"You can try the best you can
If you try the best you can
The best you can is good enough" -- Radiohead, 'Optimistic'
As explained in the quickee recap post, I needed to walk this one off. There was simply so much swirling after Brazil's nearly epic 3-2 comeback over the U.S. at the 2009 Confederations Cup final that it was like watching a mindblowing 'Lost' episode. I needed to hit pause on the DVR, pick the melted ooze that was once my brain off the floor and collect myself.
Funny thing happened on my stroll.
Listening to my iPod, I hoped to find inspiration in music. Then, when early on I saw a lone dude juggling a soccer ball in the middle of a park full of other people playing softball and baseball, I figured that was a sign. (Nah, too pedestrian or too Mitch Albom-y.)
For a mile or two, nothing.
When I finally reached this seawall where these walks usually end something happened. I decided to run back, telling my barking knees -- which might need to get scoped out -- to be damned.
For the first mile, great stuff. Good rhythm, no plodding. Most important, no pain.
Then about halfway home my sneaker came untied forcing me to stop. The rest of the way I huff and puffed my way back, never catching the momentum I had over that first stretch. I even started listening to those chirps from my ACLs and contemplated stopping.
Seemed sort of like the U.S. game. Great first half, forgettable and regrettable second. Like my shoe coming untied, it all went to pot in an instant when Luis Fabiano made a perfect turn on Jay DeMerit and beat Tim Howard less than a minute into the second half, making it 2-11.
As far as metaphors go, admittedly it's not exactly Arthur Miller using the backdrop of the Salem witch trials in the 'Crucible' as critique of 1950s McCarthyism.
Yet the more and more I thought about what unfurled over 90 minutes in Jo-Burg Sunday there was only one basic question to ask.
Is the glass half full or half empty?
Was it good enough that the U.S. was a) playing in the final to begin with b) almost magically went ahead 2-0 at the half?
Or, do you take the approach that opponents be damned, the team was up 2-0 and should have found a way to hold the lead?
That's really up to each and everyone to decide for his or herself.
Everything else -- such as how this affects the team in the mainstream and going forward -- can be addressed as time goes by (and later in this post).
One thing's for certain, it'll be a game to be talked about and remembered for a time to come.
Perhaps the other big question I've asked over the last two weeks is what exactly is the Confederations Cup and how to put it in perspective? It's been mentioned, Mexico won the tournament a few years back, and right now El Tri is barely on track for the next World Cup, let alone worldwide elite status.
Sunday it was a good thing it was only the Confederations Cup.
The U.S.'s surprising run to the final definitely attracted more non-hardcore/casual fans to the television than usual.
This is nothing new, big soccer events like the World Cup final and the Champions League final, do tend to rate with a more mainstream audience. The problem usually is that these finals produce some of the most forgettable soccer known to mankind. There's so much at stake, far too often teams will play it close to the vest waiting for the opponent to make a mistake. Look at the last World Cup final, forgettable aside from Zidane's red mist headbutt, as an example.
Since Sunday was only the Confederations Cup, there didn't seem to be a lot of undue pressure on either side. The U.S. obviously came out with an offensive game plan, which it did against Spain and to a lesser extent against Italy last week. And Brazil, especially down by two at the half, pressed forward with a kitchen sink-worthy attack for the final 45 minutes.
So if you never watch soccer, this match certainly thrilled and entertained. This was end-to-end, high wire stuff for almost 90 minutes.
In particular, the Landon Donovan goal on the counter attack to make it 2-0 was one of the best tallies in recent U.S. history due the speed of the movement. And of course Brazil became Brazil in the second half with Kaka moving with such majestic command it was almost like he was a cavalry man moving amongst grunt foot soldiers atop a steed.
Throw in the whole Kaka header that went over the line and wasn't called a goal, and you potentially had a great talking point should the U.S. have held on for the victory. (FIFA, you've got some 'splainin' to do before next year.)
And thank goodness it ended in regulation, rather than potentially penalty kicks. Mainstream writers, who don't know the sport as it is would have easily latched onto the idea that deciding a game by PKs is 'stupid' therefore taking away from the match as a whole.
To answer a question, maybe one I didn't even ask, even with the defeat the U.S. showed enough to win over some of the casual fans ahead of 2010? Or did the U.S. come up short in a clear, would-be tipping point? (Something I don't necessarily agree it was anyway.) Or was did the gutty defeat exhibit even "heart" and "guts" to win over the American ethos regardless of the final score?
It could even be argued from a Devil's Advocate perspective, that losing Sunday is a better scenario going forward because it keeps some potential hype from the mainstream in check. Even if the U.S. did hold on and win, it still isn't as consistently good enough from a talent standpoint to just walk on the field every match and expect to win.
I'd guess that the U.S. did enough to win over a portion of the audience, for merely sticking with Brazil and putting them on the ropes. (Granted, the close-minded folks will never care, and that's okay, too.)
As we saw the match progress, the gulf between the U.S. and Brazil is still fairly wide. But it's probably closing, as witnessed in the first half.
This is perhaps the one conclusion to draw from the match, but it's totally open to interpretation.
The only people that can honestly tell us if the team choked/ran out of gas in the second half or if it was the dreaded moral victory are the 23 guys inside the U.S. locker room. It doesn't matter how we the fans react, either, it's how the players progress and learn from this loss that matters today.
And if you gave them truth serum, the answer is probably closer to the fact that they had a chance to make history, but couldn't withstand the second half gauntlet thrown down by Kaka & Co. in the second half.
There's no shame in losing to the five-time world champs, but that also doesn't take the sting out of a golden opportunity either.
Other thoughts
* After today, the Gold Cup is officially going to look like a major come down, unless we're treated to the Freddy show. Still, it'll be nice if some of the people that watched Sunday's match, turn out in force at the matches, even if all the star players will be taking a much needed vacation. Just be prepared for a reverse scenario, with the opponents -- not the U.S. -- camped out behind the ball and defending.
At least we can see if the 'A' team can keep up its momentum in August at Azteca.
* Maybe the biggest kernel of wisdom gained from the entire tournament is that the four-man defense of Jonathon Spector, Oguchi Onyewu, Jay DeMerit and Carlos Bocanegra is pretty competent. Spector, though, remains much more of a positive attacking -- see the cross to Dempsey (x 2) -- compared to his defending, though there's no shame in being chumpatized by Kaka. I'll say it again, too, Onyewu probably made himself a rich man over the last week.
That said, expecting to play 180 minutes vs. the consensus two best teams in the world and hoping to get a head or body part to every shot or cross is unrealistic. Not even a vintage Maldini-led Italian team can weather and withstand that much pressure.
Eventually a team like Brazil is going to find a way to score, especially as those legs get heavy.
* Speaking of pressure, the only criticism I may lob at the U.S. Sunday was up 2-0 and then quickly 2-1 in the second half, there was no possession or passing whatsoever. Then again, the way Kaka was conducting the Brazil offense from the midfield, not sure anyone this side of Xavi may have been able to keep the ball for more than a few seconds.
