Technical Report and Statistical Analysis, CONCACAF Men's Olympic Qualifying 2015

LOS ANGELES KANSAS CITY DENVER SALT LAKE

TECHNICAL REPORT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS CONCACAF Men’s Olympic Qualifying 2015

TECHNICAL REPORT AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS CONCACAF MEN’S OLYMPIC QUALIFYING 2015

TABLE OF CONTENT I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 II. A WARD-WINNING PLAYERS AND TEAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 III. STATISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

K. WHEN WERE THE GOALS SCORED?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

L. HOW THE WERE GOALS SCORED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

M. WHO SCORED THE GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

N. WHERE THE GOALS WERE SCORED FROM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

O. TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

P. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE AGE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

A MATCH RESULTS (GROUP PHASE, SEMIFINALS AND FINAL).. . . . . . . . . . . . 16

B GROUP TEAM RANKING TABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C OUTSTANDING PLAYERS BY MATCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

D LIST OF TOP SCORERS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

E. TEAM STATISTICS DURING THE TOURNAMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

V. TEAM-BY-TEAM ANALYSIS

F. ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

CANADA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

G. CHANGES IN LINE-UP BY TEAMS DURING MATCHES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

COSTA RICA.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

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

CUBA.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

IV. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE MOST RELEVANT ASPECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 ........................................

54

RANKIN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

HAITI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

I. MOST VALUABLE GOALKEEPER OF THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG RANKING.. 28

HONDURAS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

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

MEXICO.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

PANAMA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

USA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

VI. CONCLUSIONS

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

108

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

INTRODUCTION

4

5

I. INTRODUCTION The final CONCACAF Men’s Olympic Qualifying tournament for the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro was held in the United States of America; 4 cities served as venue for the 8 participating teams (Kansas City, Carson, Commerce City and Salt Lake City in Utah), representing 4 different States.

Optimum logistic conditions were provided for all teams, as well as excellent stadiums for training and for the official matches, together with an adequate scheduling for the matches.

Public attendance in the different stadiums was scarce.

6

Creative fast-paced soccer, together with a good individual and group technical level were their greatest traits.

The tournament showcased young promising players with a high degree of technical talent and skill throughout.

The rest of the teams displayed similar technical levels, showing clear deficiencies finishing plays, organizing a potent and creative offense when reaching the opponent’s defensive area, and in their on-goal attempts.

USA, Canada and Mexico represented the North American region and qualified in the first places for the Semifinal phase.

Most teams displayed flexible tactical systems that adapted to specific game conditions, with a constructive soccer philosophy.

Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama represented the Central American and Cuban region, together with Haiti, which represented the Caribbean.

160 players in the 8 participating teams took part in this colorful tournament - 27 of them playing in foreign soccer clubs.

Mexico and the USA, alongside Honduras, displayed the best technical, tactical and competitive levels of the event.

44 players were selected and highlighted for their outstanding talent and performance throughout the tournament; 11 of them selected to the Dream team.

7

AWARD-WINNING PLAYERS AND TEAMS

8

9

II. AWARD-WINNING PLAYERS AND TEAMS

BEST PLAYER

TOP SCORER

HIRVING LOZANO MEXICO

(4 GOALS) JEROME KIESEWETTER USA

TOURNAMENT’S DREAM TEAM: Goalkeeper

1

Gibran Lajud

Mexico

Right winger

15

Erick Aguirre

Mexico

Left winger

5

Rodolfo Pizarro

Mexico

Center back

2

Jhonatan Paz

Honduras

Center back

14

Jordan Silva

Mexico

Central midfielder

10

Víctor Guzmán

Mexico

Central midfielder

10

Oscar Salas

Honduras

Striker

17

Alberth Elis

Honduras

Striker

17

Hirving Lozano

Forward

17

Jerome Kiesewetter

Forward

9

Erick Torres

17

17

10

BEST GOALKEEPER

FAIR PLAY AWARD

GIBRAN LAJUD MEXICO

MEXICAN TEAM

Mexico

2 1

10 10

USA

15

17

9

Mexico

14 5

11

STATISTICS

12

13

A. MATCH RESULTS (GROUP PHASE, SEMIFINALS AND FINAL) OCTOBER 1

OCTOBER 2

Panama

1-1

Cuba

USA

3-1

Canada

Honduras

1-0

Haiti

Mexico

4-0

Costa Rica

SEMIFINAL OCTOBER 13

OCTOBER 4

OCTOBER 6

OCTOBER 7

OCTOBER 10

14

Canada

3-1

Panama

Cuba

1-6

USA

Costa Rica

0-2

Honduras

Haiti

0-1

Mexico

CanadÃ

2-2

Cuba

USA

4-0

Panama

Costa Rica

1-1

Haiti

Mexico

1-1

Honduras

USA

0-2

Honduras

Mexico

2-0

Canada

2-0

Canada

0-2

Mexico Champion

Repechaje

FINAL OCTOBER 13

OCTOBER 3

USA

Honduras

15

B. GROUP TEAM RANKING TABLE GROUP A

C. OUTSTANDING PLAYERS BY MATCH

MP

MW

ML

MD

GS

GA

GD

YC

RC

POINTS

GAME

USA

3

3

0

0

13

2

11

2

0

9

1

Panama

3

0

2

1

2

8

-6

4

2

1

Cuba

3

0

1

2

4

9

-5

6

0

2

Canada

3

1

1

1

6

6

0

4

0

4

GROUP B

MP

MW

ML

MD

GS

GA

GD

YC

RC

POINTS

Mexico

3

3

0

0

7

1

6

1

0

9

Honduras

3

2

1

0

4

2

2

3

1

6

Haiti

3

0

2

1

1

3

-2

7

0

1

Costa Rica

3

0

2

1

1

7

-6

8

1

1

KEY MP: MATCHES PLAYED

MD: MATCHES DRAWN

GD: GOAL DIFFERENCE

MW: MATCHES WON

GS: GOALS SCOREDED

YC: YELLOW CARDS

ML: MATCHES LOST

GA: GOALS ALLOWED

RC: RED CARDS

Note: The top two teams from each group qualified, with the United States ranked 1st in Group A with three wins, 9 points, 13 Goals Scoreded and 2 goals allowed, and proved to be very solid within the group.

Mexico won all of its Group B matches, with 9 points, 7 Goals Scoreded, and 1 goal against.

MATCH

NAME

PLAYER

COUNTRY

Panama vs Cuba

SandySánchez

1

Cuba

2

USA vs Canada

Jordán Morris

9

USA

3

Honduras vs Haiti

Antony Lozano

9

Honduras

4

Mexico vs Costa Rica

Marco Bueno

11

Mexico

Sam Piette

14

Canada

Emerson Hydman

8

USA

Alberth Elis

17

Honduras

5

Canada vs Panama

6

Cuba vs USA

7

Costa Rica vs Honduras

8

Haiti vs Mexico

Hirving Lozano

17

Mexico

9

Canada vs Cuba

Arichel Hernández

7

Cuba

10

USA vs Panama

Luis Gil

10

USA

11

Costa Rica vs Haiti

Dylan Flores

10

Costa Rica

12

Mexico vs Honduras

Erick Torres

9

Mexico

13

USA vs Honduras

Alberth Elis

17

Honduras

14

Mexico vs Canada

Hirving Lozano

17

Mexico

15

USA vs Canada

Marc Pelosi

15

USA

16

Honduras vs Mexico

Víctor Guzman

10

Mexico

NOTE:The teams that had the most valuable players per match were Mexico (5), USA (4) and Honduras (3).

Only two players were selected twice as most valuable players for their outstanding role in their teams: Hirving Lozano from Mexico and Alberth Elis from Honduras.

Honduras, second in Group B, won two matches, obtained 6 points and lost the top spot to Mexico.

Inter-group matches proved that Group B was stronger, given that Mexico and Honduras reached the final match. Both countries qualified directly to the Brazil 2016 Olympic Games

Canada’s performance was up and down, placing second in Group A with 4 points, 1 match won, 1 match lost and 1 draw.

16

17

D. LIST OF TOP SCORERS GOALS

4

3

2

TEAM

PLAYER

17 USA – Jerome Kiesewetter: / 2 vs Cuba, 1 vs Panama, / 1 vs Canada, 2 Asistencia. Vs Canadà y Panama

1

TEAM

PLAYER

8 Panama - Josiel Nuñez:(1 vs Cuba).

17 Honduras – Albert Elis (1 vs Costa Rica, 1 vs Mexico, 2 vs USA, 1 asistencia. Vs Haiti

3 USA – Matt Miazga:( 1 vs Cuba).

13 Canada - Michael Petrasso: (1 vs USA, 1 vs Panama, 1 vs Cuba).

4 USA – Cameron Carter:( 1 vs Cuba).

9 Mexico – Erick Torres: (1 vs Costa Rica, 1 vs Honduras, 1 vs Canada).

8 USA – Emerson Hyndman:( 1 vs Cuba).

9 USA – Jordan Morris: (2 vs Canada, 1 vs Panama).

11 USA – Alonso Hernández:(1 vs Cuba).

7 Cuba – Arichel Hernández: (2 vs Canada).

15 USA – Marc Pelosi:(1 vs Canada).

17 Honduras – Antony Lozano: (1 vs Haiti, 1 vs Costa Rica).

11 Panama – Edgar Bárcenas:(1 vs Canada).

8 Mexico – Raúl López: (1 vs Haiti, 1 vs Honduras).

1

GOALS

OWN GOAL

5 Costa Rica - William Fernández :(vs Mexico).

11 Mexico – Marco Bueno: (2 vs Costa Rica).

6 Honduras – Bryan Acosta: (vs Mexico).

10 USA – Luis Gil: (1 vs Canada, 1 vs Panama).

6 Panama - Fidel Escobar:(vs USA).

15 Canada - Benjamín Fisk: (1vs Panama).

16 Canada - Molham Babouli: (1 vs Cuba).

19 Canada - Skylar Thomas: (1 vs Panama).

10 Costa Rica - Dylan Flores :(1 vs Haiti).

17 Cuba – Maikel Reyes: (1 vs Panama).

16 Cuba – Daniel Luis: (1 vs USA).

18

14 Haiti - Paulson Pierre: (1 vs Costa Rica).

10 Mexico – Víctor Guzmán: (1 vs Honduras).

17 Mexico – Hirving Lozano: (1 vs Canada).

19

E. TEAM STATISTICS DURING THE TOURNAMENT COUNTRY

MP

MW

ML

MD

GS

GA

GD

YC

RC

Canada

5

1

3

1

6

6

0

5

1

Costa Rica

3

0

2

1

1

7

-6

8

1

Cuba

3

0

1

2

4

9

-5

6

0

Haiti

3

0

2

1

1

3

-2

7

0

Honduras

5

3

2

0

6

4

2

8

2

Mexico

5

5

0

0

11

1

10

3

0

Panama

3

0

2

1

2

8

-6

4

2

USA

5

4

1

0

13

4

11

7

0

Total

13

9

3

1

28

13

15

14

2

KEY MP: Total Matches Played

MD: Total Matches Draw

GD: Total Goal Difference

MW: Total Matches Won

GS: Total Goals Scoreded

YC: Total Yellow Cards

ML: Total Matches Lost

GA: Total Goals Allowed

RC: Total Red Cards

NOTE: As shown in the summary table, the only team that won all of its matches was Mexico (5), followed by the USA (4) and Honduras (3). 4 teams left the tournament without a win (Costa Rica, Cuba, Haiti and Panama).

48 yellow cards and 6 red cards in 16 matches. Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama were the most booked teams in the tournament.

The teams with the most Goals Scoreded were USA (15) and Mexico (11); Cuba (9), Panama (8), Costa Rica (7) and Canada (6) were the teams that conceded the most goals.

20

21

F. ACTUAL PLAYING TIME

BY MATCH GAME

MATCHES

1 TO 15

15 TO 30

30 TO 45

1ST HALF

45 TO 60

60 TO 75

TOTAL TIME

1

Panama vs Cuba

9.00

9.35

8.47

27.22

9.45

9.20

6.30

25.35

52.57

2

USA vs Canada

8.30

8.34

9.38

26.02

11.14

8.36

8.54

28.04

54.06

3

Honduras vs Haiti

10.20

8.40

7.40

26.40

9.05

7.00

6.37

22.42

49.22

4

Mexico vs Costa Rica

9.22

7.10

8.16

24.48

8.35

7.42

8.11

24.28

49.16

5

Canada vs Panama

9.04

10.06

8.12

27.22

11.20

9.18

9.45

30.23

57.45

6

Cuba vs USA

11.04

9.18

8.12

28.34

9.56

9.16

10.04

29.16

57.50

7

Costa Rica vs Honduras

6.35

7.25

7.40

21.40

7.15

6.10

8.34

21.59

43.39

8

Haiti vs Mexico

10.54

7.00

8.38

26.32

7.45

8.00

9.40

25.25

51.57

9

Canada vs Cuba

9.40

7.51

8.11

25.02

7.05

9.06

8.36

24.47

49.49

10

USA vs Panama

7.28

8.14

7.14

22.56

7.12

7.54

7.08

22.14

45.10

11

Costa Rica vs Haiti

9.05

7.30

7.22

23.57

7.41

7.03

8.45

23.29

47.26

12

Mexico vs Honduras

8.20

8.14

8.55

25.29

8.28

7.00

11.05

26.33

52.02

13

USA vs Honduras

8.35

7.59

7.53

23.47

8.10

6.59

7.20

22.29

46.16

14

Mexico vs Canada

10.35

11.08

8.45

30.28

8.42

9.36

6.10

24.28

54.56

15

USA vs Canada

8.45

9.20

8.40

26.05

9.34

8.23

8.16

26.13

52.18

16

Honduras vs Mexico

11.39

9.30

7.10

28.19

10.28

8.34

7.50

26.12

54.31

9.13

8.43

8.39

26.13

9.10

8.37

8.15

25.08

51.00

AVERAGE

• NOTE: Observations on actual playing time • The match with the shortest playing time was Costa Rica vs.

Honduras with (43.39) minutes, which is very low due to the amount of interruptions from fouls and the lack of rhythm of the match.

22

75 TO 90 2ND HALF

• The match with the highest actual playing time was USA vs.

Cuba (57.50) given the superiority displayed by the United States over Cuba in all aspects of the game, such as ball possession, continuity and rhythm. This total time is below the longest Gold Cup 2013 match between Costa Rica and Cuba, (61.26), and the Gold Cup 2015 between USA and Cuba, (58.15).

• The first period of 15 minutes of the first half was the highest actual playing time of the event, with an average of (9.13) minutes.

• The first half of the matches (45 minutes) was the period with the highest actual playing time with (26.13) minutes played, which was below the average actual playing time in Gold Cup 2013 (27.55).

• The total actual playing time average of the tournament was (51.00) minutes, which is higher than that of Gold Cup 2015 (50.06), the CFU 2014 finals (49.04) and the UNCAF Cup 2014 (50.31).

• The average is below that of the Gold Cup 2013 (54.54) and the actual time played in the Brazil World Cup (55.14).

23

G. CHANGES IN LINE-UP BY TEAMS DURING MATCHES

H. M OST VALUABLE PLAYER BY TEAM AND IN THE TOURNAMENT BY TSG RANKING

TEAMS

2ND MATCH

3RD MATCH

4TH MATCH

5TH MATCH

TOTAL

AVERAGE

PERCENTAGE

Canada

1

1

2

2

6

1.00

12.77

Costa Rica

2

3

0

0

5

0.83

10.64

Cuba

2

0

0

0

2

0.33

4.26

Haiti

6

1

0

0

7

1.17

14.89

Honduras

4

3

0

0

7

1.17

14.89

Mexico

4

1

0

0

5

0.83

10.64

Panama

6

1

0

0

7

1.17

14.89

USA

3

5

0

0

8

1.33

17.02

TOTAL

28

15

2

2

47

AVERAGE

3.50

1.88

0.25

0.25

PERCENTAGE

59.57

31.91

4.26

4.26

HIGHEST AVERAGE PLAYER BY TEAM TEAM

NAME

PLAYER NO.

POSITION

TP

GS

YC

RC

NL

A

O

MM

RK

Canada

Michael Petrasso

13

Forward

450

3

0

0

0

1

3

0

162.00

Costa Rica

Dylan Flores

10

Midfielder

209

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

83.22

Cuba

ARICHEL HERNANDEZ

7

Midfielder

270

2

0

0

0

0

2

1

105.00

Haiti

JUDE Saint CAP.

5

Defender

270

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

65.00

Honduras

Alberth Elis

17

Forward

447

4

2

0

0

1

4

2

206.67

Mexico

Hirving Lozano

17

Forward

322

1

0

0

1

2

5

2

194.78

Panama

EDGAR BARCENAS

11

Midfielder

240

1

0

0

1

0

2

0

76.67

USA

JEROME KIESEWETTER

17

Forward

371

4

1

0

0

2

4

0

165.22

7.83 100.00

NOTE: Despite the preparation level of some of the teams that played several matches prior to the tournament, line-ups lack stability in several teams. Some line-ups varied by up to 6 players in the starting line-up, some due to injuries, and others because they qualified by their third match and decided to rest players for the semifinal. Such was the case with Honduras, which did not use 5 of its starters against Mexico in order to have them rest for the match against the United States. However, other teams did not find their ideal and stable 11. Mexico, the winning team, was regular with its 11 players, displaying stable and sound work in terms of structure.

