Mexico

Andres Guardado

Mexico

USA vs Panama

Quintero Medina

Panama

Mexico vs Jamaica

Johnattan Dos Santos

Mexico

NOTE: The teams that had the highest number of outstanding players per match were Mexico and Jamaica, with 5 players each. The three players who received this honor most times were: Rudolph Austin from Jamaica, 4 times: He was followed by Andres Guardado from Mexico, 3 times, who also scored 6 goals and had 2 assists, and was chosen as outstanding player in his 6 games and named the best player of the tournament by CONCACAF’s technical study group.Clint Dempsey, from the USA, was named 3 times as Player of the Match and the tournament’s top scorer with 7 goals.

101

D. LIST OF TOP SCORERS. GOALS

TEAM

PLAYER

# 8 USA – Clint Dempsey: / 2 vs Honduras / 1 vs Haití / 3 vs Cuba / 1 vs Pan. /

# 18 México - Andrés Guardado: / 1 vs Cuba / 1vs Trinidad & Tobago / 1 vs Costa R / 2 vs Panamá / 1 vs Jamaica /

# 19 México - Uribe Peralta: (3 vs Cuba, 1 vs Jamaica).

# 20 Haití- Duckens Nazon: (1 vs Panamá, 1 vs Honduras). # 9 Jamaica- Giles Barnes: (1 vs Haití, 1 vs USA). # 11 Jamaica- Darren Mattocks: (1 vs USA, 1 vs México). #22 Jamaica - Garath McCleary: (1 vs Costa Rica, 1 vs El Salvador). #11 México – Carlos Vela: (1 vs Cuba, 1 vs Trinidad & Tobago). # 10 Panamá. Luis Tejada: (1 vs Honduras, 1 vs Trinidad & Tobago). # 4 Trinidad & Tobago - Sheldon Bateau: (1 vs Guatemala, 1 vs Cuba). # 9 Trinidad & Tobago – Kenwyne Jones: (1 vs México, 1 vs Panamá). # 20 Trinidad & Tobago – Keron Cummings: (2 vs México). # 4 USA - Michael Bradley: (1 vs Panamá, 1 vs Jamaica).

# 10 Costa Rica – Bryan Ruiz: (1 vs El Salvador). # 19 Costa Rica - Roy Miller :(1 vs Jamaica). # 21 Costa Rica – David Ramírez: (1 vs Jamaica).

102

# 17 Cuba – Maikel Reyes: (1 vs Guatemala). # 12 El Salvador - Dustin Corea: (1 vs Costa Rica). # 16 Guatemala – Carlos Ruiz: (1 vs Trinidad & Tobago).

GOALS

TEAM

PLAYER

# 7 Honduras – Carlos Discua: (1 vs USA). # 17 Honduras – Andy Najar: (1 vs Panamá). # 10 Jamaica – Joel McAnuff: (1 vs Costa Rica). # 17 Jamaica – Rodolph Austin: (1 vs Canadá). # 9 México – Jesús Corona: (1 vs Jamaica). # 10 México - Giovani Dos Santos: (1 vs Cuba). # 22 México - Paul Aguilar: (1 vs Trinidad & Tobago). # 5 Panamá – Román Torres :(1 vs México). # 7 Panamá - Blas Pérez :(1 vs USA). # 9 Panamá – Roberto Nurse: (1 vs USA). # 19 Panamá – Quintero Medina: (1 vs Haití). # 3 Trinidad & Tobago – Joevin Jones: (1 vs Guatemala). # 13 Trinidad & Tobago – Cordell Cato: (1 vs Guatemala). # 14 Trinidad & Tobago – Andre Boucaud: (1 vs Cuba). # 18 Trinidad & Tobago - Yohanse Marshall: (1 vs México). #3 USA – Omar González :( 1 vs Cuba). #9 USA - Aron Johansson :(1 vs Cuba). #20 USA – Gyasi Zardes :(1 vs Cuba).