In the second half, Jozy Altidore and Charlie Davies became almost non-factors. Going forward, Davies needs to refine his game past simply being a speed player and Altidore needs to get some games under his belt and probably hit the weight room.
* Did the U.S. miss Michael Bradley Sunday? Hard to say. Ricardo Clark did as best he could tracking Kaka -- I mean this is an MLS regular vs. the best player in the world. Benny Feilhaber was in my mind okay in the middle, too.
If anything, the loss of Bradley killed the U.S. depth, since Feilhaber had to start and once he came off the options on the bench were limited at best. Even though it might have been the best long shot option, down 3-2 we knew we wouldn't get potential magic from Freddy Adu, instead the plodding Connor Casey.
As I mentioned before, Dunga had the likes of Dani Alves and Elano off the bench. Bradley had Sacha Kljestan and and Jonathon Bornstein. Still, with the game level thanks to Fabiano's goal, removing Altidore and Feilhaber for those two seemed questionable in the 75th minute. Was there time to withdraw the sub request?
Again, down 3-2 with about 10 minutes it would have probably taken a miracle and the U.S. had nothing on the bench.
* Weird thought I had driving home from Baltimore late last night. Suppose Frankie Hejduk and Brian Ching were healthy? Would the U.S. still have made the final?
Hejduk? He has the passion, but he probably would have been expose or carved up by Spain and is one bad tackle from being sent off. He's old and I like what Frankie has given the team over the last decade, so nothing wrong with have a veteran like him around who you know will provide a tireless work effort when the whistle sounds.
The bigger question is Ching. The big Hawaiian still has a role in the U.S. setup, namely against CONCACAF teams that pack 10 players behind the ball. He can throw his big body around and tire out the defense.
Yet, can he bring against against the elites of the world? And would his presence in South Africa this month have led Bob Bradley to playing a 4-5-1?
It's pretty clear for the U.S. to be a potent team, they need two forwards, or at least one elite level player to at least threaten opposing back lines. Let's just pray Altidore stays healthy and finds some playing time at his club between now and next year.
Or maybe by then we can convince Brian McBride to un-retire.
* What goes around, comes around. The U.S. got the unlikely result it needed last Sunday beating a clearly gassed and beat up Egypt side 3-0. In the final, the U.S. came off two grueling, emotional wins and by the middle of the second half had nothing left.
* So, Lucio, you really do love six-pound, eight-ounce baby Jesus, eh?
* Let's be honest, did anyone out there rate Luis Fabiano as Brazil's best forward before this tournament? Of course, it must be nice to be able to pluck somebody that's scored double-digit goals in La Liga and put him up top whilst leaving some of the big names home.
Brazil is probably a bad example to compare the U.S.'s overall lack of quality depth. Still if you add up all the U.S. goals scored in Europe this year, it's probably right around Fabiano's 17 for Sevilla.
* By reaching the final, the U.S. certainly quieted a lot of concerns fans like us had entering this tournament. My one lingering question remains, will the team be able to capture lightning in a bottle again come 2010? If one or two key players pick up a knock between now and then, we're in deep trouble. Can lightning strike twice? And was the turnaround simply a reaction to the criticism?
* Another question: Who exactly are the 'elite' teams in the world? Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Germany and the Netherlands? Do we count England and Italy, still? At the moment the U.S. is No. 14 in the mythical FIFA rankings, behind the likes of Croatia, Russia, France, Portugal, Turkey and Paraguay. At the moment Croatia, Russia, France and Portugal are on the onside looking in for 2010. Just throwing this out there, perspective, you know.
* Clint Dempsey, hard to say I trust him, but the more forward he plays the more I like him. Wonder if he lost any street cred for his post-match tears? (How he wins a bronzed trophy over Donovan is a head scratcher.)
* Tim Howard, you shut up and doubts about your ability in net. Great shot blocking display and almost pulled a Brad Friedel and willed the team all by yourself. Nice sell on the Kaka header over the line, too. Granted, goalkeeping is the least of the U.S. problems.
* As mentioned by many people, Landon Donovan had the tournament of his life. It finally looks like he justified having that star icon over his head in some previous 'FIFA' incarnations. I was also impressed be his blank-stare interview after the match how he wasn't content with respect, instead wanting a win.
* Again, I'm curious how much traction this match and tournament give the U.S. team moving forward.
Final thoughts:
We learned two important things from this Confederations Cup.
1. On a given day, if everyone shows up, the U.S. can compete with the best teams. Beating them consistently, remains a major work in progress, although it seems much more realistic now than three weeks ago.
Hopefully this loss keeps the team hungry for the next 365 days and beyond. They certainly won't sneak up on anybody next year when it counts.
2. Lionel Messi's feet taste like timber in a crackling fire.
If you try the best you can
The best you can is good enough" -- Radiohead, 'Optimistic'
As explained in the quickee recap post, I needed to walk this one off. There was simply so much swirling after Brazil's nearly epic 3-2 comeback over the U.S. at the 2009 Confederations Cup final that it was like watching a mindblowing 'Lost' episode. I needed to hit pause on the DVR, pick the melted ooze that was once my brain off the floor and collect myself.
Funny thing happened on my stroll.
Listening to my iPod, I hoped to find inspiration in music. Then, when early on I saw a lone dude juggling a soccer ball in the middle of a park full of other people playing softball and baseball, I figured that was a sign. (Nah, too pedestrian or too Mitch Albom-y.)
For a mile or two, nothing.
When I finally reached this seawall where these walks usually end something happened. I decided to run back, telling my barking knees -- which might need to get scoped out -- to be damned.
For the first mile, great stuff. Good rhythm, no plodding. Most important, no pain.
Then about halfway home my sneaker came untied forcing me to stop. The rest of the way I huff and puffed my way back, never catching the momentum I had over that first stretch. I even started listening to those chirps from my ACLs and contemplated stopping.
Seemed sort of like the U.S. game. Great first half, forgettable and regrettable second. Like my shoe coming untied, it all went to pot in an instant when Luis Fabiano made a perfect turn on Jay DeMerit and beat Tim Howard less than a minute into the second half, making it 2-11.
As far as metaphors go, admittedly it's not exactly Arthur Miller using the backdrop of the Salem witch trials in the 'Crucible' as critique of 1950s McCarthyism.
Yet the more and more I thought about what unfurled over 90 minutes in Jo-Burg Sunday there was only one basic question to ask.
Is the glass half full or half empty?
Was it good enough that the U.S. was a) playing in the final to begin with b) almost magically went ahead 2-0 at the half?
Or, do you take the approach that opponents be damned, the team was up 2-0 and should have found a way to hold the lead?
That's really up to each and everyone to decide for his or herself.
Everything else -- such as how this affects the team in the mainstream and going forward -- can be addressed as time goes by (and later in this post).