TOURNAMENT’S PLAYER WITH THE HIGHEST AVERAGE TEAM

NAME

Honduras

Alberth Elis

PLAYER NO.

POSITION

TP

GS

YC

RC

NL

A

O

MM

RK

17

Forward

447

4

2

0

0

1

4

2

206.67

KEY PT: PLAYING TIME

RC: RED CARDS

O: OUTSTANDING

GS: GOALS SCOREDED

NL: NEW IN THE LINE-UP

MM: PLAYER OF THE MATCH

YC: YELLOW CARDS

A: ASSISTS

RK: RANKING

NOTE: Although Honduran Alberth Elis had the highest score in the ranking given his 4 goals, 1 assist, 4 outstanding plays and being named twice the player in the match, Hirving Lozano from Mexico was the Olympic Qualifying Tournament’s Best Player according to CONCACAF’s Technical Study Group. He was 2 times Best Player of the Match, 5 times outstanding and had 2 assists.

He was a different and game-changing player, crucial for Mexico’s success in the tournament.

24

25

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

CANADA

COSTA RICA

CUBA

HAITI

HONDURAS

MEXICO

PANAMA

26 USA

GOALKEEPERS

PLAYER

GA

PT

NT

MM

NT

TPOD

TPFW

TPCE

RQ

Max Crepeau

1

6

450

2

0

14

15

16

14

79.00

Quillan Roberts

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Ricky Gomes

18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Darryl Parker

18

6

180

0

0

6

6

7

7

14.00

Carlos Martinez

1

1

90

0

0

3

4

4

3

4.00

Jairo Monge

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Euer Pozo

12

6

90

0

0

2

2

2

2

Sandy Sanchez

1

3

180

1

1

7

8

5

5

55.00

Delvis Lumpuy

21

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Luis Odelus

1

3

270

1

0

10

11

12

11

59.00

Ramos Pointe

23

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Ronald Elusma

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Luis Lopez

1

0

270

1

0

12

10

12

9

88.00

Harold Fonseca

18

4

180

1

0

8

7

9

8

27.00

Roberto Lopez

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Gibran Lajud

1

1

450

4

0

20

21

22

21

184.00

Luis Cardenas

12

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Raul Gudino

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Jaime Degracia

12

3

90

0

0

2

2

3

3

Elieser Powell

1

5

180

0

0

4

4

4

4

14.00

Orlando Mosquera

20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

Zack Steffen

1

4

270

2

0

9

9

9

9

56.00

Ethan Horvath

12

0

180

0

0

6

6

6

6

44.00

Charlie Horton

18

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00

-42.00

GOALKEEPER WITH THE HIGHEST RANKING COUNTRY

GOALKEEPER

Mexico

Gibran Lajud

PLAYER N.

GOALS ALLOWED

RANKING

1

1

184.00

KEY GA: Goals Allowed

MMNT: Player of the Match, Number of Times

TPHW: Total Points for Hand Work

PT: Playing Time

TPOD: Total Points for Organizing Defense

TPCE: Total Points for Center Exits

NT: Number of Times

TPFW: Total Points for Footwork

RQ: Ranking

NOTE: This ranking is based on a combination of objective criteria: 1) minutes played, 2) goals allowed, 3) Goals Scoreded, 4) Disciplinary measures (yellow and/or red cards, 5) Player of the Match nomination, 6) technical level, 7) outstanding per match and the criteria of the Technical Study Group specialists (TSG).

The tournament’s top goalkeeper was Mexico’s (#1), Gibran Lajud. He allowed 1 goal and displayed his high technical level, team management capabilities and good ball handling skills with hands and feet. He was selected as the Player of the Match in 4 matches.

-10.00

27

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

OUTSTANDING

NEW IN THE LINE-UP

RED CARDS

YELLOW CARDS

Canada

6

7

6

1

5

Costa Rica

1

7

5

1

8

Cuba

4

8

2

0

6

Haiti

1

9

7

0

7

Honduras

6

11

7

2

8

Mexico

11

11

5

0

3

Panama

2

7

7

2

4

USA

15

11

8

0

7

TOTAL

46

71

47

6

48

COUNTRY

NOTE:

28

• 46 goals were scored in 16 matches, for an average of 2.88 goals per match. 28 of them were assisted and 6 were headers.

• 71 of the 160 players had outstanding performances in this tournament. 44 of them were selected to assemble the 11-member Dream Team of the tournament.

• 24 goals were scored by forwards, followed by 8 scored by midfield wingers, 6 by defensive midfielders and 8 by defenders.

• In 16 matches, 47 changes were made in team line-ups, which showed the highly variable line-ups of some of the teams in their starting 11 (USA, Panama, Haiti, Canada and Honduras).

• 22 goals were scored inside the penalty area, 16 from the box, and 8 from outside the 16.50 penalty area.

• 48 yellow cards and 6 red cards were given to players in the 16 matches.

29

K. WHEN WERE THE GOALS SCOREDED? GAME

30

MATCHES

1 TO 15

15 TO 30

30 TO 45

1ST HALF

1

Panama vs Cuba

1

1

2

USA vs Canada

1

1

3

Honduras vs Haiti

1

1

4

Mexico vs Costa Rica

1

1

2

5

Canada vs Panama

1

1

2

6

Cuba vs USA

1

2

3

7

Costa Rica vs Honduras

1

1

8

Haiti vs Mexico

9

Canada vs Cuba

10

45 TO 60 60 TO 75 75 TO 90 2ND HALF TOTAL TIMETOTAL TIME

1

1

1

2

2

3

4

0

1

2

4

2

4

2 2 1

0 1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

4

USA vs Panama

0

3

1

4

4

11

Costa Rica vs Haiti

0

1

2

2

12

Mexico vs Honduras

2

3

13

USA vs Honduras

1

2

14

Mexico vs Canada

1

2

15

USA vs Canada

2

2

16

Honduras vs Mexico

1

2

1

1 1

2

1

1

1

1 1

0

1

1

1

1

1

This leads us to conclude that there was a lack of concentration and low physical fitness shown by those teams that allowed goals during the final minutes of the match.

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME

GOALS

A total of 46 goals were scored throughout the event, with an average of 2.88 goals per match.

7

2

1

NOTA: As shown in the chart, the highest amount of goals (28) took place in the 2nd half and 11 of those goals were scored during minutes 60-75.

TOTALES

5

5

7

17

7

11

10

28

1

46

AVERAGE

0.31

0.31

0.44

1.06

0.44

0.69

0.63

1.75

0.06

2.88

PERCENTAGE

10.87

10.87

15.22

36.96

15.22

23.91

21.74

60.87

2.17

100.00

31

L.HOW WERE GOALS SCOREDED GAME

MATCHES

RESULTS

PC

VS

C

D

JI

I

Panama vs Cuba

1

-

1

2

USA vs Canada

3

-

1

3

Honduras vs Haiti

1

-

0

4

Mexico vs Costa Rica

4

-

0

5

Canada vs Panama

3

-

1

1

1

1

6

Cuba vs USA

1

-

6

1

1

3

1

7

Costa Rica vs Honduras

0

-

2

1

1

8

Haiti vs Mexico

0

-

1

9

Canada vs Cuba

2

-

2

10

USA vs Panama

4

-

0

11

Costa Rica vs Haiti

1

-

1

12

Mexico vs Honduras

2

-

1

13

USA vs Honduras

0

-

2

14

Mexico vs Canada

2

-

0

15

USA vs Canada

2

-

0

16

Honduras vs Mexico

0

-

2

46

1 1

DTE D

1

TOTALES

32

JE

TL I

DIR

P

AG

• Most of the goals were scored in combination plays (11).

IND

• Followed by 9 goals from the flanks, mostly by passes or assists from wingers; a position occupied by very skilled players in the tournament.

1

1

1

NOTE: A total of 46 goals were scored in the tournament, averaging 2.88 goals per match.

1

1 1

2

1

1 1

1

1

8.70

DTE Direct Corner kick

TL Free Kick

P

C

D

DIR Direct

AG Own Goal

Combinación

Direct

I

Left

IND Indirect Penalties

1

1 1 1

1

PERCENTAGE

JE Side Play

Individual Play

1

1

0.25

JI

1

1

1

AVERAGE

PC Centerfield Penetration

1

1

1

4

•6 goals were scored using headers, 2 of which were scored by forwards, 1 by central midfielders and 3 by defenders; 4 of these were scored by central midfielders, 1 corner kick and 1 indirect free kick.

KEY

1 1

• 2 indirect and 2 direct free kick goals were scored.

1

1 2

• 7 goals were scored on individual plays due to distraction in marking and from goalkeepers not coming out, and 16 goals were scored within the 5.50 area.

7

2 0.56

0.44

0.13

19.57 15.22

4.35

11

7

0.69

0.44

23.91

15.22

1 2

2

2

0.13

0.13

0.25 0.13

0.25

8.70 4.35

4.35

2

0.13 8.70

4.35

4.35

4

3

0.25

0.19

8.70

6.52

33

M. WHO SCORED THE GOALS MATCHES

F

1

Panama vs Cuba

1

2

USA vs Canada

3

3

Honduras vs Haiti

1

4

Mexico vs Costa Rica

3

1

4

5

Canada vs Panama

3

1

4

6

Cuba vs USA

3

2

7

7

Costa Rica vs Honduras

2

8

Haiti vs Mexico

9

Canada vs Cuba

2

10

USA vs Panama

2

11

Costa Rica vs Haiti

12

Mexico vs Honduras

13

USA vs Honduras

14

Mexico vs Canada

1

15

USA vs Canada

1

16

Honduras vs Mexico

GAME

34

2

MW

CM

D

G

1

TOTAL 2

1

NOTE: Forwards scored 24 goals, and once again they are the leading scorers.

Wingers scored 8 goals, followed by 6 scored by midfield wingers, where several players stood out for their quality.

8 goals were scored by defenders; two of them were own goals, mostly from indirect free kick kicks and corner kicks. This highlights the importance of set piece plays in defining the outcome of close matches.

4 1

2

FORWARDS

MIDFIELDERS

DEFENDERS

GOALKEEPERS

24

VL 08 VC 16

8

0

GOALS

GOALS

GOALS

GOALS

2 1

1

2

4 1

1

4

1

1

2

1

3

2

2

KEY

1

2

F: FORWARDS

MF: MIDFIELDERS

1

2

WM: MIDFIELDER WINGERS

D: DEFENSE

1

1

2

TOTALES

24

8

6

8

0

46

AVERAGE

1.50

0.50

0.38

0.50

0.00

2.88

PERCENT

52.17

17.39

13.04

17.39

0.00

100.00

G: GOALKEEPERS

35

N. WHERE THE GOALS WERE SCORED GAME

36

MATCHES

FROM INSIDE THE 5.50 AREA

FROM INSIDE THE 16.50 AREA

FROM OUTSIDE THE 16.50 AREA

TOTAL

1

Panama vs Cuba

2

USA vs Canada

2

3

Honduras vs Haiti

1

4

Mexico vs Costa Rica

2

2

5

Canada vs Panama

2

1

1

4

6

Cuba vs USA

3

3

1

7

7

Costa Rica vs Honduras

1

1

2

8

Haiti vs Mexico

1

1

9

Canada vs Cuba

1

1

10

USA vs Panama

2

2

11

Costa Rica vs Haiti

1

1

2

12

Mexico vs Honduras

2

1

3

13

USA vs Honduras

2

2

14

Mexico vs Canada

1

2

15

USA vs Canada

16

Honduras vs Mexico

1

2

2

2

4 1

1 1

NOTA:22 goals were scored inside the 16.50 area, in different combinations; individual plays, crosses and many defensive mistakes in coverage and closeouts when the ball changed wings quickly.

8 goals were scored outside the area, close to the 16.50 edge, showing little use of mid-range distance kicks; the long distance shots were null and, when attempted, deficient.

16 Goals Scoreded from the box or goal area, and many of them as a result of goalkeepers remaining inside the goal or because they were not ready for second chance plays, allowing attackers to take advantage.

4

2

16 Goals from the box area

4 4

1

2

1

2

TOTALES

16

22

8

46

AVERAGE

1.00

1.38

0.50

2.88

PERCENTAGE

34.78

47.83

17.39

100.00

22

Goals from inside the penalty area

8 Goals from outside the penalty area

37

O. TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE NOTE: GAME

MATCH

1

Panama vs Cuba

2

JUSA vs Canada

3

Honduras vs Haiti

4

Mexico vs Costa Rica

5

Canada vs Panama

6

Cuba vs USA

7

Costa Rica vs Honduras

8

Haiti vs Mexico

9

Canada vs Cuba

10

USA vs Panama

11

Costa Rica vs Haiti

12

Mexico vs Honduras

13

USA vs Honduras

14

Mexico vs Canada

15

USA vs Canada

16

ATTENDANCE

DATE

TOTAL

GROUP

3816

10/1/15

3816

A

10/2/15

2853

B

3755

10/3/15

3755

A

3147

10/4/15

3147

B

3313

10/6/15

3313

A

• Attendance was lower than in CONCACAF’s U-17 tournament in Honduras, where a total of 63,567 and an average of 1,926 people attended.

• Total attendance reached 28,201 throughout the tournament, with an average of 1,763 spectators per match.

• The quality of the facilities was outstanding; the organization was good, with some details to be improved; it apparently lacked optimum communication for such an event – Olympic Qualifying tournament, which includes the participation of high level players, some of them present in international leagues.

• The tournament had very low attendance throughout, even in the finals, where 4,760 spectators were reported.

P. OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE AGE TEAM

3924

10/7/15

3924

2633

10/10/15

2633

4760

10/13/15

4760

Honduras vs Mexico

TOTALES

B

AVERAGE

21

9

Costa Rica

21.3

11

Cuba

20.9

5

Haiti

20.3

6

Honduras

20.6

8

Mexico

21.15

10

Panama

20.15

5

USA

20.45

7

Canada

•

The youngest team of the event, with an average age of 20.15 years, is Panama.

•

The oldest team in average was Costa Rica, 21.3 years

•

It is worth highlighting that it is hard for the different teams, for various reasons, to reach the Olympic Qualifiers with the ideal age for the category; that is, those born in 1993. Many teams showed up with players born from 1996 and 1997– that is a 4-year difference- which is something to bear in mind in future Olympic Qualifying competitions.

•

Mexico, Costa Rica and Canada had the highest number of players born in 1993, thus providing greater perspectives and a more stable development processes in their countries.

28201

AVERAGE

1763

GROUP A

38

2853

• Clearly, the group with the greatest attendance was Group B, which included Mexico that practically plays at home with a huge Mexican attendance.

Total

Average

10884

3628

GROUP B

Percentage

Total

Average

38594

9924

3308

Percentage 35,190

39

GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT SOME KEY ASPECTS.

40

41

IV. GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT SOME KEY ASPECTS GENERAL TRENDS. The tournament was very even competitively among the different participating teams, highlighting the superior quality of Mexico in all soccer aspects pertaining to defense, attack and collective play, winning all of its 5 matches.

There was an offensive, positive mindset, and winning expectations among all teams in every match. This is evidenced by the fact that in the 16 matches played, there were 4 draws and 12 defined matches.

46 goals were scored in the 16 matches, for a general average of 2.88 Goals Scoreded per match.

The elevated technical level of the coaches is worth highlighting, leading their teams in this Olympic Qualifying tournament.

Most squads used flexible tactical systems capable of quickly adapting to the different situations and to the opponent’s level, displaying very good constructive schemes.

Teams like Mexico, Honduras, USA and Canada included skilled, competitive players who play in 1st division teams in their respective countries and abroad, which allowed them to create teams with a very high competitive level.

42

These squads conveyed quality and variety to the tournament. It lacked the significant presence of DIFFERENT players; only number 17 from Mexico, Hirving Lozano, and 17 from Honduras, Albert Elis, stood out from the general average.

The competitive results evidenced even levels among participating teams during qualifiers.

There were only two matches with extremely disproportionate scores: USA 6-1 Cuba and USA 4-0 Panama.

The final ranking in the group phase was quickly defined in Group A with USA and Canada and Group B, Mexico and Honduras.

The incorporation of foreign coaches to manage the 8 participating teams was outstanding with 5, 2 of them South American, 3 European and 3 nationals, which contributed to the tactical organization of the teams and their competitive level, as well as the professional approach displayed by all coaching staffs.

A better preparation, effectiveness and organization was observed throughout the teams, in terms of their defensive operation and midfield play, but not in offensive organization.