GOAL

# 9 Trinidad & Tobago – Kenwyne Jones: (1 vs México).

103

E. TEAM STATISTICS DURING THE TOURNAMENT COUNTRY

Canada

-1

Costa Rica

-1

Cuba

-13

El Salvador

-1

Guatemala

-3

HaitĂ

-1

Honduras

-2

Jamaica

Mexico

Panama

-1

Trinidad & Tobago

USA

KEY MP Matches Played MW Matches Won ML Matches Lost

MD Matches Draw GF: Goals For GA: Goals Against

GD: Goal Difference YC: Yellow Cards RC: Red Cards

NOTE: As shown in the table above, many matches were tight. 11 matches ended in draw and only 3 had a large goal difference: Cuba vs. Mexico and Cuba vs. USA (12 goals against Cuba) and Mexico vs. Trinidad & Tobago (8 goals against). Mexico was the leading scorer with 16 goals and Cuba conceded the most goals (14). Panama received the largest number of warnings, with 19 yellow cards and 2 red cards, as well as with serious occurrences outside the pitch. Jamaica received the Fair Play Award. The team played 6 matches and had very few warnings. It also avoided any serious occurrences outside the field, two factors that played a substantial role in the decision for the Fair Play Award.

104

105

F. ACTUAL PLAYINGTIME BY MATCH GAME

106

MATCH

1 TO 15

15 TO 30

30 TO 45

1ST HALF

45 TO 60

60 TO 75

75 TO 90

2ND HALF

T. TIME

Panama vs Haiti

7.39

10.10

7.44

25.33

9.29

7.46

7.00

24.15

49.48

USA vs Honduras

6.05

8.02

9.10

23.17

7.28

7.34

8.54

23.56

47.13

Costa Rica vs Jamaica

10.10

9.03

8.35

27.48

9.02

9.48

8.04

26.54

54.02

El Salvador vs Canada

7.17

4.40

7.49

23.06

8.23

8.00

24.23

47.29

Trin. & Tob. vs Guatemala

9.10

7.38

7.25

25.13

7.30

7.12

7.15

21.57

47.10

Mexico vs Cuba

9.44

8.37

7.13

25.34

9.00

7.49

9.10

25.59

51.33

Honduras vs Panama

6.30

6.03

7.33

20.06

6.55

5.41

4.20

16.16

36.22

USA vs Haiti

9.26

7.00

8.42

25.08

9.46

9.27

10.03

29.16

54.24

Jamaica vs Canada

10.03

10.12

8.12

28.27

8.37

7.23

6.31

22.31

50.58

Costa Rica vs El Salvador

10.04

8.16

10.34

28.54

9.05

7.35

8.36

25.16

54.10

Trin. & Tob. vs. Cuba

9.41

7.58

8.10

25.49

8.20

8.01

8.06

24.27

50.16

Guatemala vs Mexico

8.03

7.47

6.39

22.29

8.31

8.59

5.54

22.44

45.13

Haiti vs Honduras

9.50

8.46

9.04

27.00

11.00

8.50

8.30

28.20

55.00

Panama vs USA

9.10

8.09

7.18

24.37

10.13

9.49

7.59

27.21

51.58

Jamaica vs El Salvador

8.45

6.02

8.01

22.48

7.47

7.09

7.52

22.08

44.56

Canada vs Costa Rica

8.22

7.42

8.05

24.09

7.50

6.26

7.02

21.18

45.27

Cuba vs Guatemala

7.30

7.12

7.15

21.57

9.10

7.38

7.25

24.13

46.10

Mexico vs Trin. & Tob.