One thing's for certain, it'll be a game to be talked about and remembered for a time to come.
Perhaps the other big question I've asked over the last two weeks is what exactly is the Confederations Cup and how to put it in perspective? It's been mentioned, Mexico won the tournament a few years back, and right now El Tri is barely on track for the next World Cup, let alone worldwide elite status.
Sunday it was a good thing it was only the Confederations Cup.
The U.S.'s surprising run to the final definitely attracted more non-hardcore/casual fans to the television than usual.
This is nothing new, big soccer events like the World Cup final and the Champions League final, do tend to rate with a more mainstream audience. The problem usually is that these finals produce some of the most forgettable soccer known to mankind. There's so much at stake, far too often teams will play it close to the vest waiting for the opponent to make a mistake. Look at the last World Cup final, forgettable aside from Zidane's red mist headbutt, as an example.
Since Sunday was only the Confederations Cup, there didn't seem to be a lot of undue pressure on either side. The U.S. obviously came out with an offensive game plan, which it did against Spain and to a lesser extent against Italy last week. And Brazil, especially down by two at the half, pressed forward with a kitchen sink-worthy attack for the final 45 minutes.
So if you never watch soccer, this match certainly thrilled and entertained. This was end-to-end, high wire stuff for almost 90 minutes.
In particular, the Landon Donovan goal on the counter attack to make it 2-0 was one of the best tallies in recent U.S. history due the speed of the movement. And of course Brazil became Brazil in the second half with Kaka moving with such majestic command it was almost like he was a cavalry man moving amongst grunt foot soldiers atop a steed.
Throw in the whole Kaka header that went over the line and wasn't called a goal, and you potentially had a great talking point should the U.S. have held on for the victory. (FIFA, you've got some 'splainin' to do before next year.)
And thank goodness it ended in regulation, rather than potentially penalty kicks. Mainstream writers, who don't know the sport as it is would have easily latched onto the idea that deciding a game by PKs is 'stupid' therefore taking away from the match as a whole.
To answer a question, maybe one I didn't even ask, even with the defeat the U.S. showed enough to win over some of the casual fans ahead of 2010? Or did the U.S. come up short in a clear, would-be tipping point? (Something I don't necessarily agree it was anyway.) Or was did the gutty defeat exhibit even "heart" and "guts" to win over the American ethos regardless of the final score?
It could even be argued from a Devil's Advocate perspective, that losing Sunday is a better scenario going forward because it keeps some potential hype from the mainstream in check. Even if the U.S. did hold on and win, it still isn't as consistently good enough from a talent standpoint to just walk on the field every match and expect to win.
I'd guess that the U.S. did enough to win over a portion of the audience, for merely sticking with Brazil and putting them on the ropes. (Granted, the close-minded folks will never care, and that's okay, too.)
As we saw the match progress, the gulf between the U.S. and Brazil is still fairly wide. But it's probably closing, as witnessed in the first half.
This is perhaps the one conclusion to draw from the match, but it's totally open to interpretation.
The only people that can honestly tell us if the team choked/ran out of gas in the second half or if it was the dreaded moral victory are the 23 guys inside the U.S. locker room. It doesn't matter how we the fans react, either, it's how the players progress and learn from this loss that matters today.
And if you gave them truth serum, the answer is probably closer to the fact that they had a chance to make history, but couldn't withstand the second half gauntlet thrown down by Kaka & Co. in the second half.
There's no shame in losing to the five-time world champs, but that also doesn't take the sting out of a golden opportunity either.
Other thoughts
* After today, the Gold Cup is officially going to look like a major come down, unless we're treated to the Freddy show. Still, it'll be nice if some of the people that watched Sunday's match, turn out in force at the matches, even if all the star players will be taking a much needed vacation. Just be prepared for a reverse scenario, with the opponents -- not the U.S. -- camped out behind the ball and defending.
At least we can see if the 'A' team can keep up its momentum in August at Azteca.
* Maybe the biggest kernel of wisdom gained from the entire tournament is that the four-man defense of Jonathon Spector, Oguchi Onyewu, Jay DeMerit and Carlos Bocanegra is pretty competent. Spector, though, remains much more of a positive attacking -- see the cross to Dempsey (x 2) -- compared to his defending, though there's no shame in being chumpatized by Kaka. I'll say it again, too, Onyewu probably made himself a rich man over the last week.
That said, expecting to play 180 minutes vs. the consensus two best teams in the world and hoping to get a head or body part to every shot or cross is unrealistic. Not even a vintage Maldini-led Italian team can weather and withstand that much pressure.
Eventually a team like Brazil is going to find a way to score, especially as those legs get heavy.
* Speaking of pressure, the only criticism I may lob at the U.S. Sunday was up 2-0 and then quickly 2-1 in the second half, there was no possession or passing whatsoever. Then again, the way Kaka was conducting the Brazil offense from the midfield, not sure anyone this side of Xavi may have been able to keep the ball for more than a few seconds.
In the second half, Jozy Altidore and Charlie Davies became almost non-factors. Going forward, Davies needs to refine his game past simply being a speed player and Altidore needs to get some games under his belt and probably hit the weight room.
* Did the U.S. miss Michael Bradley Sunday? Hard to say. Ricardo Clark did as best he could tracking Kaka -- I mean this is an MLS regular vs. the best player in the world. Benny Feilhaber was in my mind okay in the middle, too.
If anything, the loss of Bradley killed the U.S. depth, since Feilhaber had to start and once he came off the options on the bench were limited at best. Even though it might have been the best long shot option, down 3-2 we knew we wouldn't get potential magic from Freddy Adu, instead the plodding Connor Casey.
As I mentioned before, Dunga had the likes of Dani Alves and Elano off the bench. Bradley had Sacha Kljestan and and Jonathon Bornstein. Still, with the game level thanks to Fabiano's goal, removing Altidore and Feilhaber for those two seemed questionable in the 75th minute. Was there time to withdraw the sub request?
Again, down 3-2 with about 10 minutes it would have probably taken a miracle and the U.S. had nothing on the bench.
* Weird thought I had driving home from Baltimore late last night. Suppose Frankie Hejduk and Brian Ching were healthy? Would the U.S. still have made the final?
Hejduk? He has the passion, but he probably would have been expose or carved up by Spain and is one bad tackle from being sent off. He's old and I like what Frankie has given the team over the last decade, so nothing wrong with have a veteran like him around who you know will provide a tireless work effort when the whistle sounds.
The bigger question is Ching. The big Hawaiian still has a role in the U.S. setup, namely against CONCACAF teams that pack 10 players behind the ball. He can throw his big body around and tire out the defense.
Yet, can he bring against against the elites of the world? And would his presence in South Africa this month have led Bob Bradley to playing a 4-5-1?
It's pretty clear for the U.S. to be a potent team, they need two forwards, or at least one elite level player to at least threaten opposing back lines. Let's just pray Altidore stays healthy and finds some playing time at his club between now and next year.