PLAYERS IN FOREIGN LEAGUES:

We must state that the teams with better-organized defensive and attacking midfield wingers, with tactical discipline, technical level, mobility and creativity were Of the 160 players from the 8 participating teams, 27 play outside their country, 21 play in European the ones with the best final results. teams and 6 play in teams from different American Deficiencies in the attack were made evident in countries. structured attacking schemes. This showed a lack and profound absence of tactical patterns pre-established Most of the 160 players participate in their respective prior to the tournament in most teams, with the clear local first division tournaments. An example of this is Mexico’s team, where most of them are part of the exceptions being Mexico, Honduras and the USA. powerful Mexican league, playing for renowned and Very few organized and compact approaches to the top quality teams. opponent’s area, as well as little effectiveness and This has contributed to a more stable and continuous scoring capacity were evident in half of the teams preparation level, superior to that of other countries.

(Panama, Cuba, Haiti, Costa Rica).

Mexico, USA and Honduras were more effective attacking teams and created constant goal scoring situations.

Mexico was the most compact team in its approach to the opponents’ defensive area.

Compact schemes and quick transition from offence to defense were basic aspects to achieve the close results obtained in each match.

A deficiency observed was the lack of effectiveness in shots on goal after combinations and the use of mid and long-range distance shots on goal.

Tall, strong central defenders with good technical level were present, along with a compact midfield formation, with intensive marking in defense.

The use of the entire field, including the wings, was a determining factor. Fast and skilled players capable of facing the opponents’ defense, and surpassing them thanks to their skills and speed were aligned mostly in these areas (17 Mexico Lozano, 13 Canada Petrasso, 13 USA Kiesewetter, 17 Honduras Albert Elis, 7 Cuba Arichel Hernandez, etc.).

The use in all teams of defensive and box-to-box midfield wingers who organized and balanced quick transitions from attack to defense and vice versa was one of the most relevant tactical aspects.

Regions: Europe- (21) - USA- (5) Mexico- (1) Total 27 GROUP A USA

11

(8 Europa, 1 Mexico y 1 Canadà).

Canada

6

6 (6 Europa).

Cuba

0

Panama

1

1 (1 España).

Mexico

2

(1 Europa, 1 USA).

Honduras

3

(1 Europa, 2 USA).

Haiti

3

(2 Europa, 1 USA).

Costa Rica

1

(1 Europa).

GROUP B

43

USA, Honduras and Canada).

the wings, displaying two skillful and fast wingers.

We can clearly state that this position is highly important in determining the teams’ final results.

Quick defensive transitions and attacking projections with long varied passes were used by most teams, fundamentally USA, thanks to their speed and physical power. Mexico, on the other hand, always tried to reach its target with wellelaborated combinations.

We noticed little use and effectiveness of mid-range shots on goal and low accuracy in deep passes and combinations that ended in threats to the opposing area.

A general negative aspect was the lack of efficiency and effectiveness of teams within the opponent’s area while attempting to score.

TACTICAL ASPECTS Most of the teams had very flexible systems capable of achieving a quick transition, leaving a defensive function, rapidly recovering and attacking and vice versa. Likewise, the level of opponents and the development of the match led to increased flexibility in their tactical approaches. The most organized and flexible teams in their tactical approaches obtained the best results (Mexico, Honduras and USA).

TECHNICAL ASPECTS. General individual and group technical improvements were noticed in all teams; increased ball possession with organized projections from the back, and ball management mainly in the midfield.

This does not apply to the opponents’ defensive area during offensive functions, except for Mexico.

In fact, the technical level among most teams was quite good.

Paradoxically, there were just a few “difference makers” capable of leading a team and determining, as leaders, the final results.

44

Mexico, USA, Honduras and Canada were the teams that tried to organize the most plays, regardless of the opponent’s pressure. They achieved this because of their great mobility and position rotation, as well as their high technical level, mainly in the defensive and midfield areas, with limitations in offense when reaching the opponents’ defensive area. Mexico displayed great skills in ball possession and compact play throughout the field, even in the opponents’ defensive area.

Good line-up stability and few player position changes in the different matches were a positive aspect displayed by the different teams, especially Mexico. The teams with the most line-up changes were USA, Panama, Haiti, Canada and Honduras.

The general level of the goalkeepers was good, displaying advanced skills with both legs, hands and during saves. Furthermore, many of them played outside their areas, taking the role of an additional defender at times (1 from USA), (1 from Mexico) and (1 from Cuba).

The technical level and tactical organization of midfield wingers was a determining factor, in some cases with two players and in others with one. Their role balancing attacks and coming back to defend was a determining factor in outcomes. Midfield wingers are greatly responsible for the recovery, possession, organization and game assembly within their teams.

Teams that had highly skilled players in those positions are the ones that developed a more balanced game both offensive and defensively.

Those teams also achieved the best results (Mexico,

Stuffing the midfield with players and achieving ball possession was the most evident trend in defensive schemes.

Many deficiencies were noticed in attacking plays when attempting to reach the opponent’s area in an organized manner (Cuba, Haiti, Costa Rica, Canada and Panama).

There was an evident lack of defined patterns and effective combinations when attempting to reach the opponents’ area in a compact manner, with the exception of Mexico, which generated positive combinations in the opponents’ area.

The most commonly used formations were (1-44-2) and (1-4-5-1). These formations had quick variations when attacking and defending, according to the match characteristics and the level of the opponents.

In every case, the width of the pitch was used through the projection of the defensive wingers.

Mexico showed great skill with its attack through

Planning of substitutions and their use was mostly accurate in the teams that had projected their games well and were stable in their use, thus increasing performance in the final minutes of the games.

The stability in line-ups and on the use of players in their positions in the different matches was a remarkable aspect.

In most matches, increased midfield play was observed, as this is the area with the highest number of players, where smaller teams displayed certain ball possession and more defensive skills by reducing spaces.

Generally speaking, it was determined that further work has to be made on the defensive function preparation to achieve quick attack to defense transitions in a compacted manner, reducing midfield spaces and spaces in the defensive zone, most of them including one of their forwards in the midfield.

The general defensive operation took place in the midfield, which rapidly grouped the teams and displayed intensive presence in such area.

Use of the entire pitch in attack through defensive wingers and wingers was conclusive; unfortunately, the quality of crosses into the middle of the area was not very efficient, just as were the attempts to complete shots on goal.

45

NEGATIVE TACTICAL ASPECTS

defense systems was effective. Players in these areas displayed their skills and permanently put pressure on the opponent’s defense.

• Lack of line-up stability in various teams, with respect to the starting 11 in the tournament.

46 goals were scored in 16 matches, for an average of 2.88 goals per match.

• The completion of moves and combinations close to, and within the opponent area, with inefficient and insufficient shots on goal for most teams, except for Mexico and the USA.

The use of defensive wingers to support the attack was also observed, achieving a wider range of attacking plays in teams that used them the most (Mexico, USA, Canada, Honduras and Panama).

• Lack of effective center forward or forwards within the opponent’s area, and efficient shots on goal, except for Mexico and the USA. The teams that played with a single attacking forward and who managed to reach the opponent’s area had very little goal opportunities.

• Few compact approaches to the opponent’s area

ATTACK ANALYSIS Most of the teams displayed a strategy to place a center forward with one or two connecting players between the halfway line and the forward line, who also joined attacks.

46 When these players failed to support, the possible attacks died up quickly. It is very difficult to achieve sustainable outcomes with a single forward attacker, without the defined support from midfield players.

1. There was a tendency among most of the teams to play with a forward directly supported by a midfielder and the approach of wingers, except for Mexico and USA. 2. As a general trend, except for Mexico, there was little compact and combined game in the defensive zone of the opponent’s team; little use of one-two moves, and effective technical / tactical ratio among attackers.

There was good ball possession and management from the team defensive lines (Mexico, USA, Canada, Honduras, and Panama), thanks to the technical level of midfield wingers and the plays organized by them.

3. There was fast and skilled arrival of wingers and defense, mostly as support to the attack.

They used the width and depth of the pitch to attack in these zones.

Very few teams arrived in a compacted manner, with clearly elaborated combinations of attack when stepping into the opponent’s area conclusively (Mexico and USA).

4. The teams used one or two deep-lying strikers (acting as a link) between the central midfielders and forwards. Sometimes they played as attackers.

Mexico showed another disposition, always using two defined strikers, with great mobility and interaction.

Limitations on the execution of attack effective combinations, often times due to the lack of mobility with very static forwards and wingers, lack of a stable offensive tactical pattern. Attack conclusiveness and effectiveness was missing in most teams.

5. Optimum ball possession and midfield combinations (Mexico, USA, Panama, Honduras, Canada). There was insufficient depth, forcefulness and effectiveness on shots on goals after crosses.

There was great position rotation wingers, who used their skills and speed to create danger in the opponent’s area.

Most goals were scored in attack combinations (11), most of them made by Mexico and the USA and (7) in individual moves.

The wings were greatly used throughout the tournament, with players who displayed good level, speed and optimum skills (17 Mexico, 13 Canada, 17 USA 8 Mexico 20 USA, 9 Panama).

Shots on goal to the opponent’s goal from the mid-range were just a few, and most of them were ineffective.

• The defensive operation in teams in general prevailed with more quality, compared to the offensive one.

• Little use of effective standard plays in corner kicks.

GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE ATTACK

This is a team trend that provides more value for defense or losing by minimum scores, in contrast to the mindset of strong groups that always look for the win.

Several goals were scored through individual moves through the wings, indicating that this type of actions and the efficacy thereof to break the

The conclusiveness in the attacks ending with goal kicks after wing approaches (center) was low in most of the teams, and ineffective, except for Mexico and the USA.

6. The team had technical deficiencies and inaccuracies in moving crosses from lateral areas. Lack of effective center forwards within the opponent’s area, except for Mexico and the USA. 7. Most of the corner kicks were not precise and many goal opportunities were wasted.

47

DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS All teams were better organized in the defense than in the attack.

Every team had clear defensive strategies within a rapid defense-attack and attack-defense transition system, with great flexibility and which adapted to game situations.

The most commonly used system was 1-4-5-1. The best quality in the defensive line was that of center backs with quick anticipating plays, good wing coverage, and strong aerial play.

All teams started with some type defensive approach, with a line of 4 defenders supported by one or two defensive midfielders, who were capable of dropping back on defense when the wingers attacked. Some used a line of three, but synchronized in the quick attack to defense transitions, and generation of a compact block.

Every team had, as common denominator, all of its offensive players pressuring the defensive projections as to delay attacking plays. Forwards tried to slow down the attack by rival defenders.

Teams concentrated players in the midfield to form a compact block and therefore close down spaces; the weakest teams would do this in their own pitch, with one of the two forwards going to the midfield.

Midfield wingers rotating to the middle and all of them applied intense pressure, with good mobility and position rotation.

48

The most outstanding teams, from a technical scheme standpoint, were Mexico, USA, Honduras and Haiti.

The teams in general organized their defensive lines in the midfield, with zone marking and with intense concentration of players in this sector, reducing spaces to the minimum. Mexico was the exception, in some instances applying collective pressure when ball possession was lost.

Lack of total concentration in the defensive lines still persists in the area, in terms of standard plays and marking definition in this zone. Most goals were scored inside the 16.50 area (22) and from inside the penalty area (5.50); 16.

PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Teams in general displayed good physical fitness and special preparation level, being Mexico and the USA the best teams by far.

All teams tried to deploy a fast-paced and strong game in ball disputes in one-on-one situations.

Teams also displayed a compact scheme during the first halves. They than reduced the pace of the game in the second halves (Cuba, Panama, Canada, Costa Rica and Haiti), evidencing the ware of playing 3 very demanding matches in less than 6 days.

Mexico, Honduras and USA stood out for their pace and strength during all matches.

All teams showed strong psychological disposition during each match, especially when facing adverse situations.

All matches were highly competitive and there were no easy teams; they made other teams fight for victory and showed tenacity during their matches; there were only 4 draws in the 16 matches played.

WARM-UPS In all matches, the teams had good warm-up routines, with very good personnel distribution within the coaching staffs in all areas. They took the necessary steps and conducted exercises that were ideal for match preparation. They also took the necessary time for each activity, ending with specific soccer exercises.

CHARACTERISTICS DISPLAYED

BY THE COACHES Technical exchanges of TSG specialists were made with all technical directors, noticing good knowledge among them of the objectives to be achieved, both tactical, strategic and competitive in the tournament.

Many of them had little time to prepare their teams for the tournament, and few real competitive situations to prepare a stable team.

Some difficulties were faced as well when asking clubs to lend players for the tournament, leading to key absences.

5 coaches from the 8 present were from foreign countries: 3 from Europe, 2 from South America and 3 local.

All of them with optimum experience, as evidenced by their coaching during the tournament.

Most of them were well versed on the system and tactics developed by their teams, and foresaw changes as needed.

The teams had more stable line-ups and tactics defined in this tournament, especially Mexico, Cuba and Canada.

49

OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE GOALS A total of 46 goals were scored, for an average of 2.88 per match.

Most of them took place during the second half with () and of the total of 46, () were scored from minute (30 to 45); this was the period with the highest number of goals.

The teams with the highest number of goals were Mexico (11) and the USA (14).

The teams with the highest number of goals allowed in this tournament were Cuba (9), Panama (8) Costa Rica (7) and Canada (6).

The tournament’s general average was 51.00 minutes of actual playing time, out of the official 90 minutes established. This is higher than the last Gold Cup (50.06).

Excess calling of fouls, penalties, yellow cards and delaying tactics to resume the game after such events. In some cases, due to low dynamics, rhythm, as well as the ball possession in some deficient encounters derived from technical and tactical situations.

In such regard, the match played between Costa Rica and Honduras was the lowest in actual playing time with 43.39, which was affected by the excessive number of fouls, interruptions and delays.

The highest number of goals were scored from inside the penalty area with 22, followed by goals from inside the goal or box area (5.50) with 16.

This shows a lack of concentration and defensive assignments when close to the goal, and in some cases, lack of interception of crosses by goalkeepers in this area.

The first 15 minutes of the game (1 to 15) represented the longest real playing time with 9:13.

The least amount of goals (8) was scored from outside the penalty area due to lack of shots on goal from long and mid-range.

The longest match in real time was USA and Cuba (6-1) with ample ball control by the USA. The lack of fouls and unnecessary stoppage plays led to 57:50 in playing time, coming close to a world-class playing time.

Forwards scored the highest number of goals with 24 goals, along with central midfielders with 8 thanks to their in-depth approaches using the wings and the width of the pitch.

50

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME

6 goals were scored through rebound headers, mostly after standard plays, 11 goals in combination and midfielders on the sides, and 7 in individual plays.

Likewise, the first half from (1 to 45) represented the longest actual playing time with 26.13 minutes total.

51

TEAM-BY-TEAM ANALYSIS

52

53

COACH:

BENITO FLORO SPAIN

Its coach, Benito Floro, is well known in the soccer world; he has introduced its organization philosophy, ball handling and possession from the defensive lines. Canada knows how to touch the ball and has great mobility.

It shows serious difficulties in the opponent’s defense zone, it lacks quality in its offense combinations, as well as power and effectiveness in the opponent’s area.

In CONCACAF’s events, the Canadian national teams impress in the first two matches, but as the event unfolds, their performance and competitiveness falls.

The final balance of the Canadian National Team in the Olympic Qualifying was as follows:

Canada

Five matches played with one win and one draw, and three losses, with five goals in favor and eight against; they obtained 4th place.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Canada’s national team qualified directly to CONCACAF’s final Olympic Qualifying for the North American region. Eleven out of twenty of its players play in teams abroad, mostly in Europe and in the USA. With an age average of 21 years and 1 month, this team gained good competitive experience in CONCACAF and World Cup U-17 and U-20 categories, as well as in the Pan-American Games.

•

The team had players with good height and athletic physiology, several of which had great speed and individual technical profile.

•

They had power and capacity to develop at high level in international competitions.

•

Tactically, the team needs to perfect its collective tactical discipline.

•

The

team

began

the

tournament

with

Currently, five of its players are part of the senior Canadian National Team in the World Cup qualifying stages.

Given their record of accomplishment, it is safe to say that they have a good level of competitive experience.

54

The fact that they qualified directly into the finals of all of CONCACAF’s events without playing the qualifying stages is harmful to the Canadian team’s development, because in most events, they lack time to get together as a group and work as a team, with the aim of assembling a powerful team that can show stable performance throughout the tournaments.

55

1- 4 - 1 - 4 – 1

•

•

•

•

•

confidence; they performed well in their first match against USA.

•

They displayed good medium distance ball passes with balls in movement.

They had good tactical structure and organization aside from physical power. They lost the first match with one goal difference, but they played a good match.

•

They were skillful players for aerial game and great individual resources.

•

They did not have mid or long-range shots on goal.

some key players’ physical performance dropped.

•

The narrow play in the last third lacked a lot of clarity from the forwards.

CANADA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME PER MATCH:

•

Some of the team’s forwards were limited on their individual offense actions in narrow play. They had trouble relating to each other in attack combinations.

Individual actions prevailed.

In the second match, they beat Panama, a solid team in the group; they relied on consistent play and tactical organization with outstanding defense work.