10.23

8.16

7.45

26.24

8.06

8.10

7.39

23.55

50.19

USA vs Cuba

11.13

9.56

9.07

30.16

9.31

10.21

8.07

27.59

58.15

Jamaica vs Haiti

10.00

9.20

10.40

30.00

7.23

6.40

7.58

21.21

51.21

Trinidad & Tobago vs Panama

10.03

8.53

6.01

24.57

8.30

9.15

8.10

25.55

50.12

Mexico vs Costa Rica

9.23

8.48

9.42

27.13

11.30

7.47

8.40

27.17

54.30

USA vs Jamaica

9.12

9.13

7.02

25.27

7.36

9.50

6.22

23.08

48.35

Panama vs Mexico

8.43

6.10

9.22

24.15

8.15

10.02

6.00

24.19

48.34

USA vs Panama

9.55

6.30

7.32

23.17

9.36

8.16

9.30

29.22

50.39

Mexico vs Jamaica

8.02

8.04

7.06

23.12

9.15

9.35

9.00

27.50

51.02

9.28

8.01

80.1

25.09

8.59

8.07

8.01

24.50

50.06

AVERAGE

NOTE: In regards to the actual playing time, the chart shows that: •

The match with the shortest playing time was Honduras vs. Panama, with 36.22 minutes, which is very low due to the amount of interruptions caused by fouls, injuries and the slow pace of the match.

•

The match with the highest actual playing time was USA vs. Cuba (58.15), due to an evident superiority of the USA in all aspects of the game, such as possession and pace. This time is below the match with the highest actual playing time in the Gold Cup 2013, which was Costa Rica vs., Cuba, with 61.26

•

The fourth period of 15 minutes with the highest actual playing time was in the first 15 minutes of the first half of the event, with an average of 9.28 minutes.

•

The first half of the matches (45 minutes) with the highest actual playing time was 25.09, a time below the Gold Cup 2015, which was of 27.55.

•

The total actual playing time average of the tournament was of 50.06, which is higher than the average actual playing time of the Final of the CFU 2014 (49.04), and similar to the average of the UNCAF Cup 2014 (50.31). However, this average is below that of the previous Gold Cup (54.54) and below Brazil’s World Cup (55.14).

107

G. CHANGES IN LINE-UP BY TEAMS DURING MATCHES TEAMS

2ND MATCH

3RD MATCH

4TH MATCH

5TH MATCH

6TH MATCH

TOTAL AVERAGE

POR CIENTO

Canada

0.83

7.69

Costa Rica

0.83

7.69

Cuba

1.17

10.77

El salvador

0.33

3.08

Guatemala

1.00

9.23

Haiti

1.00

9.23

Honduras

0.50

4.62

Jamaica

0.67

6.15

Mexico

0.83

7.69

Panama

1.00

9.23

Trinidad & Tobago

0.83

7.69

USA

1.83

16.92

TOTAL

AVERAGE

2.83

1.50

0.50

0.17

0.42

PERCENTAGE

52.31

27.69

9.23

3.08

7.69

10.38 100.00

NOTE: The most unstable team in terms of line-up was the USA. The team had 11 changes in its main lineup in the first match, and 7 changes for its second match. OF all the teams that made it to the final round, Jamaica and Panama showed the most stability in their main line-up.

108

H. MOST VALUABLE PLAYER BY TEAMS AND IN THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG RANKING TOURNAMENT’S PLAYER WITH THE HIGHEST AVERAGE TEAMS

NAME

PLAYER #

POSITON

Canada

Kryriakos Stamatopolus

270

82.00

Costa Rica

Bryan Ruiz

Midfielder

327

126.33

Cuba

Ariel Pedro

Midfielder

360

75.00

El Salvador

Derby Carrillo

270

87.00

Guatemala

Carlos Ruiz

Forward

257

53.56

Haiti

Johny Placide

360

136.00

Honduras

Andy Najar

Midfielder

241

91.78

Jamaica

Rodolph Austin

Defender

540

235.00

Mexico

Andres Guardado

Midfielder

572

342.56

Panama

Quintero Medina

Midfielder

640

221.11

Trinidad & Tobago

Sheldon Bateau

Defender

390

128.33

USA

Clint Dempsey

Forward

472

297.44

TOURNAMENT’S PLAYER WITH THE HIGHEST AVERAGE TEAMS

NAME

Mexico

Andres Guardado

PLAYER #

POSITON

Midfielder

572

342.56

KEY PT: Playing Time

RC: Red Cards

O: Outstanding

GS: Goals Scored

NL: New in the Line-up

MM: Player of the Match

YC: Yellow Cards

A: Assists

RQ: Ranking

NOTE: Andres Guardado from Mexico was the tournament’s Best Player according to CONCACAF’s Technical Study Group. He also had the best ranking with 6 goals, 2 assists, outstanding in the 6 games, and named Player of the Match 3 times.