Or maybe by then we can convince Brian McBride to un-retire.
* What goes around, comes around. The U.S. got the unlikely result it needed last Sunday beating a clearly gassed and beat up Egypt side 3-0. In the final, the U.S. came off two grueling, emotional wins and by the middle of the second half had nothing left.
* So, Lucio, you really do love six-pound, eight-ounce baby Jesus, eh?
* Let's be honest, did anyone out there rate Luis Fabiano as Brazil's best forward before this tournament? Of course, it must be nice to be able to pluck somebody that's scored double-digit goals in La Liga and put him up top whilst leaving some of the big names home.
Brazil is probably a bad example to compare the U.S.'s overall lack of quality depth. Still if you add up all the U.S. goals scored in Europe this year, it's probably right around Fabiano's 17 for Sevilla.
* By reaching the final, the U.S. certainly quieted a lot of concerns fans like us had entering this tournament. My one lingering question remains, will the team be able to capture lightning in a bottle again come 2010? If one or two key players pick up a knock between now and then, we're in deep trouble. Can lightning strike twice? And was the turnaround simply a reaction to the criticism?
* Another question: Who exactly are the 'elite' teams in the world? Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Germany and the Netherlands? Do we count England and Italy, still? At the moment the U.S. is No. 14 in the mythical FIFA rankings, behind the likes of Croatia, Russia, France, Portugal, Turkey and Paraguay. At the moment Croatia, Russia, France and Portugal are on the onside looking in for 2010. Just throwing this out there, perspective, you know.
* Clint Dempsey, hard to say I trust him, but the more forward he plays the more I like him. Wonder if he lost any street cred for his post-match tears? (How he wins a bronzed trophy over Donovan is a head scratcher.)
* Tim Howard, you shut up and doubts about your ability in net. Great shot blocking display and almost pulled a Brad Friedel and willed the team all by yourself. Nice sell on the Kaka header over the line, too. Granted, goalkeeping is the least of the U.S. problems.
* As mentioned by many people, Landon Donovan had the tournament of his life. It finally looks like he justified having that star icon over his head in some previous 'FIFA' incarnations. I was also impressed be his blank-stare interview after the match how he wasn't content with respect, instead wanting a win.
* Again, I'm curious how much traction this match and tournament give the U.S. team moving forward.
Final thoughts:
We learned two important things from this Confederations Cup.
1. On a given day, if everyone shows up, the U.S. can compete with the best teams. Beating them consistently, remains a major work in progress, although it seems much more realistic now than three weeks ago.
Hopefully this loss keeps the team hungry for the next 365 days and beyond. They certainly won't sneak up on anybody next year when it counts.
2. Lionel Messi's feet taste like timber in a crackling fire.
Labels: bob bradley, Brasil, confederations cup, kaka, Landon Donovan, Soccer, USMNT
Word to the wise, never start writing a blog post at the halftime of a game. Up 2-0 at the half I was digging up video of Benny Feilhaber's 2007 Gold Cup Golazo. I was examining all the Facebook status updates from people who usually don't give a lick about the game. I was trying to figure out a way to gauge how historic this match would be, even if its a tournament that exists somewhat inside a vacuum.
It was all setting up on a plate.
Until the wheels fell off against a comprehensively better team, as Brazil notched an impressive 3-2 comeback over the U.S. Sunday in Johannesburg in the 2009 Confederations Cup final.
Even with all the mitigating factors, folks, this stung.
In fact, I'm going to have to walk this one off and compose myself for something to put this one in proper perspective. I mean, I tried to make a phone call during the game and my hands were shaking.
Three quick thoughts, while I wallow and digest this one before coming back with a little more:
1. Even with the loss, I pray the U.S. won over some casual fans with a hearty performance. Considering finals usually stink, this one actually entertained for 90+ minutes. Hell, Bill Simmons twittered the entire match, and actually seemed upset the U.S. lost.
Probably a story for another day.
2. Immediately after Brazil leveled it at 2-2, who were the subs Bob Bradley put in? Sascha Kljestan and Jon Bornstein. Not to single these two guys out. But on the other side Dunga is throwing on Elano and Dani Alves.
So the talk of the U.S. closing the gap worldwide still has a ways to go. And truly elite teams don't cough up 2-0 leads, especially that easily in the second half.
3. Kaka is transcendent. Completely on his own plane of reality and took over the match in the second half. You can't see his level. As my buddy Suppe labeled him, he's a force of nature on the field.
Until the U.S. can produce players even a fraction as good as the Real Madrid ace, we've still got a ways to go.
At least it was only the Confederations Cup.
To use my favorite line in recent memory, "That's the way she goes."
It was all setting up on a plate.
Until the wheels fell off against a comprehensively better team, as Brazil notched an impressive 3-2 comeback over the U.S. Sunday in Johannesburg in the 2009 Confederations Cup final.
Even with all the mitigating factors, folks, this stung.
In fact, I'm going to have to walk this one off and compose myself for something to put this one in proper perspective. I mean, I tried to make a phone call during the game and my hands were shaking.
Three quick thoughts, while I wallow and digest this one before coming back with a little more:
1. Even with the loss, I pray the U.S. won over some casual fans with a hearty performance. Considering finals usually stink, this one actually entertained for 90+ minutes. Hell, Bill Simmons twittered the entire match, and actually seemed upset the U.S. lost.
Probably a story for another day.
2. Immediately after Brazil leveled it at 2-2, who were the subs Bob Bradley put in? Sascha Kljestan and Jon Bornstein. Not to single these two guys out. But on the other side Dunga is throwing on Elano and Dani Alves.
So the talk of the U.S. closing the gap worldwide still has a ways to go. And truly elite teams don't cough up 2-0 leads, especially that easily in the second half.
3. Kaka is transcendent. Completely on his own plane of reality and took over the match in the second half. You can't see his level. As my buddy Suppe labeled him, he's a force of nature on the field.
Until the U.S. can produce players even a fraction as good as the Real Madrid ace, we've still got a ways to go.
At least it was only the Confederations Cup.
To use my favorite line in recent memory, "That's the way she goes."
Labels: Brasil, confederations cup, kaka, Soccer, USMNT
"To be the man, you gotta beat the man. Whoo." -- Ric Flair
In the wake of the Wednesday's crazy 2-0 win by the U.S. over Spain in the Confederations Cup semifinals, we've seen the term 'Miracle on Grass' tossed around.
Pardon me while I go vomit.
Not to turn this post into another media examination, but drawing comparisons to the 1980 U.S. hockey win over the Soviets at the Lake Placid Olympiad is simple-minded thinking.
The comparisons between Spain and the Soviets is somewhat apt, if you forget you're comparing dandy guys with faux hawks and hair product to grim Communists playing for the Red Army team. Both sides were considered the best in the world, to be upset by the U.S. in the semifinals of a competition whilst wearing red shirts, no less.