The last match in their group was against Cuba and their performance level went down; they lost attack power and compared to the matches against the USA and Panama, their performance was poor. They were almost disqualified by the Cuban national team.

They lost the Semifinal and the definition for the third place, they played both matches against superior opponents but their physical performance was in decline.

The team’s basic formation was stable throughout the event. The main player was Petrazo, number 13; he was relevant in the qualifying matches but lost physically as the tournament developed.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS •

The team had an acceptable technical level, both individually and collectively; several players showed great skill and ball handling skills, providing them with good ball possession.

•

In the midfield and defense, they showed good control and possession of the ball, starting at the bottom of the defense line, thanks partially to the mobility of their wingers and of their central midfielders.

•

They had good control and combinations under the opponents’ pressure, fast circulation of the ball, narrow plays; but this situation shifted in the last two matches, in which they played a stronger opponent that applied more pressure in their defense.

56

•

The team had good technique in narrow play changes to the other side of the field searching for a wider range.

•

•

Petrazo, number 13, was the most dangerous forward due to his skill set and his feints; he created dangerous situations for the opponents on the left side. Canada’s offense depended on this player’s creativity. In the final matches, he was clearly showing signs of exhaustion and his performance suffered due to his excessive defense responsibilities.

• They had great capacity to maintain a high-level

physical condition and to deliver in compact game functions between lines, thus keeping constant pressure on the opponent.

• Nonetheless, in the last matches of the tournament

MATCH

1

2

3

4

5

Team

USA

PAN

CUB

MEX

USA

Actual Playing Time

54.06

57.45

49.49

54.56

52.18

TOTAL AVERAGE

53.55

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • The basic formation was 1-4-1-4-1, using a central

midfielder. Number 14 was the team’s captain, who had creativity and vision, and was able to guarantee quick defense-attack transitions, organizing and balancing the defense area. The offensive area had the support of a quick exit of the defensive wingers and of distribution of passes, enabling counter-attacking plays and attack depth.

• Their defense line was organized in four, numbers 2,

19, 5 and 11; with a defensive midfielder, number 14; four central midfielders, numbers 6, 7, 10 and 13; and a target striker, number 9.

• They showed wide range in the midfield with organized

defense counter-attacking plays.

Sam Piette, number 14 and the team’s captain, was a good defensive midfielder who showed great organization skills in both offense and defense.

His performance was very good. This player has been to international matches with Canada’s senior National Team.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • The players were tall, strong, fast and capable, with

good tactical discipline and compact play.

• The defenders had great height, which allowed them to

win aerial balls.

57

• When attacking, the midfielders joined and they got

into a 1-3-4-3 position. This shows significant tactic superiority to fulfill offense positions by using the wing sectors, especially the left with Petrazo, number 13.

• The team had good player mobility in midfield,

supporting the player with the ball.

• In the midfield, Sam Piette, number 14 was very solid

and strong; he recovered well due to good marking.

Number 14 was the brain and organizer of all counterattacking plays and attacks in the Canadian team. He played freely between the defensive line and the midline.

• Player number 8 brought in a lot of mobility and

support in midfield, where he intersected the ball and facilitated combinations.

• The team had good ball possession, essentially in

defense and in the midfield. They had lots of vision and creation of combinations in midfield, but lacked attack clarity in the remaining three quarters of the field.

• When they tried long passes, they lost many balls due

to inaccurate ball passes or intervention of opposing defense players; this was one of their main pain points.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • Canada had a stable defense system with a line of four

defenders, numbers 4, 19, 5 and 11.

• They were solid and strong on marking, with good

anticipating plays; played as a compact block most of the time, reorganizing quickly in the transition from attack to defense in midfield.

• They lacked communication and coordination between

the two center backs amidst dangerous situations caused by the opponent forwards.

• The team had a personal zonal marking with two central

midfielders, numbers 14 and 7.

• They are strong in aerial game, organized and

disciplined in the last third of their field.

• They had grand and generous physical display of all the

58

players in defense positions, generating a block in the midfield with intense marking. Both midfield wingers and one defense provided support.

• The team is strong and efficient in one-on-ones

disputing ball possession, as well as in headers, especially wingers number 4 and 11, and 19 and 5.

• They had mixed-area set piece play marking, six players

opened the zone and others marked the opponent’s tallest players.

• One of their limitations was the defense shrinking in the

area of the ball.

• Center backs Luca Gasparotto and Skylar Thomas were

strong in individual play in the defense’s center.

• The team’s transition from attack to defense worked

better in the matches against the USA and Panama; they tried to create a compact block in the midfield in the second third.

• Transition was difficult in the three other matches; it

was slow against Mexico and USA. • The last three matches showed less aggressiveness and

capacity to impose over the opponents.

• The defense line was open and it left a lot of space in the

last zone of the field’s first section.

• In the final matches, Canada kept its line of four players,

plus one defensive midfielder, number 14. However, the team showed weaknesses in its organization, in anticipating plays and in working as a compact defense line.

• They lacked conviction and determination in one-on-one

situations, especially in the second match against the USA when they were disputing the third place.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • Canada had a basic attack line of 1-4-1-4-1, with quick

counter-attacking plays built on short steps and defense transitions to attack with balance in midfield, allowing a fast exit of the defensive wingers, who provided wide range to the counter-attacking plays and depth to the attacks.

• They tried attacking with a 1-4-1-5 formation, with

some variations, such as 1-4-2-3.

• They quickly managed a 1-3-4-3 when attacking with

the incorporation of the midfielders. Midfielders and defensive wingers tried to provide attack support from behind to the wings.

• The team had good player mobility in midfield. Good

ball possession, mostly in defense construction and midfield.

• They had great vision and combination creation in

midfield, but lacked clarity in the cooperation with the offensive line in the attack to the three quarters of the field.

• Midfield players number 14 and number 7 were

outstanding. They had high technical level, vision and capacity to maintain a high level game.

• The attacking midfielders received many passes turned

back, with few chances of continuing their attacks quickly; receiving the ball like that decreased the chances for depth.

• Some forwards had poor individual quality, with the

exception of Petrazo, number 13, who excelled in skill, determination and technique. He scored three out of the team’s five goals. He was the team’s inspirational offense. Unfortunately, he was used excessively for defense, which took a toll on his performance in the last matches.

• In the last third, the team lacked clarity to create

combinations and relations between stickers. The team did not display determination in attack as well as in depth.

• The wingers are very slow in their counter-attacking

plays.

• They need to improve goal opportunities from mid and

long-range.

DEFENSE • They had solid and strong individual marking, with good

anticipating plays, but had deficiencies in sustaining a compact form most of the time while transitioning from attack to defense in midfield. The block did not give width and the midfield wingers did not come close enough, thus leaving spaces.

• There is lack of determination and communication

between center backs in times of great danger and opponent’s goals.

• They had few midfield shots and not enough crosses on

goal from the sides of the opponent’s area.

• The transition from defense to attack was repeatedly

slow, lots of ball passes on the side and excessive defense from number 14, their top player, who sometimes acted as a defensive winger, and who had to run a lot to get back into the attack.

THINGS TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL • They need to improve the use of shots on goal from mid

and long-range.

• They should improve the quality of the crosses on the

opponent’s area.

• They need to work with the attack players with average

technique who cannot control or contain the ball in narrow plays.

• They need to improve ending goal opportunities in the

air with headers.

• The team needs to work on functional technique

specific for the definition of short, agile ball passes, in order to give width, triangulate charges in narrow and populated plays TACTICAL • The team should improve clarity and effectiveness in

the offense attack throughout the last third of the field.

• They try to play from behind but when they get to

midfield there is no cooperation with the forwards.

• They need to generate spaces for the forwards and

create attack superiority.

59

ATTACK

CANADA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT

• Mostly, combinations seek wide range in the field with a

• They are slow in the attack and cannot manage a

majority in narrow plays.

• The attacking midfielders and forwards lacked mobility

and marking; these lines lacked cooperation.

• The player with the ball did not get support.

• There were differences in the decision-making process

of the central attacking midfielders on when to use one-on-one and when to pass the ball.

• They need to be clearer in offensive combinations to

have a more efficient goal opportunity.

number of horizontal passes and ball possession. This allows the opponent to reorganize. They had few deep combination plays to the opponent’s area.

PHYSICAL • They need to get tall, string, powerful and fast players,

shots on goal.

level of physical condition, to fulfill compact play functions between the lines, and to put pressure the opponent constantly.

PSYCHOLOGICAL opportunities at individual level.

• The team’s transition from attack to defense is often

very slow.

GOALS ALLOWED:

10

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

-4

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

• They did not go for a win in offensive action.

• In the first and second match, transition to attack was

very slow, but they were forceful in combination plays to the opponent’s defensive area.

NAME

POSITION

TP

GS

TYC TRC TPM

TS

O

RK

GA

DD

FW

HW

CE

SC

14

15

16

14

1

Max Crépeau

Goalkeeper

450

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

79.0

6

12

Quillan Roberts

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

KEY

18

Ricky Gomes

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

2

Johnny Grant

Defender

246

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

42.3

3

Mark-Anthony Kaye

Forward

98

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

-19.1

4

Jackson Farmer

Defender

199

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

22.1

5

Luca Gasparotto

Defender

450

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

80.0

6

Chris Mannella

Midfielder

291

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

46.3

7

Mauro Eustaquio

Midfielder

272

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

20.2

8

Jay Chapman

Midfielder

238

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

26.4

9

Anthony Jackson-Hamel

Forward

295

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

22.8

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

14

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Sam Piette

Midfielder

Organizer. Highly skillful and technical.

10

Caleb Clarke

Forward

377

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

48.9

11

Jérémy Gagnon-Laparé

Midfielder

431

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

37.9

13

Michael Petrasso

Forward

450

3

0

0

0

0

3

1

162.0

14

Sam Piette CAP

Midfielder

450

0

1

0

1

0

3

0

110.0

15

Benjamin Fisk

Forward

89

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

44.9

16

Molham Babouli

Forward

59

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

26.6

17

Hanson Boakai

Forward

84

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

9.3

19

Skylar Thomas

Defender

450

1

0

0

0

0

3

0

115.0

20

Dylan Carreiro

Midfielder

46

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

5.1

4975

6

5

1

1

6

15

4

13

Michael Petrasso

Forward

8

Jay Chapman

Attacking Midfielder

Agile, dynamic, with good technique.

1

60

NAME

Attacker that left the opponent out of balance, fast.

19

Skylar Thomas Maxime Crepeau

Center back Goalkeeper

53.55

• They need to improve the capacity to sustain a high

• The team lacked determination to define collective

TRANSITIONS

6

with stamina, tactical discipline and compact play.

• Physical conditions were not a problem for Canada.

• They lacked efficiency in medium and long distance

GOALS SCORED:

Disciplined. Strong market.

TP TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork HW Hand Work

Great technique and team orientation.

TOTAL

CE Center Exits

61

COACH:

LUIS FERNANDO FALLAS COSTA RICA

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The team did not face problems in their technical

management, they have incorporated a good play, and they have players that can control, lead and kick the ball.

• They performed well in the plays from behind and

circulation in the mid third of the field. They displayed good ball technique. Despite having players that excelled in ball handling (Ramirez 7, Ruiz 11 and Flores 10), their biggest difficulty came when they had to get through the last third of the field with a good pass.

• Flores, number 10, scored one of the best goals in the

tournament, a mid-range shot on goal.

• However, this player was not put to good use, he lacked

and he was not very confident in shots on goal.

• They combined plays and ball handling in narrow plays

COSTA RICA

in the first two thirds of the field in the first half against Mexico. However, the rest of the tournament they did not manage to combine plays or have ball possession.

• The players with the highest expectations and with

Costa Rica’s National Team represented the UNCAF, and qualified for this Olympic Qualifying final by winning against Guatemala in the repositioning stage.

experience in the senior national team did not deliver as expected (Ramirez 7, Ruiz 11 and Flores 10).

Its age average was 22 years and 1 month. Its preparation process for this event was eventful due to a change in coach and in dates to play the qualifying stage, which altered their stability.

They were part of Group B, and the following were their results: In its first match against Mexico’s powerful national team, they lost 4-0; they were also defeated in their second match against Honduras 2-0; and finally their last match against Haiti was a 1-1 draw. Their final balance was two defeats, seven goals conceded and one in favor.

62

This generation of Costa Rican players has not performed accordingly with its country’s soccer reputation. Its performance was weak in previous events as well.

The team has remarkable individuals who have been summoned to the senior National Team, but they have failed to show stable performances and their psychological level has deficiencies associated with their will to decidedly fight for victory.

63

1-4-2-3-1

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

DEFENSE ANALYSIS

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• The team had good athletic and physical capacities,

• They grouped in a line of six in the last third, midfield

• There were only isolated and individual actions by

defensive players were tall and fast, forward and midfield players were short; they could have had a classic and speedy target striker.

wingers 11 and 17 moved to the defensive area to play 2vs1 with the wingers 15 and 13 in the opponent’s end, with three midfield wingers (4, 8 and 10) running in the attack front.

• They responded well physically to the demands of the

match, but psychologically they dwindled after the opponent scored, it confused them.

• They used a line of five against Haiti, in their last

match. They placed four midfielders in front of the defensive line and only one striker began the defensive delay action.

• They were unable to sustain an appropriate match pace,

only defense sustained their fighting spirit; transitions to attack were difficult, on top of a lack of quick, speedy counterattacking plays.

• They marked in the area depending on the ball; they

were slow and not aggressive.

• They put pressure on the opponent in the first half of

the match against Mexico and in the second half of the match against Haiti. For them, the tournament was tainted by distrust and passive attitudes.

COSTA RICA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME PER MATCH

MATCH

1

2

3

Team

MEX

HON

Haiti

Actual Playing Time

49.16

43.39

47.26

• Their untimely coverage showed lack of trust in

47.00

• They won out of superiority and not efficacy in defense,

variations 1-4-2-1-3 in attack and 1-6-3-1 in defense.

• They used a playmaker (10), 11 and 17 rotated in the

wings and 7 acted as a lone striker, but he lacked support because defense had to return to the extremes.

They had an evident and repetitive attack pace, and they had difficulty in seamless progressive plays.

64

very good goal.

• Deficient game that lacked regularity in depth and

shots on goal. Few goal opportunities.

• Offensive wise they were deficient and showed no

progression, support, unfinished individual actions; not enough kicks in the matches, they did not elaborate on the play and set pieces.

distrust and untimely marking.

• They did not excel in aerial play; the opponents

overcame them. Players 3 and 5 delivered.

• Excessive defensive posture made it difficult to get to

the offensive area.

• They always waited until the last third of the field to

initiate recovery actions, even after they were defeated in the first match, they sustained a timid attitude that lacked initiative.

• They were very far from the opponent’s goal, they had

slow and evident plays from behind; their split relied only on an individual play by number 7, or only when number 11 came into the play after a long defensive run.

• Their game was mostly midfield, with little depth and

combination plays to the opponent’s area. For a team with good technical level and that is knowledgeable in football, there was a shortage of depth and definition.

not able to keep the ball; possession was lost when they tried penetration on attack without adequate support.

• They only had one medium distance kick, and it was a

• They were very vulnerable against each other, overall

third of the field was very slow; it was mainly lateral, executing horizontal passes. offensive conversion; lateral passes without depth.

Wingers only played from behind and neglected the shift to attacking.

• Sharing similar characteristics, their attackers were

cause threats to the opponent.

this generated confusion and lack of attention in the area.

• Possession in the plays from behind and medium

• In midfield, they played defense and did not apply

attacked with three players (11, 17 and 7), who showed individual wing plays that surprised a couple of times, but their shots were diverted.

• Their shots on goal were non-existent; they did not

• The midfielders were forced to shift to the area of the

TOTAL AVERAGE

• The chosen formation was 1-4-2-3-1. With some

• In the highlight moments again Mexico, the team

distances, midfielders were always overcome and shy in offensive play, they did not move forward enough to cause danger to the opponent.

recovering the ball. In some matches, they applied high pressure and recovered in a better area.

defensive wingers, mostly without need; they had a permanent 2vs1 and the central midfielders formed a block of 1-6-3 in the last third.

TACTICAL ANALYSIS

number 7; he was alone in the attack, if another player joined him, there was no synchronicity in the action.

• Instead of grouping in the attack and running long

•

65

THINGS TO IMPROVE

• They should focus on being more powerful and

TECHNICAL

• They need to improve the technique of striking shots on

• They need better coordination, attack effectiveness and

final definition

goal in movement.

PHYSICAL

TACTICAL

GOALS SCORED:

1

GOALS ALLOWED:

7

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

-6

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

46.60

• They need to improve the pace of the match and

• They need to have more speed and depth in the

defense-attack transition.

intensity to sustain in both halves.

• They need to work on will, self-esteem, trust and

• Aggressive marking in the opponent’s area, play

narrows.