109

I. MOST VALUABLE GOALKEEPER OF THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG RANKING TEAMS

CANADA

COSTA RICA

CUBA

EL SALVADOR

GUATEMALA

HAITI

HONDURAS

110

JAMAICA

GOALKEEPERS

PLAYER #

TPOD

TPFW

TPCE

Lars Hirschfeld

0.00

Quillan Roberts

0.00

Kryriakos Stamatopolous

82.00

Dany Carvajal

0.00

Patrick Pemberton

0.00

Esteban Alvarado

395

83.89

Sandy S谩nchez

0.00.

Arael Arguelles

0.00

Di贸svely Alejandro

360

-50.00

Luis Contreras

0.00

Oscar Arroyo

0.00

Derby Carrillo

270

87.00

Victor Ayala

0.00

Paulo Motta

180

53.00

Ricardo Jerez

-8.00

Johny Placide

360

136.00

Steward Ceus

0.00

Jaafson Origine

0.00

Luis L贸pez

0.00.

Orlin Vallecillo

0.00

Donis Escober

270

33.00

Andr茅 Blake

0.00

Dwayne Miller

203

44.56

Ryan Thompson

339

43.67

MEXICO

PANAMA

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

USA

Moisés Muñoz

0.00

Jonathan Orozco

0.00

Guillermo Ochoa

617

139.56

Jaime Penedo

522

136.00

Luis Mejia

124

17.78

José Calderón

0.00

Marvin Phillip

258

16.67

Jan Michael

135

29.00

Adrián Foncette

0.00

Brad Guzan

574

184.78

Nick Rimando

0.00

William Yarbrough

0.00

GOALKEEPER WITH THE HIGHEST RANKING TEAMS

GOALKEEPERS

USA

Brad Guzan

PLAYER #

GOALS ALLOWED

RANKING

184.78

KEY GA: Goals Allowed

MMNT: Player of the Match, Number of Times

TPHW: Total Points for Hand Work

GPT: 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 against, 3) goals for, 4) Disciplinary measures (yellow and/or red cards, 5) Player of the Match selection, 6) technical level, 7) outstanding per match and based on the criteria of the technical study group specialists (TSG). The tournament’s best goalkeeper was USA’s (#1) Brad Guzan. He conceded 5 goals and displayed a superior technical level, team management and good ball handling skills.

111

J. SUMMARY TABLE BY TEAM (CARDS, GOALS, CHANGES IN LINE-UP, OUTSTANDING PLAYERS) GOALS

OUTSTANDING

NEW IN THE LINE-UP

RED CARDS

Canada

Costa Rica

Cuba

El Salvador

Guatemala

Haiti

Honduras

Jamaica

Mexico

Panama

Trinidad & Tobago

USA

TOTAL

114

110

COUNTRIES

112

YELLOW CARDS

•

NOTE:

•

62 goals were scored in 26 matches, an average of 2.38 goals per match. 40 were assists and 13 were headers.

•

34 goals were scored by forwards, 13 by midfield wingers, 8 by defensive midfielders and 7 by defenders.

•

38 goals were scored inside the penalty area, 19 from the box and 5 from outside the penalty area.

•

114 out of 267 players had outstanding performance in this tournament. 46 were shortlisted to assemble the dream team, which consisted of 11 players of the tournament.

•

65 changes took place in the teams’ line-ups in 26 matches, showing instability from the 11 main players (USA, Cuba and Haiti).

