USA vs Cuba: USMNT Will Continue Offensive Surge in 2nd Gold Cup Match
All of a sudden, the United States men's national team has turned into an offensive juggernaut.
With Cuba on tap next in Gold Cup play, this trend is not going to come to an end anytime soon, although it may be a little much to expect them to keep producing at the same rate as their last two matches.
The U.S. notched a 6-1 win over Belize in their Gold Cup opener. That raised their goals-scored total to 12 in two games.
Over their last six contests, the Americans have posted a combined score of 21-5.
Now, they will face a team from Cuba that lost its Gold Cup opener 3-0 to Costa Rica.
With the Americans playing at their current level, Cuba should offer them little resistance, and the Americans already have had the clear upper hand in this matchup.
These two teams last met in the 2010 World Cup qualifier. The Americans played their first match in Cuba and won a tight 1-0 contest. In the 2008 Gold Cup, the U.S. cruised to a 4-1 victory. Also, in a 2003 Gold Cup contest, the Americans won 5-0.
It seems safe to expect a similar outcome to the other two Gold Cup clashes between these two when the two face off in Rino Tinto Stadium in Utah on Saturday at 3:30 p.m. ET.
Cuba is going to have a hard time scoring goals. Ariel Martinez is capable on the attack, but he doesn't have a lot of help.
How many goals will the Americans win by?
Armando Coroneaux and Jose Alfonso came off the bench against Costa Rica to try and spark the attack, but to little avail.
Meanwhile, the Americans are receiving scoring from all over the pitch, and with the recent production, Jurgen Klinsmann's job to determine his first squad is getting even more difficult.
Every player stepping on the pitch will be anxious to prove he deserves a spot with the first team going forward. This is going to help keep the Americans' intensity high, and that is going to lead to another blowout for the Americans.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?