• They should focus on efficiency of individual potential,

• They need to work on their attack program, offensive

coordination, offensive reorganizing.

balance between the lines and improve player selection.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS POSITION

POSITION

TP

GS

TYC TRC TPM

TS

O

RK

GA

DD

FW

HW

CE

SC

18

Darryl Parker

Goalkeeper

180

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-14.0

6

6

6

7

7

1

Carlos Martinez

Goalkeeper

90

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

4.0

1

3

4

4

3

20

Jairo Monge

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

KEY

19

Freddy Alvarez

Midfielder

78

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

8.7

6

Berny Burke

Midfielder

56

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

21.2

3

Julio Cascante

Defender

270

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

35.0

16

Allan Cruz

Midfielder

53

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

5.9

9

Kenneth Dixon

Forward

93

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

10.3

14

Bryan Espinoza

Defender

90

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

10.0

5

William Fernandez

Defender

180

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20.0

10

Dylan Flores

Midfielder

209

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

83.2

13

Steve Garita

Midfielder

180

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20.0

4

Christian Martinez

Midfielder

227

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

55.2

17

Ronald Matarrita

Forward

180

0

1

0

0

0

2

0

40.0

15

Joseph Mora

Midfielder

194

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

21.6

2

Jhamir Ordain

Defender

180

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

20.0

7

David Ramirez

Midfielder

253

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

18.1

11

John Jairo Ruiz

Midfielder

242

0

2

0

0

0

2

0

36.9

12

Ulises Segura

Midfielder

66

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

12.3

8

Luis Sequeira CAP:

Midfielder

180

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

-10.0

calculated risk-taking TEAM MANAGEMENT

ATTACK

NAME

NAME

PSYCHOLOGICAL

DEFENSE

66

COSTA RICA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT

effective in the opposing area.

TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

DESCRIPTION

4

Christian Martinez

Midfielder

Makes a great effort, good marking

10

Dylan Flores

Midfielder

Good kicking capacity

11

John Ruiz

Midfielder

Agile, dynamic, very good technique

5

William Fernandez

Defense

Solid marking, aerial play

67

TOTAL

3001

1

8

1

1

5

10

0

COACH:

RAÚL GONZALES TRIAS CUBA

Cuba was affected by the indiscipline of some players who left the National Team, with only 14 remaining at the end of the event. This event affected their mental concentration profoundly, as well as their performance in the field.

However, the high morale of the coaching staff and remaining players constituted an example of will and determination. Cuba had real chances of qualifying to the next phase up until their final match against Canada.

The results of the Cuban team were as follows:

CUBA

In their first match against Panama, the result was a 1-1 draw. In their second match against USA, they lost 6-1, with a poor performance both in defense and in attack. In the last match against Canada, the Cuban team showed their best performance and had a 2-2 draw; they played fluently and even dominated the Canadian team, which scored only thanks to technical mistakes by the Cuban players.

Three matches, one loss and tow draws; four goals in favor and nine against was the Cuban balance in this Olympic Qualifying event.

Cuba’s National Team qualified as runnerup for the Caribbean region in this category, having won against Jamaica 2-0 in the CFU final, and obtained a 0-0 draw against Haiti.

The team won all the matches in the preliminary stage in the Caribbean Final in Antigua and Barbuda, with the following results: 2-0 against Guyana, 11-1 against Aruba and 1-0 against Antigua, resulting in fourteen goals in favor and one against.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS The team has players with good height and who have good physical characteristics.

Several players had great individual speed, technical profile and capacity for achieving high levels in international competitions.

This National Team is formed mostly by the same players that qualified for the U- 20 World Cup in Turkey and that participated in the Central American games in Veracruz, where Cuba won the bronze medal. Five of their players were part of the senior national team in the last Gold Cup. All players play in Cuban teams in the first division.

68

The coach, Raul Gonzales Triana has been working with the team for over 3 years; he coached them in the Central American games and in the U- 20 World Cup in Turkey.

The age average is 20 years and 9 months, making it one of the tournament’s youngest teams.

69

1-4-4-2

From the tactic point of view, collective discipline and organization need to be perfected, players tend to lose concentration or are messy in key functions as the match unfolds, resulting in losses.

There was consistency by the basic staff throughout the three matches.

The team kept the same players and basic formation in the three matches, with the exception of number 5, who played the first match as right wing back and then left the field.

Cuba showed positive position changes and players’ location in the field. The change of number 15 from defensive midfielder to center back was significant, as well as that of player number 4 from attacking midfielder to center forward, in front of number 16. Player number 2 changed from defensive winger to midfielder, playing the ball from the wings to the center and providing safety and possession in that area.

• The team’s organization and ball circulation took

place on their side of the field; they had no plays from behind, mostly on the wings, and they lost the ball to the opponent in midfield. did not get support from the second or third line after receiving a ball.

• In the third match against Canada, the team was more

motivated and wanted to win; they had more ball possession.

• In that match, the team found more mobility in the

midfield. Their play was more compact between the lines, and attackers had more feints in plays from behind and offensive pressure in the last third of the field. Their game seemed more aggressive and offensive, showing real competitive potential and leaving reservations and fears behind.

• The team showed problems with shots on goal, with the

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

• Cuba’s largest deficiency was the lack of offensive

individual level than collective level. They had good ball handling at an individual level in the defensive area and halfway line, where mostly they executed organized plays from behind. They lost the ball many times due to poor mobility of the midfield wingers and forwards. They need to touch the ball and be more supportive of their teammates.

• The team had several skillful players with good

individual feints resources. However, they need to work on continuity and pace in collective play, ball possession and 4, 5 and 6 continuous passes.

• They had good technique in control and conduction of

individual ball plays.

• The technical level throughout the tournament was not

stable. In the first match against Panama they had many bad passes and long plays from behind without team organization to collect the ball after a rebound midfield or in the opponent’s defensive area.

• They were weak and disorganized in the second match

against the USA and managed little ball possession, as happened in the first match.

• They improved in collective plays, pass effectiveness

and ball possession against Canada. Changes in

match against Canada. At times, they seemed naïve and noble in disputing one-on-ones balls against Panama and the USA.

• They tried a 1-3-4-3 in the attack by incorporating the

• In the first and second matches, Cuba’s collective play

in the midfield and forwards in order to support the player running with the ball.

pace was not stable and high. They left spaces between the lines.

• The forwards were isolated from the halfway line; they

These modifications strengthened Cuba’s midfield, and gave it more fluency and organization in the match against Canada.

• The team had a fair technical level, with higher

70

positions of some players contributed to a better technical performance.

exception of number 7, who scored twice and displayed tranquility and precision. support, mobility and continuity in combination plays; they lost in the attack because they did not play narrow in the opponent’s field. It is as though they played to prevent conceding goals, instead of using their competitive potential against any opponent. They need to have the mindset of a winning team.

• The team also lost the ball when the opponent applied

pressure in the midfield or in the defensive area.

• They need to use mid and long-range shots on goal.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • The players were strong, powerful and agile, capable

of endurance due to their physical characteristics.

They had good tactical skills.

• The team tried to sustain the intensity of the matches,

and to be consistent in the attack and in the defense.

In the first match against Panama, this strategy did not work out; but in the last match against Canada, it worked well.

• They had the capacity to sustain pressure in the

midfield and in the defensive area, but they did not apply it in a stable way; this was evident in the last

• They had serious mobility problems freeing-up and

provide continuity to the different actions in an area where they had superiority with number 10, a false forward and deep-lying striker (a highly skilled but static player).

• They made mistakes that led to losing the ball, which

generated exhaustion among some of the some players in the midfield, since they had to do extra physical effort. Their sole attacker suffered from physical exhaustion.

• The team needs to support attackers in the attack in

order to play narrow between the lines as quickly as possible. This showed lack of physical strength in the team’s attack.

CUBA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME PER MATCH MATCH

1

2

3

Team

PAN

USA

CAN

Actual Playing Time

52.57

57.50

49.49

TOTAL AVERAGE

53.19

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Their basic formation was 1-4-4-2, using two central

midfielders, numbers 16 and 4, who provided control and organization, unlike numbers 15 and 16, who lacked organization skills. They had faster and sustained conversions with a 1-4-5-1 formation, which they applied in most matched with the false 10.

• Player number 16 had tasks of contention and offensive

balance and number 4 was used as playmaker; the last one created mobility and ball possession. Number 10 lacked mobility and visibility.

• The team had fast transitions from defense into attack

when applying the 1-4-4-2 to the 1-4-1-3-2, sustaining organization and balance in the midfield. This allowed the defensive wingers to build-up plays from behind with width but not with enough depth.

midfielders to the wing.

• They experienced sustained lack of mobility of players

• The team had good ball possession mostly in defense.

However, under pressure they kicked the ball forward without aim.

• There was little cooperation between the midfield

and the attacking line. There were limitations in the creation of plays and they lacked attack clarity in the last third of the opponent’s field.

• The team lacked clarity to optimize the attacking

advantage in the third section of the field.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • Cuba had a solid and strong defense in the individual

marking, with good anticipations. The team mostly played with a block of four players who transitioned between attack and defense in midfield. Defense was more compact with a block of seven and eight players, mostly against Canada.

• The goalkeeper was skilled; his defense play, footwork

and exits from the penalty area in support of defense were good.

• They had the tendency to play individually instead of

collectively in defense. Player Colon made a huge technical mistake in the match against Canada, in the first goal.

• They did not apply the defense principles enough in the

defensive compact line. They had good coverage and balance.

• The team had a weak defensive tactic and knowledge

of defense principles, such as pressure anticipations, balance and one-on-one coverage in the match against the USA. It showed improvement against Canada.

• The team’s transition from attack to defense was

better in the midfield against Canada; in the second third they tried to create a compact block with the support of the midfield players.

• In the last match, they showed more aggressiveness

and toughness against the opponents. In its first two matches, Cuba proposed a line of four players with players 15 and 16 as defensive midfielders, but they

71

did not deliver. The team showed weakness in its organization, made mistakes in anticipation plays, coverage and compact play, and were strong in the one-on-ones.

• The attackers did not do good use of one-on-ones, with

the exception of Maikel Reyes and sometimes player number 7.

• Regardless of its deficiencies, the Cuban National

ATTACK ANALYSIS • They used plays from behind in fast counter-attacks

based on the individual skills of forward number 9 and midfield winger number 7, both of them with loads of potential. The second forward number 10 lacked mobility; he did not support the continuity of combinations executed by midfielders and defensive wingers, and did not get the ball after rebounds from the opponent’s defensive players in long plays from behind.

• Player number 9 showed great physical defense

capabilities, but he was limited for a powerful arrival on the opponent’s field. The second forward had very few shots on goal.

• They created some opportunities on the wings but

lacked good crosses to finish the play.

• In the attack, the team had few opportunities in the

first two matches; we saw individual actions from the attackers but not enough support from the midline and defense.

• The team could not create a majority in the last third

due to a lack of support and offensive narrow play to hold attackers. They need to apply narrow play.

• They gave Mikael Reyes, number 9, many long passes

in the first two matches. Nevertheless, he played isolated from players numbers 10 and 7.

• When they had ball possession, the team was not

stable in the offense. The midline and the defensive line were limited in their support and in holding the attack.

• The team lacked effectiveness in the opponent’s area,

Team scored in all its matches, showing real potential in their offensive development.

THINGS TO IMPROVE

• The team lacks compactness, coverage and a balanced

TECHNICAL • The team needs to work on mistaken passes in the

midfield and lack of mobility in that area. They need to work on ball possession and combination continuity, for which mobility is key. They need to have players with these characteristics.

72

and in corner kicks.

• The team did not use the necessary technical tools

in the last third attack, such as blocks, demarking, combinations and relationship between forwards and midfielders. There was an overall lack of mobility.

defense in the line. They need to work on narrowing spaces between the lines when attacking, since they were usually too wide.

• They had problems with closures, narrow play and

opponent pressure in the defensive line. They gave too much freedom to the opponent’s forwards in ball possession.

• Their shots on goal are very limited in the mid and

long-range.

• They need to work on the lack of definition in the

defensive area in terms of punts and headers in the penalty area. Need to learn to fight for the bouncing ball.

• The team’s coverage and balance behind the ball

were not good in their side of the field when the opponent had the ball. They need to work on decision and strength in one-on-ones when disputing ball possession.

ATTACK

• The team should work in narrow spaces with pressure

on the opponent and ball possession.

• The team had few shots on goal. They were weak with

shots on goal with moving ball.

TACTICAL • The team did not have enough support from the center • It is not clear for the team how to take the ball and play

in the first and second third of the field. The team’s two central midfielders are playing in the same line; consequently, two people are in the same position in the first two matches (numbers 16 and 15).

to define attacks.

• They need to work on the lack of mobility of the

midfielders and forwards. Players in the last third of the field are not clear on how to use the sides or the center in order to efficiently define the attack.

• Midfield players fail to occupy the correct areas and

do not create effective triangles in their midfield positioning. Number 10 is extremely static.

• The team does not have enough coordination and

cooperation between the defensive and midline to support the attack. In their first game, they had a lot of intention and depth, and in the second, they lacked clarity in the attack area and in scoring.

• The team uses long passes from behind, but is not well

organized to get the second ball. They need to work on getting rebounds from the opponent’s defense players.

especially in crosses coming from the sides.

• There was no clarity about the actions in set pieces

DEFENSE

• They need a deep-lying striker 10 with physical

capacities to sustain mobility and to act as link between the attack and midfielder lines. This is crucial for this national team in order to fulfill its actual growth potential.

• Shots on goal were very limited from mid and long-

range.

• The team’s line was not compact in attacking plays, and

they do not close the offensive lines.

TRANSITIONS • The team’s attack and defense transitions are slow.

They extend and leave spaces between the lines due to the slow defenders.

• The team’s attack and defense transitions were slow

in the first and second matches. They needed more aggressiveness in the opponent’s field.

73

PHYSICAL

CUBA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAME

organization.

• They need to work on pace and organization required

for a compact attack and defense, which are unstable.

This generates big physical efforts and exhaustion from running large distances between the lines. They lose many passes when they are attacking, which affects the organization of the match.

PSYCHOLOGICAL

• They were an example of decorum and dignity. They

showed strength overcoming the indiscipline and desertion of six players. Moreover, their competitive level was high against Canada

GOALS SCORED:

4

GOALS ALLOWED:

9

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

-5

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

53.19

TEAM MANAGEMENT NAME

POSITION

TP

GS

TS

O

RK

GA

DD

FW

HW

CE

SC

12

Elier Pozo

Goalkepper

90

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

-42.0

6

2

2

2

2

1

Sandy Sanchez

Goalkepper

180

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

55.0

3

7

8

5

5

21

Delvis Lumpuy

Goalkepper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

KEY

15

Adrian Diz Pe

Defender

270

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

45.0

18

Abel Martinez

Defender

270

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

20.0

2

Andy Vaquero

Defender

270

0

1

0

0

0

2

1

57.0

6

Yosel Piedra

Defender

270

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

45.0

14

Yendry Torres

Defender

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

5

Brian Rosales

Defender

77

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

8.6

19

David Urgelles

Midfielder

270

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

25.0

3

Enmanuel Labrada

Midfielder

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

4

Yolexis Collado

Midfielder

188

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

20.9

16

Daniel Luis Cap:

Midfielder

270

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

55.0

11

Dayron Perez

Midfielder

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

7

Arichel Hernandez

Midfielder

270

2

0

0

1

0

2

0

105.0

17

Pedro Anderson

Midfielder

42

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

-5.3

20

Osmany Capote

Midfielder

38

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4.2

10

Hector Morales

Forward

212

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

23.6

8

Frank Lopez

Forward

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

9

Maykel Reyes

Forward

270

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

87.0

• Since they did not have all the players, and they could

TYC TRC TPM

not play with their substitute players.

• The team lacked determination to sustain its collective

tactic; they need to fulfill their responsibilities in tasks and functions.

• In the first and second matches, players were cautious

• The staff showed knowledge with the changes applied

in the match against Canada, which was by far the best for the Cuban team; they played with fourteen players, including three goalkeepers.

and shy. Against Canada, they displayed a desire to win and play aggressively. They need to fight the small team mindset. Cuba has the potential to play against any opponent.

• The team does not have a stable mental focus; they

need to keep the tactical discipline and collective

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

1

Sandy Sanchez

Goalkeeper

Very certain, good technique

2

Andy Vaquero

Midfielder / defense

Very technical, organizer

7

Arichel Hernandez

Midfielder

Agile, dynamic and with great technique

15

Adrian Diz Pe

Midfielder / defense

Disciplined, strong marking

9

Maikel Reyes

Forward

16

Daniel Luis

Defensive midfielder

TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork

Organizer. Aerial play

HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

74

75

TOTAL

2987

6

0

2

2

11

2

COACH:

MARC COLLAT FRANCIA

The match with Honduras ended with a very tight 1-1 draw. In their second match against Mexico (which was later champion of the event) they lost 0-1 and ended with another 1-1 draw in the match against Costa Rica.

They closed their participation in the tournament with two draws and one loss, 3 goals against and 2 in favor.

The National team of Haiti demonstrated once again its growth in terms of competition in CONCACAF tournaments, and the strength of its defense as it only conceded 3 goals and did a good job in the strongest qualifying group.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Without discrediting the team’s performance in

Haiti

competition, the players used valid resources and technical gestures for each action, but more individually than collectively.