•

Tournament’s warnings: throughout the 26 matches there were 110 yellow cards and 4 red cards

113

K. WHEN WERE THE GOALS SCORED? GAME

114

MATCHES

1 TO 15

15 TO 30

30 TO 45

1ST HALF 45 TO 60 60 TO 75 75 TO 90 2ND HALF OVERTIME

Panama vs Haiti

USA vs Honduras

Costa Rica vs Jamaica

El Salvador vs Canada

Trin. & Tob. vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Cuba

Honduras vs Panama

USA vs Haiti

Jamaica vs Canada

Costa Rica vs El Salvador

Trin. & Tob. vs. Cuba

Guatemala vs Mexico

Haiti vs Honduras

Panama vs USA

Jamaica vs El Salvador

Canada vs Costa Rica

Cuba vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Trin. & Tob.

USA vs Cuba

Jamaica vs Haiti

Trinidad & Tobago vs Panama

Mexico vs Costa Rica

USA vs Jamaica

1 1

1 2

2 1

0 2

1 1

1 3

1 1

Panama vs Mexico

USA vs Panama

Mexico vs Jamaica

TOTAL

T. TIME

1 3

AVERAGE

0.27

0.23

0.50

1.00

0.46

0.38

0.31

1.15

0.23

2.38

PERCENTAGE

11.29

9.68

20.97

41.94

19.35

16.13

12.90

48.39

9.68

100.00

NOTE: As shown in the chart, the largest amount of goals (30) happened in the 2nd halves, and 15 of those goals happened in the last 15 minutes of the 2nd half. This leads us to conclude that there was a lack of concentration in the final remaining minutes.

GAME TIME

GOALS

62 goals were scored in total throughout the event, an average of 2.38 goals per match.

115

L. HOW THE GOALS WHERE SCORED GAME

MATCHES

RESULT

116

WP R

Panama vs Haiti

USA vs Honduras

Costa Rica vs Jamaica

El Salvador vs Canada

Trin. & Tob. vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Cuba

Honduras vs Panama

USA vs Haiti

Jamaica vs Canada

Costa Rica vs El Salvador

Trin. & Tob. vs. Cuba

Guatemala vs Mexico

Haiti vs Honduras

Panama vs USA

Jamaica vs El Salvador

Canada vs Costa Rica

Cuba vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Trin. & Tob.

USA vs Cuba

Jamaica vs Haiti

Trinidad & Tobago vs Panama

Mexico vs Costa Rica

USA vs Jamaica

Panama vs Mexico

USA vs Panama

Mexico vs Jamaica

TOTALS

DFC

FK L

DIR

IND

2 1

1 2

2 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1

AVERAGE

0.38

PERCENTAGE

16.13

4 0.38

0.23

0.15

16.13 9.68

6.45

2.27

0.58

11.29

24.19

0.12

0.04

0.19 0.08

8.06 3.23

4.84

0.35 0.31

14.52 1.61

12.90

0.19

0.04

8.06

1.61

NOTE: A total of 62 goals were scored throughout the event, for an average of 2.38 goals per match. •

The highest number of goals was scored in individual plays (15).

•

Followed by 10 penetration goals from the center of the field, most coming from assists by midfield players, the position of the best players in the tournament.

•

10 goals were scored in plays from the wings, offset by distractions in marking and few exits from the goalkeepers. 19 goals were scored in the 5.50 area.

•

9 goals were scored from indirect free kicks and only 1 from a direct free kick.

•

13 goals were headers, 8 were scored by forwards, 4 by center forwards and 3 by defenders; this statistic was an improvement compared to other tournaments which had few header goals.

