I understand that. My only suggestion is to give it another chance. There was not much noticeable strategy yesterday. Usually, all of the strategy is done by the superior team. Unless you have two highly skilled teams or teams that just try and outscore you and are allergic to defense (think Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, England, Argentina for the former, South Africa, Nigeria, Chile, Honduras, Serbia for the latter), the game usually takes a familiar script: underdog team with less talent plays a very defensive game plan hoping not to get exposed by better athletes and skill. The underdog tries to defend like hell for 90 minutes, and then, when the superior team gets frustrated and commits more men to the attack, the underdog tries to surprise them by playing a long ball over the top to set up a quick counterattack. It is not pretty, but usually the only way an underdog stays in the game. In this strategy, the underdog usually doesn't have the ball and plays long periods of defense. It is the better team's job to come up with some noticeable strategy to crack the defense and score goals.
US held their end of the bargain- they defended like hell for about 86 minutes (certainly not the first 4). The US plan was simple (and something American fans usually get behind- like Miracle on Ice). Be the plucky underdog, defend as one, take your chances when they come, and show that 11 (5 for hockey) hard-nosed guys playing together can beat 11 stars with different agendas. The tie was more impressive given how quickly we fell behind. The natural inclination would be to "chase the game" (i.e. give up your defensive gameplan and try and get the goal back). US did that in 2006 against the Czech Republic when they gave up an early goal, and ended up getting badly exploited and losing 3-0. Yesterday, they kept their game plan and it paid.
But you are right- the game had no seeming strategy. That falls on England (and it is why they are being lampooned in their press [aside from the goalie error] today). They had no real gameplan for how to break down the US defense, which was shocking. They have so much more talent than us, but they never really put any passes together. the one goal they scored was an example of the kind of creativity they could/should have had all game. Instead, they seemed to get complacent up 1-0, and panicky tied 1-1. In the end, they were resorting to pumping crosses into the box and hoping for the best (soccer for the desperate).
That is why the next two US games will be so interesting. It will fall on the US to come up with the creativity and the game plan to win the game. Algeria/Slovenia will sit back, defend, and play the underdog role. The US has historically not done well as the "superior team." We don't have a lot of creative players that can generate real offense, but we do have lots of gritty, hard nosed defenders. Winning the next two games will depend more on the offensive skills of Donovan, Dempsey, Altidore, Buddle, Findley, and Jose Torres.
Anyway, hope the explanation is helpful. It really can be a fun game to watch, but certainly not for everyone. I think if you grew up with seemingly more organized sports (baseball, football, basketball), where possession is well defined, yesterday's game was very painful. But again, I think that was more England's utter lack of preparation and execution than anything else.
Try taking in the Germany/Australia game today, or Serbia/Ghana. Both should be more organized. Also, any game involving Brazil, Argentina, or Spain, even if they are playing heavy underdogs. If you watch a team like that, it is pretty clear how soccer should be played, and how an underdog should be dispatched. Spain crushed Poland 6-0 last week. England (on paper) should have won 3-0 yesterday. England is just too fickle to capitalize on their immense talent.