• The players had very good ball control in the defense

The Haitian national team was one of the two representatives of the Caribbean in this Olympic Qualifying Championship final.

The team was champion of the CFU (Caribbean Football Union) where it beat Cuba and Jamaica in the final.

Its average age was 21 years and 2 months.

The team had difficulties in carrying out the preparation for this event since it could not count on the stable presence of all its players.

This was due to the fact that the soccer clubs they play for did not loan some players.

area, circulating and counter-attacking properly; in the midfield they maintained ball possession but did not transcend into attack for lack of precision and talent.

• Shots on goal were scarce and lacked quality. This

was their major drawback.

• In the three matches they played, the number and

quality of shots on goal was deficient.

• With a limited ability to achieve combination plays in

dense zones, they lost ball control frequently to the rival when pressured.

This team demonstrated very good physical fitness, with fast, strong players, who were determined to play every match to win.

76

It had a solid and organized defense and an outstanding tactical discipline. The players were aware of their limitations and planned the game accordingly.

Haiti was part of Group B, where it faced strong teams with the following results:

77

1-4-4-2

• Speed was their best resource when they had space.

In their best match, which was against CRC, they imposed the game’s rhythm with dangerous one-onone players. However, in the matches against Mexico and Honduras, their ability and speed for attack were annulled.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

However, their exit and midfield organization was problematic; they had trouble creating plays and shooting in the midfield and the attack areas.

• They only managed to control the ball in the defense

and midfield, but they did not have this built into their game.

• In the two matches in which they expected a good

• The players were tall, well-built and some were

outstandingly fast. Their average size is important for their game.

• The team did not have problems in terms of the

players’ athletic physical aspect. They were successful in the defense, but could have done more in terms of attack.

• The players showed they knew their game. Their

defense was compact and counter-attacked with long wait spaces when their opponent slipped. Yet, they did not succeed because of technical deficiencies or because they chose a combination plays hastily.

• They pressured Mexico in the attack area. In the other

two matches they waited in the midfield. They did it well, and aggressively recovered the ball only to later lose it again.

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME POR PARTIDO DE HAITI:

result (Costa Rica and Honduras), their formation was different. The result was a goal against Costa Rica scored by a winger (14 Paulson).

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • They used a line of five or a line of four, and they always

maintained a formation with four strikers in front of the defense. They made a block and their moves were precise in time and space. Since they were always compact, they were hard to penetrate.

• The players could not find a clear attack. While

firmly standing, they easily lost ball possession after recovering it.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • They basically used a counter-attack game. This was

their strongest bid thanks to their speed and strength.

However, they had little success and achieved only isolated advances and bad ball passes. They only scored 2 goals in three games.

• With only one forward they expected to achieve

advances where they could connect some of the strikers in the overlapping run. The rest of their performance focused only on getting the ball away from their goal.

• Low individual quality was evident in the attack. The

team made a low number of effective combination plays in the defense zone of the opponent. They arrived to this area in an isolated way and with little backup.

• Their limited offense is reflected in the absence of goal

opportunities based on clear combination plays, and in consequence, better individual performances.

• They displayed technical deficiencies in shots on goal

and goal opportunities on crosses from wingers. Very little use of shots on goal from mid-range.

• Since they only used one play in the counterattack, it

was difficult to observe their real offensive behavior.

Their goal opportunities were scarce, isolated and without a systematic behavior to take advantage of spaces, direct free kicks and corner kicks where their aerial play could have generated a goal opportunity.

THINGS TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL • They need to work on offensive gestures, induced

reception, shots on goal, through passes.

• Also on shots on goal in movement and on crosses

from the wingers.

• They made very few wide plays as well as few clear

combination plays that ended in shots on goal.

• The team was organized in the defense area in relation

to the ball, and also when they gained possession of the ball in the midfield thanks to a well executed backing, coverage and relief.

• In the defense area they had excellent coverage and

MATCH

1

2

3

Team

HON

MEX

CRC

Actual Playing Time

49.22

51.57

47.26

TOTAL AVERAGE

49.35

TACTICAL ANALY • They began the match against Honduras with a

disorganized application of a 1-5-4-1 formation system.

When they switched to a 1-4-4-2 formation, their performance improved.

• They varied the formation system in the match against

78

• The team is tactically disciplined in their defense.

Mexico using a 1-5-4-1. In that match they could not move on to attack. Their fullbacks did not join in; neither did the strikers. They limited themselves to defending. Against Honduras and Costa Rica they achieved a better balance with a 1-4-4-2 formation that they controlled better.

relief, thanks to the speed of the players. They had very good anticipation plays and a hard one-on-one mark. They are strong in the one-on-one, and they mend mistakes in their defense plans with speed and strength. In the transition to attack they often lost control of the ball because of haste.

• They had good aerial play in which they always won. In

the few attack opportunities they achieved, this was an aspect they did not take advantage of.

• Their compact defense formation was very good. They

only conceded three goals. In the matches against the two finalists, they conceded one goal in each.

• The precision of their attacks is an aspect they need

to work on. In their attacks after achieving ball possession, they did not have luck and were erratic in the pursuit of an effective formation.

79

HAITI’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART

TACTICAL • Having a good defense should not be an obstacle for

overlapping runs or for a good attack. The team needs to strengthen the creation of play combinations in the attack, as well as support to strikers when they attack.

GOALS SCORED:

DEFENSE

1

GOALS ALLOWED:

3

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

-2

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

49.35

• The team should focus on pressure and ball recovery in

the opponent’s field.

NAME

ATTACK

POSITION

TP

GS

TYC TRC TPM

TS

O

RK

GA

DD

FW

HW

CE

SC

10

11

12

11

1

Luis Odelus

Goalkeeper

270

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

59.0

23

Ramos Pointe

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

PHYSICAL

12

Ronald Elusma

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

3

• They fell short. It would have been good to see them

5

Jude Saint Cap.

Defender

270

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

65.0

KEY

8

Chadeley Germain

Defender

90

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

10.0

PSYCHOLOGICAL

15

Lucson Elie

Defender

77

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

8.6

• The team needs more work on education in general.

18

Severe Verilus

Defender

270

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

20.0

TEAM DIRECTION

14

Paulson Pierre

Defender

148

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

51.4

• The team has good planning, but they need to bring more

13

Venel Saint Fort

Midfielder

142

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

30.8

6

Fernarderdemas

Midfielder

46

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

5.1

4

Berderlinbeaubrun

Midfielder

86

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

-0.4

10

Woodensky Cherenfant

Midfielder

199

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

37.1

7

Jhon Estama

Midfielder

68

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

7.6

9

Jonel Desire

Forward

204

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

27.7

19

Manchini Telfort

Forward

106

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11.8

17

Nerlinst Vii

Forward

165

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

33.3

16

Zachary Herivaux

Midfielder

204

0

2

0

0

0

1

0

17.7

3

Alex Jr Christian

Defender

180

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20.0

2

Stephane Lambese

Forward

270

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

52.0

11

Christiano Francois

Forward

209

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

13.2

• The attack is completely non-existent if the team does

not foster its strengths: aerial play, speed and strength.

display their speed more often and for longer periods of time.

support for a good technical work.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME 1 16

Luis Odelus Zachary Herivaux

POSITION Golie Playmaker

DESCRIPTION Got it right; fulfilled his role.

Sévère Verilus

Midfielder

Agile, dynamic, good technique.

5

Jude Saint Louis

Center back

Disciplined. Strong in the mark.

GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork

Good player who understands the game.

18

TP Total Playing Time by Player

HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

80

81

TOTAL

2995

1

7

0

1

2

14

1

COACH:

CARLOS TABORA HONDURAS

Costa Rica and Mexico. The Group phase results were as follows: Honduras 1-0 Haiti Costa Rica 0-2 Honduras Mexico 2-1 Honduras

These results gave the team the second place in its Group and a chance to play for a qualifying position to the Olympics, in the match against USA, that won first place in Group A. In the match that took place in Salt Lake City, Honduras surprised the USA team by defeating the team 2-0 in their own house. Having qualified to the Olympic Games in Brazil 2016, Honduras played the Final.

HONDURAS

Its rival was the strong Mexican national team, which beat Honduras 2-0 and obtained the title of Champions of this tournament.

Honduras is a representative of UNCAF; it qualified to this tournament after having played in Guatemala’s qualifying tournament, where it obtained the following results: Guatemala 1-2 Honduras and Belize 0-3 Honduras. The team has a mix of players that were born in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996.

The team has players who have participated in FIFA U-20 and U-17 World Cups. Most of them have a history in youth national teams, and it could be said that Honduras has a roster of professional players.

Although Honduras was not one of the favorites to get to the Final, it has always been a strong and competitive team in CONCACAF’s competitions. During this event, the team showed solid work and great competitive level that led the team to their objective to directly qualify for the Olympics.

The team displayed respect for ball possession in all of its matches and always tried to play well. They had great tactical defensive work that helped the team avoid conceding many goals (4), and Mexico was the only team that scored against Honduras.

Preparation prior to this tournament was done with sporadic calls of three or four players that were part of the National Team, giving them the chance to work together with the coaching staff to start learning the new work philosophy of the Head Coach.

82

Honduras played three international friendly matches in preparation for this championship against Panama. Two were played in Panama and one was played in Honduras. Panama won all three matches one goal to none.

Honduras was part of Group B in this championship with venue in Los Angeles and Denver. The Group was also integrated by Haiti,

83

1-4-2-3-1

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

TACTICAL ANALYSIS

• Honduras had very good individual and collective

• The Honduran players had good physical

• Honduras used 1-4-2-3-1 as basic tactical formation

technical level and good short and long passing in all of the pitch.

• It rarely used mid-range shots on goal, although

players 6, 20, 9 and 10 tried to score this way. They were not very effective, particularly in the penalty area with shots on goal.

• The team had good combination plays, particularly by

players 9 and 10, who had outstanding technique and vision.

• Good individual technique by players 10,9,15,17 and 19.

• They had to work hard in their defensive aerial

game, where central midfielders 2 and 3 displayed outstanding technique for head clearances in lateral and front crossings, and for getting the ball out of the danger zone.

• As a team, they had an adequate level to be considered

as one of the best teams in terms of collective technique over individual technique in this tournament.

characteristics for their positions in the field. They played with good rhythm and intensity during the whole match and remained focused.

• They had good stamina, and their physical fitness

helped them to keep up with the technical work with great synchronization and discipline.

• The players had good mentality and were very

determined in the dispute for every ball. They had good communication and support amongst teammates.

HONDURAS’ ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH:

in the three matches it won, which during the attack turned into 1-4-2-1-3 with good tactical behavior and balance, both in the defense as in the attack.

• They team works well as a 40-meter block between the

defensive and attacking lines; they had ball possession mainly between the midfield and the attacking third.

MATCH

1

2

3

4

5

Team

Haiti

CRC

MEX

USA

MEX

Actual Playing Time

49.22

43.39

52.02

46.16

54.31

49.02

(Mexico) and then they used a 1-5-4-1 formation with a line of 3 defending central midfielders and two wingers that covered the wings. In front of them they had a line of 4 midfielders who supported the defensive third, with only one striker in front.

• The players were very good in aerial play, particularly

the central midfielders. During corner kicks they would mark man to man using one player next to the first post and one in the goal zone.

• They always played with two very organized defensive

central midfielders and two wingers who would sometimes take alternate runs, maintaining the defensive block of 5 and 5 players.

• They would close the match in the last few minutes by

TOTAL AVERAGE

• They lost two matches against the same rival

making a 1-5-4-1 line with three central midfielders.

Against Mexico, they used a 1- 5-4-1 tactical formation, waiting in the defensive third to initiate a counterattack.

• The team would stay in the defensive third and apply

pressure in the midfield, with a slower transition with more ball possession and looking for long passes to leverage the speed of player 17 (Alberth Elis).

ATTACK ANALYSIS • When attacking, Honduras would use a 1-4-1-2-3

formation when it played using two central midfielders.

When the team used 3, it would use a 1-4-3-1-2 formation, sending only one winger to the attack, who was joined by a midfielder and they both joined 17 (Elis) who was playing as striker.

• Using this formation, the team sought to have good

build-up plays. They did not use this often but when they did they were effective.

• In the attack, they used build-up plays from the back

DEFENSE ANALYSIS • They used a 1-4-2-3-1 defensive formation with good

with the ball always on the ground, and the defensive wingers and central midfielders would receive the ball from the goalkeeper who always tried to play using ground passes.

behavior, relief and pressure on the player with the ball; the central midfielders offered good support and coverage. They changed from a line of 4 defenders to a line of 5 during the last minutes to close the match in all three matches.

• When they lost ball possession they would press

immediately using the player who was closest to the ball. The team had good defensive closing of spaces and duels by the wingers. The defensive midfielders were well positioned and aggressive to regain ball possession.

• Players were strong and fast on one-on-ones,

particularly the wingers.

• They were aggressive and could read the game well to

use anticipation plays.

84

• The team kept good distance between the lines and

a compact block in the 35 - 40 meters; they tried to gain ball possession and apply pressure on the rivals in the midfield, and had good organization and communication to maintain the defensive block.

• The team had good discipline to rapidly transition from

attack to defense.

85

• The team had two defensive midfielders that alternated

running forward, and with good mobility would always travel to find the box-to-box midfielder 10 (Salas), who had good soccer and collaborated with all of his teammates.

• The center forward had good ability holding on to the

ball and passing when necessary. When they used long passing they would engage player 17, who is fast and would travel using the left side to attack.

• Most plays started in the midfield with passes between

midfielders 6 (Acosta) and 10 (Salas).

• They attacked mainly on the right, opening the field and

trying to go deep. When they used the left side of the field they would try to use diagonal crosses since they had no players with that profile.

• The team didn’t have many pre-established plays with

set piece. Players 10 and 9 would form short and fast walls to break into the rival’s defense. Player 17 (Elis), who played as striker and was always alone, was the team’s most dangerous and effective player during the tournament.

HONDURAS’ OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART

TACTICAL • If the team plays more matches and does more

repetitions they will improve the movements and coordination, particularly with the line of 3 central midfielders where they still have not mastered it as well as when they play with 4 defenders.

GOALS SCORED:

6

GOALS ALLOWED:

4

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

2

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

49.02

DEFENSE • The team needs to be more careful with fouls,

particularly in the last 25 meters.

NAME

POSITION

TP

GS

TYC TRC TPM

TS

O

RK

GA

DD

ATTACK

1

Luis Lopez

Goalkeeper

270

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

88.0

• The team should work on being more effective with

18

Harold Fonseca

Goalkeeper

180

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

27.0

12

Roberto Lopez

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

4

2

Jhonatan Paz

Defender

450

0

2

0

0

0

3

0

75.0

KEY

3

Marcelo Pereira

Defender

360

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

85.0

5

Allans Vargas

Defender

194

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1.6

7

Jose Barralaga

Defender

180

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

25.0

16

Elder Torres

Defender

270

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

30.0

4

Klifox Bernardez

Defender

180

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

20.0

15

Kevin Alvarez

Defender

270

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

42.0

6

Bryan Acosta

Midfielder

360

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

75.0

8

Rodolfo Espinal

Midfielder

304

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

33.8

14

Joshua Nieto

Midfielder

41

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4.6

13

Darwin Espinal

Midfielder

142

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

15.8

10

Oscar Salas

Midfielder

360

0

0

0

0

0

3

2

99.0

20

Jhow Benavidez

Midfielder

304

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

48.8

17

Alberth Elis

Forward

447

4

2

0

2

0

5

1

221.7

9

Antony Lozano

Forward

233

2

0

0

1

0

3

0

135.9

11

Allan Banegas

Forward

304

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

23.8

19

Kevin Lopez

Forward

156

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

4.3

mid and long-range shots on goal with moving ball.

PSYCHOLOGICAL • The team was highly combative but this would turn into

aggressiveness and they had some red cards due to this, which affected the team as a whole.

THINGS TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL • The goalkeepers need to continue to improve

distribution of the ball since when they tried to go out playing the attack started.

• The team needs to work on passing the moving ball to

gain better possession and effectiveness in passing.

FW

HW

CE

SC

12

10

12

9

8

7

9

8

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

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS

86

DD Direction in Defense

NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

17

Alberth Elis

Striker

Fast, agile, good on one-on-ones, scorer. Good in aerial play.

10

Oscar Salas

Box to Box midfielder

Agile, very technical, intelligent. Has good mobility and good personality to ask for the ball.

6

Bryan Acosta

Defensive midfielder

Disciplined, good at regaining ball possession, good ball distribution. Leader.

2

Jhonatan Paz

Center back

Very tactical, strong in the mark, good ball distribution, good in aerial play.

9

Anthony Lozano

Forward

Good technique and ball handling skills, good working with teammates and holding on to the ball, scorer.

FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

87

TOTAL

5005

6

8

2

3

7

25

5

COACH:

RAÚL GUTIÉRREZ MEXICO

in the same venue, was Mexico 1- 0 Haiti; the last match of Group B took place in (Colorado)and ended with a score of Mexico 2-1 Honduras. Mexico obtained the first place of Group B, which sent them to play against the second place of Group A in Salt Lake City (Utah) for a direct spot in the Olympic Games that will take place in Rio de Janeiro in 2016.

The score was Mexico 2-0 Canada. The Final was Mexico (2) against Honduras (0), which confirmed Mexico as the champions of CONCACAF’s Men’s Olympic Qualifying event, after having won the five matches they played and having conceded only one goal in the tournament.

From beginning to end, Mexico was the best team among all participating teams, winning the 5 matches it played.

Mexico

The players displayed better individual technique than all other teams and the collective technique was evidently superior. Even though the team had a mix of players with different ages, styles, tactics and orders, it was a solid team in all the matches played.

Mexico is the favorite in every one of CONCACAF’s tournaments in which it participates. That is why it is always the rival to beat and the most respected team in all of this Confederation’s tournaments.

The team qualified directly, but used as preparation the Pan-American games in Toronto, the Central American Tournament of Veracruz and the U-20 FIFA World Cup in New Zealand.

Mexico scored 11 goals in 5 matches and only conceded 1 goal. It had better ball possession in the field than all of its rivals; it had control in passing, attacked using all the areas, and was superior in shots on goal.

The players and the coaching staff displayed great maturity in accepting the responsibility of being the favorite team, and ratified why they are considered as favorites in the pitch.

These tournaments helped to select the roster, which was affected by the dates of this Olympic Qualifying, since they did not correspond to FIFA dates and some of the key players were not loaned for the event by the soccer clubs they play for. Despite this issue, the coaching staff was able to put together a roster with a mix of players born in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and even some born in 1997, such as Erik Aguirre.

88

Mexico’s average age was 21.05 and it was part of Group B, together with Costa Rica, Haiti and Honduras.

Group B played its first matches in Los Angeles (California); the first match ended Mexico 4-0 Costa Rica; the second match, which took place

89

1- 4-4-2

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

TACTICAL ANALYSIS

ATTACK ANALYSIS

• Mexico had superior individual and collective technique

• When Mexico was defending, it used a basic formation

• Mexico used a 1-4-2-4 formation, but as the matches

than all the teams participating in this Olympic Qualifying. They had constant good quality in short passing and ball control, starting with the goalkeeper, who managed and distributed the ball from his area with good criteria, ideas and technique.

• Individually, 17 (Lozano) was the most dangerous player

on one-on-ones in the tournament, playing either on the right or on the left.

• In short passing, and due to the opponent’s apparent

willingness to give them space and the ball from the start of the match, they had an 80% higher effectiveness and ball possession than the other team in all the matches they played.

• Mexico was also superior in mid and long-range shots

on goal than the other teams, not because they tried more, but because they were very effective in scoring.

• Thanks to their good technical level, Mexico was the

only team that attacked as a compact block using combination plays and displaying excellent game relationships between the strikers and the rest of the team.

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS

• The team made no variations to its tactical strategy

despite the score in the matches, and always kept good organization and order. The team had good functioning and organization in all of its lines, with good mobility, rotation and high game rhythm.

• The goalkeeper started by distributing the ball to

the wingers, who passed the midfield with good ball possession using the width and the depth of the field. The midfielders distributed the ball by always connecting the two defensive wingers that created plays and possession in the rival’s pitch, and looking for the wingers’ support, who would move forward in an alternate manner.

• They always tried to build-up plays compactly in the

attack with 4 and 5 players, and pressured quickly after losing ball possession.

DEFENSE ANALYSIS

passed it transitioned into a 1-4-1-1-4 for the attack, leaving only a central midfielder; in other matches it varied the basic formation, even using a 1-2-4-4 tactical formation given that its opponents would go back to wait for them in their own pitch, allowing the Mexican wingers to move up to the central midfielders and the strikers to move up to the attacking midfielders.

• The team constantly used 2 center forwards that would

alternate to receive and attack using the sides with the support of the strikers, who were fast using the wings with outruns, crosses and strong one-on-ones.

• Central midfielders had good ball possession and good

skills to reach the attacking third. They displayed good individual technique and mid-range shots on goal.

• The attack always started with the goalkeeper, who

organized the plays with passes to and among the defenders, particularly the center backs, who were supported by the central midfielders. They distributed the game on the left and right using the wingers alternately, and the forwards would place themselves as strikers, always seeking to outrun and reach the borders to cross or do a diagonal pass towards the

• They had few set piece plays, but player 8 (Alvarez)

was an expert at this and he scored a goal in a direct free kick and hit the upper goal post in another shot.

• They had few short corner kicks where they had the

rival defenders leave the goal area and leveraged this to shoot from the center.

TECHNICAL DIRECTION • Good collective direction that showed excellent

team control and management. The correct variants introduced in order to incorporate changes during the right moments of the match demonstrated that the game was being accurately read.

• The team had good organization in warm-up.

• Mexico has done good development work with youth

categories that should be studied by CONCACAF.

• Mexico defended with a 1-4- 4-2 basic formation, with

• The players had very good physical features for each

of the positions they played; they also had good rhythm and stamina for the 90 minutes of all matches played.

• They had excellent focus during all of the matches

and exhibited great communication skills between the players, in addition to a positive attitude to solve all problems and challenges presented by the rival teams.

• They remained calm when they conceded the goal

in the match against Honduras, and didn’t get disorganized at any moment.

MATCH

1

2

3

4

5

Team

CRC

Haiti

HON

CAN

HON

Actual Playing Time

49.16

51.57

52.02

54.56

54.31

2 central midfielders and 2 midfield wingers in addition to 2 center backs; it had a good defensive organization in the last 35 meters and sometimes used a 1-4-4-1-1 formation for the defense, in order to have an attacker close to the midfielders line when ball possession was regained.

• The team had fast attack-defense transition plays and

vice versa, and they had good pressing when they lost the ball.

• It was the most solid team in the defense, always being

compact and organized, with good communication among players, good coverage and marking, and good one-on-ones.

MEXICO’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATC:

90

of 1-4-4-2, which transitioned into 1-4-1-1-4 for the attack, and could end up in a 1-2-4-4, since some rivals would go back so much into their own zone that they would allow Mexico to bring its strikers into their area.

center, where two center attacking midfielders would combine in a wall running or supporting each other to break the defense with fast walls and short or midrange shots on goal.

TOTAL AVERAGE

52.32

• Players did a good job at reading the game in the

defense, with adequate anticipations, and although they didn’t have to struggle much, they displayed good aerial plays.

• Mexico aggressively applied pressure in the attacking

third, but if necessary it would go back to the penalty area to form a block with 8 players in front of its goal.

91

MEXICO’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART

THINGS TO IMPROVE TECHNICAL AND TACTICAL • The team needs to continue improving each day since

they have to face tough competition and this will help them in that aspect.

GOALS SCORED:

DEFENSE

11

NAME

GOALS ALLOWED:

1

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

POSITION

TP

GS

TYC TRC TPM

10

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

52.32

TS

O

RK

GA

DD

FW

HW

CE

SC

1

20

21

22

21

• The Mexican players that play as central midfielders

are not fast by nature, and therefore they are sporadically exposed when they have to face fast the forward. Learning to read the game, anticipating and working on the tactical aspect helps them overcome this issue.

1

Gibran Lajud

Goalkeeper

450

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

184.0

12

Luis Cardenas

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

20

Raul Gudiño

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

ATTACK

2

Josecarlos Van Rankin

Defender

226

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

25.1

• The 2 main center forwards had great level, but the

3

Hedgardo Marin

Defender

105

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

11.7

4

Carlos Salcedo CAP

Defender

345

0

2

0

0

0

2

0

48.3

5

Rodolfo Pizarro

Defender

450

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

65.0

6

Erick Gutierrez

Midfielder

280

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

61.1

7

Alfonso Gonzalez

Midfielder

174

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

26.3

8

Raul Lopez

Midfielder

326

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

91.2

9

Erick Torres

Forward

339

3

0

0

1

0

3

0

167.7

10

Victor Guzman

Forward

450

1

1

0

1

0

5

1

167.0

11

Marco Bueno

Forward

450

2

0

0

1

0

3

0

140.0

13

Luis Lopez

Defender

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

14

Jordan Silva

Defender

450

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

65.0

15

Erick Aguirre

Defender

387

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

58.0

16

Daniel Alvarez

Forward

119

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

20.2

17

Hirving Lozano

Forward

322

1

0

0

2

1

5

2

194.8

18

Alfonso Tamay

Forward

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1.0

19

Luis Loroña

Midfielder

98

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

10.9

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

40.0

replacement center forward who played in some matches did not show the same level and was not able to create competition amongst them and maintain a higher level. .

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME

17

10

9

Hirving Lozano

Victor Guzman

Erik Torres

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

Striker

Dangerous in the attack, always looking for oneon-ones, skillful and technical. Good with crosses with the right foot, good kicking technique, he likes to score.

Midfielder

Strong in the mark, good skills to regain ball possession, good distribution and possession. Good kicking technique. Disciplined and intelligent in his movements.

Midfielder

Agile, good technique, strong on one-on-ones.

Good mobility, good association with teammates and good handling the ball. Dangerous and effective in the goal area. Scorer.

Defensive midfielder

Good at regaining possession of the ball, creator of plays. Good size, good communication, good distribution of the ball with this feet. Very good build-up plays in crosses and good technique in front of goal.

92 1

Gibran Lajud

KEY TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

Autogol

93

TOTAL

4980

11

3

0

5

5

28

5

COACH:

LEONARDO PIPINO ARGENTINA

In addition to their training, they did two tours to play friendly matches in Mexico at the Centro de Alto Rendimiento CAR against the Mexican National Team, and in Pachuca, against one of the affiliates of this renowed club. They travelled to Honduras to play against the Honduran U-22 team and against the reserve team of the Motagua Club, and obtained the following results: Panama o – 5 Mexico Panama 1 - 0 Pachuca Affiliate Panama 1 – 0 Honduras Panama 3 – 0 Motagua Reserves

Panama

The Head Coach, Leonardo Pipino, considers that the preparation was acceptable, that the country’s best players are part of the team and they all play in first division teams of the Panamanian league. Of the two of the players who play in Spain, only one had authorization from the club to participate in this tournament.

Panama, representative of the Central American zone UNCAF, qualified for CONCACAF’s Olympic Qualifiers by winning the quadrangular tournament that was held in Panama on August 11-15th of 2015, where it played against El Salvador, Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and achieved the following results: Panama 0 – 0 Costa Rica Panama 3 – 0 Nicaragua

In the Olympic Qualifying tournament, Panama, USA, Canada and Cuba, formed Group A, which had Kansas City as initial venue and concluded their participation in Denver, Colorado. The numbers obtained by Panama in this phase were not favorable to be able to close the Olympic cycle in a process that started with kids born in 1993-1995 and even in 1996 and 1997.

The Panamanian team obtained the following results:

Panama 3 – 2 El Salvador

In the qualifiers it accumulated 6 points, scored 6 goals and conceded 2, obtaining the first place in the competition.

94

After qualifying, Panama’s preparation consisted of 7 micro-cycles with the purpose of consolidating the team. Given that the competition was internal, they experienced many issues with preparation during workdays. This National Team is mainly comprised by youths born between 1995 and 1996.

95

1- 4-5-1

Panama 1 – 1 Cuba Panama 1 – 3 Canada Panama 0 – 4 USA

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

DEFENSE ANALYSIS

• Panamanian players are strong, fast and have the

• The first line of defense was made up by 4 defenders

required size for the positions they play.

• They had the stamina to maintain a high intensity level

when the match required it.

The team did not display the necessary balance in the defensive phase and conceded 8 goals. In the attack, they lacked forcefulness despite the amount of ball possession they had, and were only able to score 2 goals in their 3 matches, obtaining one point thanks to the draw against Cuba.

The team’s average age is 20 years and 3 months.

This National Team is formed by players who are well-built, have good individual technique, understand their game model concept well but who are strong tempered, an aspect that generated expulsions that made it difficult for the team to obtain better results.

The team was deficient in this tournament in their functions and effectiveness, something that is unusual since traditionally the Panamanian teams are known for not conceding goals.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • Panamanian players generally had good individual

technique that translated into an acceptable collective technique.

• This technical level allowed them to manage a

structure of short passes and to surprise with long passing in all zones of the pitch.

• They were deficient in mid-range shots on goal; they

had an average of 22 shots on goal in the 3 matches that lacked quality. They exhibited their best technical level when they organized the attacks using the wings, with well-executed crosses that were poorly finished near the opponent’s goal.

• Midfielders and forwards proved to be skillful on

96

one-on-ones and under pressure from the opponent.

They used triangulations that enabled them to use combination plays and maintain ball possession when under pressure from the opponent team.

• Their game philosophy was to have ball possession in

a compact structure between the lines. When they lost the ball they displayed great physique to pressure and regain possession. The team had drive and fighting spirit. They were very strong on one-on-ones.

PANAMA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH: MATCH

1

2

3

Team

CUB

CAN

USA

Actual Playing Time

52.47

57.45

45.10

TOTAL AVERAGE

52.07

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • Their basic formation system was characterized by

a 1-4-3-3 base distribution with variants depending on the match’s needs. Near the goal they would use a 1-3-3-4 formation and in the defending third, the block would use a 1-4-5-1 basic formation.

• Whenever the score was against them, they tried to

and in front of it, 1 or 2 central midfielders, who would form a block in the defensive third when the whole team did not have time to regroup. The defensive wingers provided a lot of support for the attack, but this would debilitate the team in the defensive aspect.

• The defensive strategy was to take over the midfield

and have the whole team form a compact block, to turn it into a defensive pressure area.

• The defensive concepts of pressing, coverage and

balance during marking were not well applied by the lines or collectively during the matches.

• The defensive line of 4 was dynamic and provided

support during attack to the midfield, progressing to the attacking third. They played more on the attack and forgot about defending, therefore conceding 8 goals in 3 matches.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • The basic formation used was 1-4-3-3 for the attack

that players moving to the midfield or from the line of 4 defenders changed, using the width and depth of the pitch, to a 1-3-3-4 variant. This was done with skill and speed, mainly from its strikers using the wings.

• The team’s style was organized attack; they rarely

• The team was aggressive on one-on-ones but due to

used long and direct attacks, but when they did these were effective.

their desire to attack, they lost focus and conceded 8 goals.

• The team played using the wings, with skillful players

• The defenders were effective in aerial play. They

collaborated in set piece tactics in corner kicks and lateral free kicks to attack, leveraging their good aerial skills.

• They knew how to respond to defensive problems

during the match. In the defensive aspect they sought to get organized in the midfield and applied intensive marking, and when they lost ball possession they applied pressing by zones.

such as 9 Abdiel Arroyo on the right and 11 Edgar Barcenas on the left. With the support of the defensive winger or the midfielder they always won on the wings.

• The quality of the mid and long-range shots on goal

was deficient. They had 22 shots on goal from mid and long-range that had no positive yields.

• Panama had players with great quality in the

attack. The red cards affected the team´s collective functioning.

have initiative and form a compact block in the rival’s area, even if they were numerically inferior due to the expulsion of a player.

• The team’s organization within the system they

adopted was compact, with mobility and good rhythm.

• When they had ball possession, they always tried to

build plays from the back, playing to move forward in the different zones of the pitch with direction changes to win the wings or seeking penetration through the center of the field.

• In terms of their organization in the midfield, they

always had support from the defensive wingers. The progression of the defensive wingers towards the rival’s pitch allowed them to gain width in their game and become numerically superior when coming from the midfield.

• They reached the opponent’s goal many times but

lacked clarity to score on shots on goal.

• ontundencia para finalizar las jugadas en tiros a gol.

97

• Given that the team was beating on ball possession,

it was consistent in the way it acted in the different zones of the pitch, applying assists, triangulations and blocks, and the crosses from the wings always had a target. However, they lacked effectiveness in the shots on goal with a moving ball.

• Panama lacked effectiveness and forcefulness in the

goal area.

• They lacked preparation in their tactics for corner

kicks.

• The team as a whole had great stamina for the attack,

but they made many technical mistakes in shots on goal and goal opportunities.

PANAMA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART

DEFENSE • The team has to work on being collaborative when

regaining ball possession.

• They need to work on attack-defense transition plays.