KEY CP Central Penetrations

WP Wide Play

DFC Direct from Corners

FK Free Kick

DIR Direct

OG Owngoals

Combination

Individual Play

Right

Left

IND Indirect PK’s

117

M. WHO SCORED THE GOALS GAME

118

MATCHES

TOTAL

Panama vs Haiti

USA vs Honduras

Costa Rica vs Jamaica

El Salvador vs Canada

Trin. & Tob. vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Cuba

Honduras vs Panama

USA vs Haiti

Jamaica vs Canada

Costa Rica vs El Salvador

Trin. & Tob. vs. Cuba

Guatemala vs Mexico

Haiti vs Honduras

Panama vs USA

Jamaica vs El Salvador

Canada vs Costa Rica

Cuba vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Trin. & Tob.

USA vs Cuba

Jamaica vs Haiti

Trinidad & Tobago vs Panama

Mexico vs Costa Rica

USA vs Jamaica

Panama vs Mexico

USA vs Panama

Mexico vs Jamaica

TOTAL

4 0

1 1

2 1

2 0 1

1 0 1

3 2

AVERAGE

1.31

0.50

0.31

0.27

0.00

2.38

PERCENTAGE

54.84

20.87

12.90

11.29

0.00

100.00

NOTE: Forwards scored 34 goals, and as always, this position is the leading scorer. The midfield wingers scored 13 goals, followed by 8 by central midfielders. Several players in this position had outstanding performances. Defenders scored 7 goals, mostly through indirect free kick plays and corner kicks, which validates the importance of this kind of plays, given that the majority of tight matches are defined that way.

FORWARDS

MIDFIELDERS

DEFENSE

GOALKEEPERS

VL 13 VC 08

GOALS

KEY F

Forwards

OM Outside Midfielders

Midfielders

Defense

Goalkeeper

119

N. WHERE THE GOALS WERE SCORED FROM GAME

120

MATCHES

INSIDE THE 5.50

INSIDE THE 16.5

OUTSIDE THE 16.50

TOTAL

Panama vs Haiti

USA vs Honduras

Costa Rica vs Jamaica

El Salvador vs Canada

Trin. & Tob. vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Cuba

Honduras vs Panama

USA vs Haiti

Jamaica vs Canada

Costa Rica vs El Salvador

Trin. & Tob. vs. Cuba

Guatemala vs Mexico

Haiti vs Honduras

Panama vs USA

Jamaica vs El Salvador

Canada vs Costa Rica

Cuba vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Trin. & Tob.

USA vs Cuba

Jamaica vs Haiti

Trinidad & Tobago vs Panama

Mexico vs Costa Rica

USA vs Jamaica

Panama vs Mexico

25 26

0 1

USA vs Panama

Mexico vs Jamaica

AVERAGE

0.73

1.46

0.19

2.38

PERCENTAGE

30.65

61.29

8.06

100.00

TOTAL

NOTE: 38 goals were scored from the 16.50 area, in different combinations, individual plays, centers and mistakes from the defense, such as coverage and defensive blocks when the ball is being played quickly. 19 goals were from the box, many of them happened because the goalkeepers remained inside the goal or were the result of a rebound that was leveraged by the attackers. 5 goals were scored from outside the area, near the 16.50 line, showing rare use of mid-distance shots; consequently, the long-distance shot was non-existent and in the few occasions it was used, it was deficient.

19 - Goals from the box area

- Goals from inside the penalty area

5 - Goals from outside the penalty area

121

O. ASSISTANCE TO THE EVENT GAME

122

MATCHES

ATTENDANCE

DATE

TOTAL

GROUP

22356

7/7/2015

22356

22648

7/8/2015

22648

54126

7/9/2015

54126

46720

7/10/2015

46720

22017

7/11/2015

22017

62310

7/12/2015

62310

18467

7/13/2015

18467

16674

7/14/2015

16674

55832

7/15/2015

55832

37994

7/18/2015

37994

4tos

74187

7/19/2015

4tos

70511

7/22/2015

Semifinal

Panama vs Haiti

USA vs Honduras

Costa Rica vs Jamaica

El Salvador vs Canada

Trin. & Tob. vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Cuba

Honduras vs Panama

USA vs Haiti

Jamaica vs Canada

Costa Rica vs El Salvador

Trin. & Tob. vs. Cuba

Guatemala vs Mexico

Haiti vs Honduras

Panama vs USA

Jamaica vs El Salvador

Canada vs Costa Rica

Cuba vs Guatemala

Mexico vs Trin. & Tob.