On the other hand, drawing similarities to the U.S. hockey team and the U.S. team on the field Wednesday in Bloemfontein is a bit of a stretch. Bob Bradley -- who'll never get the Kurt Russell treatment -- had a team full of professionals at his disposal, not a group of college kids. Granted, it's not like the U.S. pros were in the same class as the Spanish nationals, but they still draw paychecks from European clubs.
Plus, there wasn't any Cold War backdrop involved here. Unless you're ardently anti-Ricky Rubio and the other Spaniards slowly invading the NBA, there was really nothing geopolitical about Wednesday's match.
In short, it was a colossal upset, yes, but labeling the win a miracle is going overboard. Plus, the U.S. came out and rattled Spain inside the first 20 minutes before Jozy Altidore scored. Yes, the 'scoring chances' graphic looked lopsided in the end, but how could it not after the U.S. went ahead 1-0?
It was a great defensive effort, but it wasn't a miracle. A miracle would discount too much of the work the team put in. The fact the U.S. actually was alive to play in the semifinals -- that was the real miracle.
Saying all that, it's not going to take a miracle, either, to defeat Brazil on Sunday in the final.
Simply, the U.S. is going to need to retain its focus and commitment. Most importantly, the U.S. cannot flub any chances Brazil gives it during the run of play or on set pieces.
What's worrisome, is that in some corners (Grant Wahl for instance) following Brazil's narrow 1-0 win over South Africa on Thursday, there's a chorus that thinks this game is right there for the U.S. to steal perhaps somewhat aided by chilly temperatures in South Africa.
Not to simply be a contrarian, but Thursday's performance by Brazil is probably the worst thing that could have happened leading up to the final. If Brazil trounced South Africa, say, 3-0 it might enter the final overconfident and possibly still taking the U.S. lightly. Now, after squeaking past South Africa -- via a free kick by Dani Alves w/turtleneck no less -- you'd think logic would dictate Brazil will be ready to play from the opening whistle vs. the U.S.
The Brazilian public, unlike the U.S., actually demands results from its national team. And not simply results, but winning with flair, too. Considering some of these players for the time being still play in Brazil, they'll probably not want to return home losers ... especially losers to the U.S.
In the two days he'll have, Brazil coach Dunga (more on him later) will certainly drill a better gameplan into his team. In fact, South Africa packing it in deep might help Brazil because the U.S. will likely be forced to play a similar way Sunday. Plus all the Brazil players can watch the tape of the Egypt and Spain games and figure out a different way to attack the U.S. (My guess, through Kaka in the gaping hole left by Michael Bradley's red card suspension.)
Is Landon Donovan going to be given any room to operate? Survey says ... no.
Beside all this, there's always a natural leveling off.
Overall the U.S. isn't as good as it was against Spain and Brazil isn't as poor as it was against South Africa. On any given day, anything can happen, but ask yourself what's more likely -- the U.S. playing its third straight great game or Brazil rebounding from one 'meh' effort?
Or let's ask it this way. If we're drafting a team between players from the U.S., Brazil, Spain and even Italy, where and when is the first Yank selected?
That's why a lot of the talk of the U.S.'s arrival on the world stage is a little premature. The U.S. is capable of playing good soccer and has solid, athletically fit professionals. We're still a ways from that transcendent star that can win games in a blink of an eye without all the eternal circumstances breaking correctly.
As great as beating Spain, and ending their 15-match winning streak was, the result alone isn't enough to vault the U.S. into the ranks of the world elites. Its not enough to offset the performances at the 1998 and 2006 World Cup, which will weight just as much into a potential 2010 World Cup seeding as anything else.
Taking nothing away from the performance against Spain, but don't forget that less than a week ago we all wanted Bob Bradley fired and eleven new players. Or the fact that an extremely unlikely string of results had to go the U.S.'s way on Sunday to advance.
And though I'm loathe to play the 'What if' game, what if Tim Howard doesn't stick his leg out to block Fernando Torres shot at the end of the first half? Or if David Villa gets a little more accuracy on one of his numerous attempts?
Basically, the U.S. played a perfect defensive game by throwing itself at anything and everything vs. Spain and to expect that performance each and every time is unrealistic. Eventually, if you play a game like that, the ball is going to take a bad hop or a bad deflection.
On the plus side, U.S. showed on a given day it can show up and compete with the world's best something we've all been clamoring for probably since Jan Koller ran over Eddie Pope in the first five minutes of the 2006 World Cup opener.
Is the U.S. among the elite footballing nations of the world yet? Time will tell. One result certainly doesn't do it, but it at least pushes the program forward.
A second straight upset of a world power will open some eyeballs.
Even if that happens, there's plenty of work still to be done come 2010. At least, win or lose Sunday, we can take a deep breath and realize it won't take a miracle for the U.S. to do anything positive come the real deal in South Africa next year.
Other stuff:
* Hate to beat a dead horse, but if I'm Bradley the Elder I'd put a $100 fine for any player that attempts a two-foot slide tackle in every single U.S. practice or game from now until 2010.
Three red cards from three different officials throws a little cold water on the theory the refs are out to get the U.S.
* On that note, no stupid free kicks. Thanks.
* Jay DeMerit has quickly become my favorite guy in the U.S. shirt. If it's possible, he's certainly the most outright "American" player on the field -- all heart and hustle. He gives it 100 percent every play. Plus he's got some pretty rugged tattoos, which as you know are a requirement of all European-based players.
My only wonder, if Bradley decides to stick with a DeMerit/Onyewu pairing going forward, are they too similar a player? Or do they have the potential to form a Ferdidnand/Vidic tandem, albeit without the pedigree and passing abilities.
* Honestly, I have no idea how to replace Michael Bradley in the center of the field. Other than Landon Donovan, there isn't a bigger loss or more irreplaceable player for the U.S. on its current roster.
Right now, those two are probably a lot like Jack and Sawyer on 'Lost'. You can kill off any other character and life goes on, but even if you hate Jack, he's irreplaceable to the mythos of the show. And Sawyer, men and women -- a t.v. rarity -- around the globe would riot if he caught a bad one before the finale.
Let's say Jack is Donovan in this scenario, since both act with similar emotion, or lack thereof. And Sawyer, at least his initial incarnation was like a fiery Michael Bradley stopping around the Island/center of the field. Let's hope Bradley can mature like Sawyer and his whole LaFleur act. Anything that keeps him from seeing the red mist.
Back to reality, even if Maurice Edu were healthy, he couldn't replicate Bradley's box-to-box skills. (Jermaine Jones, another story all together.)
Simply dropping in a player next to Ricardo Clark in a 4-4-2 in the center of the field is asking for trouble. Benny Feilhaber, despite his positive passing, is prone to giveaway and mistakes. I'm already getting chills if he and Clint Dempsey are on the same side of the field and Brazil stealing it away for a rapid counter-attack. Feilhaber probably gets the nod, so he better be accurate in his passing. Maybe he ought to go to sleep watching a Xavi highlight reel.