• Panama needs to focus on their defensive

GOALS SCORED:

2

GOALS ALLOWED:

8

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

-6

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

NAME

ATTACK • The team must be more effective and forceful on shots

POSITION

TP

GS

TYC TRC TPM

TS

O

RK

GA

PHYSICAL

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

-10.0

1

Elieser Powell

Goalkeeper

180

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-14.0

3

2

2

3

3

20

Orlando Mosquera

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

5

4

4

4

4

2

Chin Hormechea

Defender

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

KEY

Kevin Galvan

Defender

270

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

35.0

• The team needs to improve ball circulation based on

• The players need to have self-control in personal

4

Michael Murillo

Defender

270

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

27.0

5

Pedro Jeanine Cap

Midfielder

171

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

19.0

6

Fidel Escobar

Defender

168

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

-1.3

7

Jesus Gonzalez

Midfielder

46

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5.1

8

Jhamal Rodriguez

Midfielder

46

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5.1

9

Abdiel Arroyo

Forward

184

0

1

0

0

1

2

1

47.4

10

Miguel Camargo

Midfielder

191

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

66.2

11

Edgar Barcenas

Midfielder

240

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

76.7

13

Jesus Araya

Defender

90

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0.0

14

Roberto Chen

Defender

254

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

58.2

15

Francisco Narbon

Midfielder

81

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9.0

16

Justin Simons

Midfielder

39

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4.3

17

Carlos Small

Forward

123

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

8.7

18

Josiel Nunez

Forward

208

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

58.1

19

Jorman Aguilar

Forward

176

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

19.6

contact situations.

• They need to work on being highly mental.

TEAM DIRECTION • The team should learn to handle their psychological

aspect better when they compete.

• They need to rely more on their game philosophy.

TACTICAL

SC

90

3

on shots on goal, mainly when moving.

CE

Goalkeeper

PSYCHOLOGICAL

• They need to improve their technique and effectiveness

HW

Jaime De Gracia

TECHNICAL

result after each match is negative.

third and to increase passing.

FW

12

THINGS TO IMPROVE

• They need to be efficient and powerful in the attacking

DD

on goal in the opponent’s attacking third.

• The players all have excellent stamina but the end

mobility and passing on the first touch, looking to create spaces for shots on goal.

52.07

effectiveness and analyzing the problems they had that led to conceding 8 goals in the 3 matches.

• Panama needs to work intensely on the game model

based on the match´s 4 stages.

TP Total Playing Time by Player GS Goals Scored TYC Total Yellow Cards TRC Total Red Car TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME 10

98

Miguel Camargo

FW Footwork

POSITION Defensive midfielder

DESCRIPTION Organizer, skillful and technical.

11

Edgard Barcenas

Midfielder

Dangerous in the attack, fast.

9

Abdiel Arroyo

Midfielder

Agile, good technique, strong on one-on-ones.

18

Josiel Nuñez

Defensive midfielder

Good regaining possession of the ball, creator of plays.

14

Roberto Chen

Center back

Good with marking, technical.

HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

99

TOTAL

2827

2

4

2

0

7

12

2

COACH:

ANDREAS HERZOG AUSTRIA

only one player, 9 Jordan Morris, from Stanford University (USA), is not a professional soccer player.

During CONCACAF´s Olympic Qualifying to Brazil 2016, which took place initially in Kansas City and finished in Denver, Colorado, the USA was first in its Group A, having won all matches with the following scores: USA 3 – 1 Canada USA 6 – 1 Cuba USA 4 – 0 Panama The team also qualified during the first phase as the team with most goals scored, with 13 goals in favor.

USA

USA’s average age is 20 years and 7 months, being one of the national teams that has done an important process with its talented players.

The United States, Mexico and Canada represent the Northern Zone of CONCACAF, so they directly qualify to the Olympic Qualifying.

USA was part of Group A, together with Panama, Canada and Cuba.

This National Team feeds from the U-20 team that played the World Cup in Turkey in 2013 and the U-20 team that played in New Zealand in 2015. This group of players also participated in the Toulon, France, Championship in June of 2015, where they obtained third place after defeating England 2-1.

During the Semifinals phase, the USA faced Honduras, second of Group B, and lost by a score of 2-0 in the Tournament’s most important match, since it would have given the team its ticket to the Olympic Games Brazil 2016.

In the match for third place, USA did a better job in comparison to its previous match and won against Canada 2-0, after having played a superior game during the whole 90 minutes.

In the month of August, they had a training camp for 10 days to incorporate the new recruits, and in September before the Tournament, they held a second training camp in England where they played two preparation matches, and obtained the following results:

100

USA 1 – 0 England

101

USA 2 – 0 Qatar The Head Coach, Andreas Herzog, believes that he has the best players for the Olympics, but also said that this team could be better, since 5 players who currently play in Europe could not attend the event. From the team´s roster,

1-4-3-1-2

These were USA’s final statistics: 5 matches played, of which it won 4 with 15 goals in favor and 4 against. It obtained third place, which allowed it to play a match against Colombia in order to win a spot for the upcoming Olympic Games.

5 juegos jugados de estos 4 victorias y una derrota con 15 goles a favor y 4 en contra alcanzando finalmente la tercera posición del torneo lo que les permitió a ir al repechaje frente a Colombia para ganar un cupo a los próximos juegos olímpicos.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS • The players had very good individual technique

with passes in short and long distances, good ball circulation, and were able to turn this into good collective technique.

• They were well positioned in the field both in depth

and in width, which allowed them to have good ball circulation in the midfield by using triangulations and long deep passing.

• They had effective mid-range shots on goal and shots

with moving ball during the Group phase with 13 goals in favor.

• The team had skillful players in the attack, who were

strong on one-on-ones: Gboly Ariyibi 20, who is skillful using the wings, and 11 Alonso Hernandez, among others.

• The players were very effective in aerial play in

defense and they were a model to follow for set piece plays, since they were very dangerous when they leveraged goal opportunities

PHYSICAL ANALYSIS • The players were strong, well-built and fast.

• They had good stamina and were able to maintain a

102

high pace in the match, showing a lot of dynamic. The way they positioned themselves in the field allowed them to have a compact game between the lines during different times of the match, for attack, defense and transitions, which also allowed them to maintain good physical fitness for the duration of the game.

• When the score was not favorable to them, the players

showed the capacity to keep constant pressure on the

DEFENSE ANALYSIS

opponent.

• The USA had players who had explosive runs in the

attacking positions.

USA’S ACTUAL PLAYING TIME BY MATCH:

PARTIDO

1

2

3

4

5

Equipo

CAN

CUB

PAN

HON

CAN

Actual Playing Time

54.06

57.50

45.10

46.16

52.18

TOTAL PROMEDIO

51.00

TACTICAL ANALYSIS • The basic formation system used was 1-4-3-1-2,

which meant that they were playing with 4 players in the midfield in a diamond shape, being 10 Luis Gil the point of reference since he has a lot of mobility and connects from the back the two strikers; on the defensive line, the line of 4 players was supported by central midfielder 6 Will Trapp when the team could not organize the block in the defensive third. The line of 4 defenders was always disciplined and followed the tactical orders, and supported the second line of 4 or 5 players who compacted the block.

• In front of the opponent’s goal, the structure changed

• The defensive formation system used was a line of 4

in the back supported by a central midfielder as pivot - 6 Will Trapp, who is a player with great presence in the midfield. They constantly used a variation with the support of player 13 Matthew Polster and 8 Emerson Hyndman, who would join the defensive block.

• The defensive organization of the team was usually in

the midfield. A compact team would apply pressure on the player with ball possession; the rest of the time they would be doing coverage and balance in the zone.

After losing ball possession, the team would apply pressure in the area where the ball was lost to give their defense time to organize.

• The team’s defensive organization and focus allowed

them to quickly respond to defensive problems, intercepting and anticipating what the opponent would do.

• They had problems with one-on-ones in the defensive

third with players who had good dribbling skills.

• The first defensive line of 4 defenders was very

dynamic, providing support by the center or the wings to the midfielders when they were attacking.

• The players were very effective in aerial plays in

any defensive situation. In the attack, they provided support during the whole match by applying a

stationary tactic very successfully.

• The USA had a very compact game between its

defensive and attacking lines. They know well how to close down spaces in the defense and open them in the attack.

• They are used to playing by having players from the

defensive lines move up to provide support to plays from the back with ball control.

ATTACK ANALYSIS • The USA’s game philosophy was to have long direct

plays from the back for the attack. The majority of their offensive plays were by bidding on changes in direction or penetration passes.

• The team would organize in the rival’s pitch with the

incorporation of the defensive wingers and 2 center backs, 4 midfielders and 4 forwards in the attack with a 1-2-4-4 formation.

• The two strikers had good quality in big spaces. When

the rival reduced their spaces, their potential was reduced.

• When the team restarted the game from behind, they

would use one of two possibilities: long goal kick seeking to reach its strikers, or playing from behind,

to 1-4-4-1-1. The team tried to always be compact between its lines.

• The team’s functioning and its organization had its

ups and downs. During the first three matches the team was sound, but during Semifinals they lacked precision, losing their order and focus, and losing the good soccer displayed in the first phase in terms of mobility and rotation in the match against Honduras.

• The team always used the midfield to regroup and form

a defensive block. Their soccer was practical, based on ball possession in the midfield and on long passes to its two center forwards, 9 Jordan Morris and 17 Jerome Kiesewetter.

• In the midfield, the organization was lead by 10 Luis

Gil, with the support of the two defensive wingers who would provide security for ball circulation.

• The team lacked forcefulness in the attacking third in

the last matches.

103

from the defensive area, with controlled ball, securing ball possession in the midfield and looking for spaces to place the team’s forwards in a position for shots on goal.

• The organization of the counter-attacking plays were

planned during the defense-attack transition plays.

• The team had a low volume of mid and long-range

shots on goal compared to the number of attacks using the wings, since 80% of the goals were started on this zone with well-directed crosses and intelligent closing of spaces that the forwards used for anticipating plays against the defenders in the area.

• They had problems attacking through the center due

to the closing of spaces by the rival team’s block, and lacked technical imagination to surprise the opponent using ball touches with walls, feints and dribbles.

• Although they lacked precision in pre-elaborate plays

during corner kicks and free kicks, it was always evident that they had done planning for their execution.

THINGS TO IMPROVE:

• The team needs to work on the conscious application

of the game model based on the characteristics of the players.

• They need to have better control of the attack-defense

transitions at higher speeds.

• They need to have more control of passing in reduced

spaces when they are under pressure from the opponent.

• They need to improve ball circulation with precise

passing at greater speeds.

GOALS SCORED:

NAME

• The USA needs to have better organization in the line of

4 defenders at the start of the match.

GOALS ALLOWED:

4

GOAL DIFFERENCE:

11

ACTUAL PLAYING TIME:

51.00

POSITION

TP

GS

TYC TRC TPM

TS

O

RK

GA

DD

FW

HW

CE

SC

4

9

9

9

9

6

6

6

6

1

ZACK STEFFEN

Goalkeeper

270

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

56.0

12

ETHAN HORVATH

Goalkeeper

180

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

44.0

18

CHARLIE HORTON

Goalkeeper

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.0

ATTACK.

2

ERIC MILLER

Defender

235

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

16.1

• The team needs to have more creativity in the attacking

3

MATT MIAZGA

Defender

360

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

75.0

4

CAMERON CARTER-VICKERS

Defender

450

1

0

0

0

0

4

0

130.0

TP Total Playing Time by Player

5

WILL PACKWOOD

Defender

90

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

10.0

GS Goals Scored

6

WIL TRAPP CAP

Midfielder

360

0

2

0

0

0

4

1

87.0

TYC Total Yellow Cards

7

DILLON SERNA

Defender

343

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

38.1

TRC Total Red Car

PSYCHOLOGICAL

8

EMERSON HYNDMAN

Midfielder

288

1

0

0

1

0

2

0

107.0

TPM Total for Player of the Match by Match

• They should focus on improving their competitive

9

JORDAN MORRIS

Forward

377

3

0

0

1

0

3

1

158.9

10

LUIS GIL

Midfielder

295

2

0

0

1

1

2

1

134.8

11

ALONSO HERNANDEZ

Forward

197

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

71.9

13

MATT POLSTER

Defender

389

0

2

0

0

0

0

1

30.2

14

FATAI ALASHE

Midfielder

207

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

13.0

15

MARC PELOSI

Midfielder

217

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

91.1

16

GEDION ZELALEM

Midfielder

103

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

11.4

17

JEROME KIESEWETTER

Forward

371

4

1

0

0

0

4

2

165.2

19

MAKI TALL

Forward

84

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

16.3

20

GBOLY ARIYIBI

Midfielder

173

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

41.2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

20.0

• They need to work on pressuring the rival with the ball,

on their coverage and on how the defensive balance is executed. Also, they need to prevail on the one-onones in defense.

third. They need to improve the effectiveness of combinations in that area. .

PHYSICAL • The team should work on defense-attack transition

mentality.

TEAM DIRECTION • The team needs to analyze if the players’

characteristics adjust to the game style that they want to develop.

OUTSTANDING PLAYERS NAME

POSITION

DESCRIPTION

10

Luis Gil

Midfielder

Good mobility, intelligent.

4

Cameron Carter

Defender

Strong in the mark, gives all in the game, leader.

6

Will Trapp

Midfielder

Agile, dynamic and good technique.

17

Jerome Kiesewetter

Forward

Scorer, strong, fast.

11

Alonso Hernandez

Forward

Technical and with good mobility.

Autogol

104

15

DEFENSE .

plays from the midfield to the box.

TECHNICAL

USA’S OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE TOURNAMENT CHART

TACTICAL.

KEY

TS Total substitutions in regards to starting line-up O Total Outstanding Players by Match RK Ranking Among all Team Players GA Total Goals Allowed DD Direction in Defense FW Footwork HW Hand Work CE Center Exits

105

TOTAL

4989

15

7

0

4

8

26

9

CONCLUSIONS • In general, the different national teams had a similar competitive level, but Mexico had an outstanding level due to their game and the results they obtained.

• The event was well organized; the venues for the matches and trainings were first class at all the locations.

• There was not much participation from the public in the different stadiums. It is worthwhile analyzing the reasons for low attendance.

• This tournament was an offensive event; goals were scored in all matches and out of the 16 matches played, only 3 ended up with a draw. 13 matches had a winner. This proves the highly competitive spirit and that the teams didn’t want to speculate with the results.

• The matches were adequately scheduled, enabling the players to have better performance.

• In general, most of the teams displayed deficiencies in the technical aspects on the attack.

• There was good participation of players that play for professional teams of countries with high levels. This helped raise the competitive level of the tournament.

• The goalkeepers had a good level, were well positioned, had good direction and mobility within the box and penalty areas and even outside of it, turning into sweepers due to their footwork and good passing.

• The referees had an acceptable performance, since no difficulties arose during the matches.

• There were no players that were DIFFERENT in the attack, capable of standing out in the important matches and scoring due to their level. The only exceptions were players 17 Hirving Lozano from Mexico and 17 Alberth Elis from Honduras.

106

• In total, 160 players participated in this event; 71 of them had outstanding performances with their respective teams, and of these, 43 were assed and considered to be part of the 11 best players of the event to form the Dream Team.

• Players who play as central midfielders were outstanding due to their technical and competitive level, and they were the ones responsible for determining the score of their respective teams.

• The national team coaches and coaching staff were highly capable and did a good job of directing the teams.

• In the exchanges between the coaches and the TSG, we found out that most of the teams had issues and irregularities in their preparation for the tournament.

• Some of the causes of this were: the short time to properly prepare as a team; the issues with some clubs not wanting to allow the players to leave; and not having been able to play enough international matches to prepare for the tournament.

107

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Continue to develop this event in a more professional way in all aspects, since it is a direct source of players for the national teams of all the countries.

• Do a profound analysis of the countries that may be considered as venues for this competition. An aspect that should be carefully taken into account is the public’s interest and the soccer tradition of the country, in order to be able to have full

108

attendance to the matches. It is important to enhance outreach.

• Provide priority attention and support to each of the participating countries in their preparation for their participation in the final events of CONCACAF. • The countries that had the best youth developmental processes in place are those that had the best results.

109

MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL STUDY GROUP FOR THE 2015 MEN’S OLYMPIC QUALIFYING CHAMPIONSHIP.

From left to right: Luis Manuel Hernandez (Cuba), Oscar Benitez (El Salvador), Wilmer Cabrera (USA), Luis Hernandez Herez (Cuba), Etienne Siliee, Eduardo Rergis (Mexico).

THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE WERE PART OF THE TECHNICAL STUDY GROUP:

THE TECHNICAL STUDY GROUP (TSG) PERFORMED THE FOLLOWING FUNCTIONS:

1. Luis Hernandez Herez (Cuba). Member of EXCO. Chair of the TSG 2. Oscar Benitez. El Salvador. Specialist.

3. Etienne Siliee. Curacao. Specialist.

4. Eduardo Rergis. Mexico. Specialist.

5. Wilmer Cabrera. USA. Specialist.

6. Luis Manuel Hernández. (Cuba), Coordinator of the TSG

• • • • • • • •

110

•

Wrote the technical and tactical analysis and the report for each match.

Exchanged thoughts with coaches and watched trainings.

Gathered match statics.

Selected the Fair Play team for each match and for the Tournament.

Selected the Best Player of the Match for each match and outstanding players per team. Selected the Goalkeeper of the Tournament.

Selected the All-Star team.

Prepared the Tournament’s preliminary and final reports.

Analyzed the performance of all players who participated in the event.

Did a final analysis of the technical, tactical and physical aspects of all teams participating in the Tournament.