USA vs Cuba

Jamaica vs Haiti

Trinidad & Tobago vs Panama

Mexico vs Costa Rica

USA vs Jamaica

Panama vs Mexico

USA vs Panama

12598

7/25/2015

3ro

Mexico vs Jamaica

68930

7/26/2015

FINAL

TOTAL

585370

AVERAGE

22514

NOTE: •

Clearly, the group with the largest attendance was Group C, which included Mexico.

•

The tournament’s total attendance was 585,370 people, an average of 22,514 spectators per match.

•

The tournament was a success in terms of attendance, quality of the facilities, and stadiums in which it was played.

P. TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE TEAM

AVERAGE

Canadá

26.3

Costa Rica

26.6

Cuba

26.2

El Salvador

Guatemala

27.5

Haití Honduras

26 26.2

México

27.4

Panamá

25.6

USA

•

Youngest outstanding player of the tournament: Jesus Corona (Mexico). He ended the tournament as main player of Mexico’s team, the champion, and scored a decisive goal in the Final match. He was an outstanding player in 3 of 5 matches played.

•

Oldest player of the tournament: Noel Valladares (Honduras). Goalkeeper, date of birth: 05/10/77.

•

The youngest national team in the tournament was El Salvador, with an average age of 25 years.

•

The team with the highest average age was Guatemala, with 27 years and 5 months; after all the changes, USA’s average age was also 27.5.

26.5

Jamaica

Trinidad & Tobago

Average age of the teams as of 07/07/2015

26 26.8

123

124

CONCLUSIONS

There was an evident improvement of the technical and competitive level in the Caribbean teams, closing the gap between CONCACAF’s different regions. The teams’ tactical organization and ball possession also improved, but offensive capacity and clarity in the attack decreased. The Gold Cup is CONCACAF’s most important event. It is an event that is followed by thousands in the venues where it takes place. The event’s organization was challenging in terms of transportation between the venues, both for the teams and for the staff of CONCACAF. Some matches took place under scorching temperatures and humid weather. The best players of each national team participated and represented their country. The referees’ performance had a negative impact on crucial matches, generating controversy and debate. There were no outstanding players based on SPECIAL merits. Central midfielders were acknowledged for their high competitive and technical skills. 276 players participated in the event, and 46 players were outstanding in the tournament’s 26 matches. These 46 were shortlisted to assemble the dream team group of 11 players of the tournament.

125

126

RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering that this is our main event, the Gold Cup needs to continue developing in a more professional way. There needs to be an in-depth transformation in terms of the organization of venues and transportation. It is also necessary to avoid delays and improve organizational aspects when teams are eliminated. The Groupsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; qualification phase should be done in nearby cities, hence avoiding the need to take flights that take more than 2 hours and preventing drastic weather changes. The weather conditions should be analyzed in order to schedule matches when players can achieve optimum performance. The use of overtime in the Quarterfinals, Semifinals and the match for Third place should be eliminated, and the teams should advance straight to penalty shootouts to avoid physical exhaustion of the players, reserving the overtime exclusively for the Final match of the Gold Cup. The refereesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; job and appointment should be signed off by a Referee Commission and by personnel designated by the Executive Committee. It is key that national teams are able to have their best players participate in the Gold Cup. Therefore it is necessary to manage the approval of this event in dates scheduled by FIFA.

127

TECHNICAL STUDY GROUP GOLD CUP 2015.

From left to right: Oscar Benitez (El Salvador), Luis Miguel Hernandez (Cuba), Wilmer Cabrera (USA), Carl Brown (Jamaica), Keoth Look Loy (Trinidad & Tobago), Ramon Maradiaga (Honduras), Eduardo Rergis (Mexico)

128