At the same time, dropping in Jose Torres -- who hasn't played in the tournament -- would be a huge risk. Double that for Sacha Kljestan.
The ultimate gamble would be Freddy Adu, but that's not going to happen. If, and stress if, this scenario played out and the U.S. won with Adu breaking out, my god. (Let's just stop thinking that way, it's probably for the best.)
* Is anyone else's Spidey sense tingling that Kaka is due to for a big game?
* One big difference, if not the biggest, between Spain and Brazil is speed. After the loss to the U.S., Spain credited with the Americans for its athleticism and speed. Sunday, the U.S. probably loses that advantage. (And also Maicon and or Dani Alves is bringing a lot more to the table than Sergio Ramos or Joan Capdevila did Wednesday.)
* Another thing to worry about, Brazil does have some size on its back line with Lucio and Luisao in the middle.
* Will the U.S. have any gas left in the tank, or will the team lose its lungs like Egypt did after two grueling matches?
* It needs to be stressed again, the U.S. can only walk on the thin ice of turning the ball over a midfield so many times. Robinho, Kaka, Ramires, whomever. If the U.S. is sloppy with the ball, Brazil will make them pay.
This comes from the immortal 30f, who at this point must be my brother from another mother. I swore I said the same thing during the first U.S./Brazil match. To quote Bucho from 'Desperado' -- "He'll never dance again."
* Since I mentioned it, in the 0.000000001 percent chance there's ever a movie made about the U.S., who plays Bob Bradley? My long standing vote goes to Christopher Guest.
Lineup guess:
Bradley, due to his son's recklessness, is facing a big decision. Stick with what got you here -- 4-4-2 -- or try something new?
I'll bet on Bradley's track record and say he sticks with the hand he's been dealt, for better or worse.
GK -- Howard
DEF -- Bocanegra -- Onyewu -- DeMerit -- Spector
MID -- Donovan -- Clark -- Feilhaber -- Dempsey
FOR -- Davies -- Altidore
Honestly, the other options could lead to disaster in the form of a Brazil goal within the first two minutes.
Final thoughts:
There are two ways a fan can go into this one.
1. The happy to be there scenario.
2. The Jake Taylor scenario, specifically -- let's win the whole fucking thing. (Even if it's only the Confederations Cup.)
It's your choice as a fan which way you want to go, though option No. 1 is more of a fallback after a loss.
Let's hope the team itself can muster its reserve energy and take option No. 2.
In the wake of the Wednesday's crazy 2-0 win by the U.S. over Spain in the Confederations Cup semifinals, we've seen the term 'Miracle on Grass' tossed around.
Pardon me while I go vomit.
Not to turn this post into another media examination, but drawing comparisons to the 1980 U.S. hockey win over the Soviets at the Lake Placid Olympiad is simple-minded thinking.
The comparisons between Spain and the Soviets is somewhat apt, if you forget you're comparing dandy guys with faux hawks and hair product to grim Communists playing for the Red Army team. Both sides were considered the best in the world, to be upset by the U.S. in the semifinals of a competition whilst wearing red shirts, no less.
On the other hand, drawing similarities to the U.S. hockey team and the U.S. team on the field Wednesday in Bloemfontein is a bit of a stretch. Bob Bradley -- who'll never get the Kurt Russell treatment -- had a team full of professionals at his disposal, not a group of college kids. Granted, it's not like the U.S. pros were in the same class as the Spanish nationals, but they still draw paychecks from European clubs.
Plus, there wasn't any Cold War backdrop involved here. Unless you're ardently anti-Ricky Rubio and the other Spaniards slowly invading the NBA, there was really nothing geopolitical about Wednesday's match.
In short, it was a colossal upset, yes, but labeling the win a miracle is going overboard. Plus, the U.S. came out and rattled Spain inside the first 20 minutes before Jozy Altidore scored. Yes, the 'scoring chances' graphic looked lopsided in the end, but how could it not after the U.S. went ahead 1-0?
It was a great defensive effort, but it wasn't a miracle. A miracle would discount too much of the work the team put in. The fact the U.S. actually was alive to play in the semifinals -- that was the real miracle.
Saying all that, it's not going to take a miracle, either, to defeat Brazil on Sunday in the final.
Simply, the U.S. is going to need to retain its focus and commitment. Most importantly, the U.S. cannot flub any chances Brazil gives it during the run of play or on set pieces.
What's worrisome, is that in some corners (Grant Wahl for instance) following Brazil's narrow 1-0 win over South Africa on Thursday, there's a chorus that thinks this game is right there for the U.S. to steal perhaps somewhat aided by chilly temperatures in South Africa.
Not to simply be a contrarian, but Thursday's performance by Brazil is probably the worst thing that could have happened leading up to the final. If Brazil trounced South Africa, say, 3-0 it might enter the final overconfident and possibly still taking the U.S. lightly. Now, after squeaking past South Africa -- via a free kick by Dani Alves w/turtleneck no less -- you'd think logic would dictate Brazil will be ready to play from the opening whistle vs. the U.S.
The Brazilian public, unlike the U.S., actually demands results from its national team. And not simply results, but winning with flair, too. Considering some of these players for the time being still play in Brazil, they'll probably not want to return home losers ... especially losers to the U.S.
In the two days he'll have, Brazil coach Dunga (more on him later) will certainly drill a better gameplan into his team. In fact, South Africa packing it in deep might help Brazil because the U.S. will likely be forced to play a similar way Sunday. Plus all the Brazil players can watch the tape of the Egypt and Spain games and figure out a different way to attack the U.S. (My guess, through Kaka in the gaping hole left by Michael Bradley's red card suspension.)
Is Landon Donovan going to be given any room to operate? Survey says ... no.
Beside all this, there's always a natural leveling off.
Overall the U.S. isn't as good as it was against Spain and Brazil isn't as poor as it was against South Africa. On any given day, anything can happen, but ask yourself what's more likely -- the U.S. playing its third straight great game or Brazil rebounding from one 'meh' effort?
Or let's ask it this way. If we're drafting a team between players from the U.S., Brazil, Spain and even Italy, where and when is the first Yank selected?
That's why a lot of the talk of the U.S.'s arrival on the world stage is a little premature. The U.S. is capable of playing good soccer and has solid, athletically fit professionals. We're still a ways from that transcendent star that can win games in a blink of an eye without all the eternal circumstances breaking correctly.
As great as beating Spain, and ending their 15-match winning streak was, the result alone isn't enough to vault the U.S. into the ranks of the world elites. Its not enough to offset the performances at the 1998 and 2006 World Cup, which will weight just as much into a potential 2010 World Cup seeding as anything else.
Taking nothing away from the performance against Spain, but don't forget that less than a week ago we all wanted Bob Bradley fired and eleven new players. Or the fact that an extremely unlikely string of results had to go the U.S.'s way on Sunday to advance.
And though I'm loathe to play the 'What if' game, what if Tim Howard doesn't stick his leg out to block Fernando Torres shot at the end of the first half? Or if David Villa gets a little more accuracy on one of his numerous attempts?
Basically, the U.S. played a perfect defensive game by throwing itself at anything and everything vs. Spain and to expect that performance each and every time is unrealistic. Eventually, if you play a game like that, the ball is going to take a bad hop or a bad deflection.
On the plus side, U.S. showed on a given day it can show up and compete with the world's best something we've all been clamoring for probably since Jan Koller ran over Eddie Pope in the first five minutes of the 2006 World Cup opener.
Is the U.S. among the elite footballing nations of the world yet? Time will tell. One result certainly doesn't do it, but it at least pushes the program forward.
A second straight upset of a world power will open some eyeballs.
Even if that happens, there's plenty of work still to be done come 2010. At least, win or lose Sunday, we can take a deep breath and realize it won't take a miracle for the U.S. to do anything positive come the real deal in South Africa next year.
Other stuff:
* Hate to beat a dead horse, but if I'm Bradley the Elder I'd put a $100 fine for any player that attempts a two-foot slide tackle in every single U.S. practice or game from now until 2010.
Three red cards from three different officials throws a little cold water on the theory the refs are out to get the U.S.
* On that note, no stupid free kicks. Thanks.
* Jay DeMerit has quickly become my favorite guy in the U.S. shirt. If it's possible, he's certainly the most outright "American" player on the field -- all heart and hustle. He gives it 100 percent every play. Plus he's got some pretty rugged tattoos, which as you know are a requirement of all European-based players.
My only wonder, if Bradley decides to stick with a DeMerit/Onyewu pairing going forward, are they too similar a player? Or do they have the potential to form a Ferdidnand/Vidic tandem, albeit without the pedigree and passing abilities.
* Honestly, I have no idea how to replace Michael Bradley in the center of the field. Other than Landon Donovan, there isn't a bigger loss or more irreplaceable player for the U.S. on its current roster.
Right now, those two are probably a lot like Jack and Sawyer on 'Lost'. You can kill off any other character and life goes on, but even if you hate Jack, he's irreplaceable to the mythos of the show. And Sawyer, men and women -- a t.v. rarity -- around the globe would riot if he caught a bad one before the finale.
Let's say Jack is Donovan in this scenario, since both act with similar emotion, or lack thereof. And Sawyer, at least his initial incarnation was like a fiery Michael Bradley stopping around the Island/center of the field. Let's hope Bradley can mature like Sawyer and his whole LaFleur act. Anything that keeps him from seeing the red mist.
Back to reality, even if Maurice Edu were healthy, he couldn't replicate Bradley's box-to-box skills. (Jermaine Jones, another story all together.)
Simply dropping in a player next to Ricardo Clark in a 4-4-2 in the center of the field is asking for trouble. Benny Feilhaber, despite his positive passing, is prone to giveaway and mistakes. I'm already getting chills if he and Clint Dempsey are on the same side of the field and Brazil stealing it away for a rapid counter-attack. Feilhaber probably gets the nod, so he better be accurate in his passing. Maybe he ought to go to sleep watching a Xavi highlight reel.
At the same time, dropping in Jose Torres -- who hasn't played in the tournament -- would be a huge risk. Double that for Sacha Kljestan.
The ultimate gamble would be Freddy Adu, but that's not going to happen. If, and stress if, this scenario played out and the U.S. won with Adu breaking out, my god. (Let's just stop thinking that way, it's probably for the best.)
* Is anyone else's Spidey sense tingling that Kaka is due to for a big game?
* One big difference, if not the biggest, between Spain and Brazil is speed. After the loss to the U.S., Spain credited with the Americans for its athleticism and speed. Sunday, the U.S. probably loses that advantage. (And also Maicon and or Dani Alves is bringing a lot more to the table than Sergio Ramos or Joan Capdevila did Wednesday.)
* Another thing to worry about, Brazil does have some size on its back line with Lucio and Luisao in the middle.
* Will the U.S. have any gas left in the tank, or will the team lose its lungs like Egypt did after two grueling matches?
* It needs to be stressed again, the U.S. can only walk on the thin ice of turning the ball over a midfield so many times. Robinho, Kaka, Ramires, whomever. If the U.S. is sloppy with the ball, Brazil will make them pay.
This comes from the immortal 30f, who at this point must be my brother from another mother. I swore I said the same thing during the first U.S./Brazil match. To quote Bucho from 'Desperado' -- "He'll never dance again."
* Since I mentioned it, in the 0.000000001 percent chance there's ever a movie made about the U.S., who plays Bob Bradley? My long standing vote goes to Christopher Guest.
Lineup guess:
Bradley, due to his son's recklessness, is facing a big decision. Stick with what got you here -- 4-4-2 -- or try something new?
I'll bet on Bradley's track record and say he sticks with the hand he's been dealt, for better or worse.
GK -- Howard
DEF -- Bocanegra -- Onyewu -- DeMerit -- Spector
MID -- Donovan -- Clark -- Feilhaber -- Dempsey
FOR -- Davies -- Altidore
Honestly, the other options could lead to disaster in the form of a Brazil goal within the first two minutes.
Final thoughts:
There are two ways a fan can go into this one.
1. The happy to be there scenario.
2. The Jake Taylor scenario, specifically -- let's win the whole fucking thing. (Even if it's only the Confederations Cup.)
It's your choice as a fan which way you want to go, though option No. 1 is more of a fallback after a loss.
Let's hope the team itself can muster its reserve energy and take option No. 2.
Labels: Brasil, confederations cup, Soccer, USMNT
I'm just going to come right out and say it, I was a big fan of ESPN's 'Cheap Seats.' Yeah, it's hard to believe that since the Sklar Brothers were in the film 'Wild Hogs' which nearly mitigates their entire career.
Still, 'Cheap Seats' was quality. It's hard to naysay a show that features cameos from guys like Ian Roberts, H. Jon Benjamin and Michael Showalter.
Some of the clips from the old shows were beyond priceless. The Steve Garvey 'Billfishing' promo tape featuring the immortal Michael Floorwax sets the Simmons-Unintentional Comedy Scale to new heights. (Really, after reading click here and favorite this on your YouTube account. Quality.)
Each episode of 'Cheap Seats' featured a segment 'Do You Care?' where the brothers fired off the phrase a couple times with quick facts.
So right now, in the wake of U.S. 2-0 result over Spain in the Confederations Cup semifinal, do you care?
It's an open ended question, without a right or wrong answer.
This is a question I'm posing to every human being on earth, no matter race, creed, ethnicity, sexual preference ... or even if you watch the Jim Rome show.
Here's my thoughts/questions. (Sorry about all the numbered lists recently.)
1. Will Europe/the World care?
Did the result make the world stand up and take notice? Hmmm....probably mixed. In all honesty I'm not sure how wrapped up the world, particularly Europe is about the Confederations Cup. Really, in a sentence define what the tournament is, and why it's important?
To be brutally honest, in this edition, it was probably to test out progress of South Africa as a host country. In that case we learned two things 1) they needed plenty of free tickets 2) the vuvuzela is annoying and already has the Brit media in a tizzy.
This isn't to paint Euros, etc. as snobs. Most of them are coming off the long and grueling league season and want to enjoy a month or two without the sport. Would a tournament which had the likes of New Zealand, Iraq, South Africa, Egypt ... and yes, the U.S., have piqued your interests?
The U.S. beating Spain, yes, probably made some people around the globe take notice. But considering the competition, they're not going Francesa-level 'GaGa' over it.
Still, the result, at least for the time being will earn the U.S. a modicum of respect internationally. Will we ever win over the British football media? Never. Should we even care? Of course not. As I've heard thousands of high school and college kids chant at sporting events -- "Scoreboard, Scoreboard."
Also, in America its close to scientific proven fact that we love stats. Love 'em. Loooooooove 'em. Around the world, yeah, the fact that Spain won an international record 15-straight is important, but they're not as hung up on the numbers as we are. It's a big deal the U.S. snapped Spain's unbeaten run, but what the actual number is, not as much.
Spain's 35-game-unbeaten run isn't hanging up next to Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. Maybe in Spain, but not in my mind. They were, and still are, an elite team that will be defined by their flashy play, their brilliant passing, their borderline sexuality questioning togetherness, not the number. (Paging No. 6)
For whatever the reason, stats and numbers just don't resonate as much in the world of soccer. The fact Stan Musial batted over .350 five times in his Major League career, carries some weight. There's simply not enough numbers in soccer, coupled with the endless leagues around the world, to qualify them properly. (One astounding fact, Nicolas Anelka has scored double-digit goals for nine different teams. Prolly says more about him than anything else.)
2. Will Americans care?
For like a day or two, yeah.
Look at some of the stuff that the sports media/media at large have made people interested in over the last couple years. Hell, just as an example that I think every form of human media must use by the end of the month -- Jon and Kate. Does anyone really give two proper fucks about those two?
Sorry, a little off tangent, but the way the news works these days its all cycles.
Right now its a down sports cycle, so the U.S. doing something comes at the perfect time. It'll be hot news for about a week, and then (poof) forgotten. Over that time, casual fans will get inundated with oodles of info about U.S. soccer.
Expect whatever footage from 1950 vs. England that can be exists to be dusted off and recycled, never mind that the circumstances are borderline incomparable. Prepare yourselfs for vintage clips, mullets included, from 1994 and 1998 (Kasey Keller w/hair!) Expect to hear Alexi Lalas talking to you in your sleep -- hopefully without shotgunning an 'energy' drink.
And maybe after all those things running on a loop on ESPNEWS, some people might just plop down in front of their set on Sunday afternoon and watch the final.
After that match ends, some minds will be won over. Yet I'd guess the majority of casuals will tune in, care for all of about 12 seconds, win or lose, and move onto the next thing. Though, a win over possibly Brazil might make it so that all bets are off.
This isn't the worst scenario in the world. If we can ever move the general discourse about soccer in American beyond "heh heh soccer sucks", then well, we've accomplished something, nearly a breakthrough. It's unfortunate there aren't enough qualified media types to rationally discuss the game.
If it's just another false spring, I can live with that too.
Deep down, I just hope that whatever goodwill this stunning result yields, it doesn't get the U.S. soccer team lumped in with the Danica Patricks of the sports world, a curiosity to be dusted off from time-to-time.
One other thing
Underrated story that will develop from the U.S. Confederations Cup run -- money.
As in the money guys like Oguchi Onyewu, Charlie Davies and maybe even Landon Donovan put in some C.R.E.A.M.-worthy displays that should upgrade their club status. (I'd mention Jonathon Spector, but why would he leave the tutelage of Gianfranco Zola, and why now would Jay DeMerit ditch Watford?)
Onyewu probably can take his pick of Europa League or maybe even some fringe Champions League squads after his imposing performance. Yeah, as U.S. fans we know all his limitations -- namely his ability to complete a pass to a teammate, but don't tell me some club president wouldn't want to sign him up to toss strikers around for a season.
The latest rumor was Fenerbache, after that false Birmingham City report. Who knows now.
As for Davies, you'd think someone out there would like his speed. Or it would be better utilized than the Swedish Allsvenskan.
And Donovan. Maybe he convinced a European club to take a shot on him. Why wouldn't a promoted Bundesliga team or heck, why not Michael Bradley's Borussia M-gladbach take a gamble? He might not be good enough for Bayern, but he could play and bring some energy to a team if he were motivated to try it. He does have an offensive skill set which would help teams. Would he be the focal point of a team? No. But he could be an asset for a team in search of a secondary goal-scorer/creator.
Not sure what MLS would charge for a transfer or try to hold up Donovan, but he could use a better World Cup tuneup that what the league has to offer.
Something that also bears watching is the fate of Altidore. Will Villareal want to bring him back even more after he scored against Spain? Or will they loan him out once again? Or what about Xerez? (And what about them, does Altidore count for playing there even if he never appeared in a match. This whole loan process hurts my head sometimes.)
Altidore, it's obvious, needs steady playing time next season because he's still not sharp. Let's be honest, his shot, powerful as it was went directly at St. Iker, who must not have said his prayers that morning, with the bad bad bounce off his hands and all.
(Consider this a companion post to Wednesday's post game rambling. It was hard to try to pin down everything in a timely manner.)
***
Here's your Gold Cup roster:
GOALKEEPERS (3): Jon Busch (Chicago Fire), Troy Perkins (IK Start), Luis Robles (FC Kaiserslautern)
DEFENDERS (7): Steve Cherundolo (Hannover 96), Jimmy Conrad (Kansas City Wizards), Clarence Goodson (IK Start), Jay Heaps (New England Revolution), Chad Marshall (Columbus Crew), Michael Parkhurst (FC Nordsjaellands), Heath Pearce (Hansa Rostock)
MIDFIELDERS (8): Davy Arnaud (Kansas City Wizards), Kyle Beckerman (Real Salt Lake), Colin Clark (Colorado Rapids), Sam Cronin (Toronto FC), Brad Evans (Seattle Sounders), Stuart Holden (Houston Dynamo), Logan Pause (Chicago Fire), Robbie Rogers (Columbus Crew)
FORWARDS (5): Freddy Adu (AS Monaco), Brian Ching (Houston Dynamo), Kenny Cooper (FC Dallas), Charlie Davies (Hammarby IF), Santino Quaranta (D.C. United)
Still, 'Cheap Seats' was quality. It's hard to naysay a show that features cameos from guys like Ian Roberts, H. Jon Benjamin and Michael Showalter.
Some of the clips from the old shows were beyond priceless. The Steve Garvey 'Billfishing' promo tape featuring the immortal Michael Floorwax sets the Simmons-Unintentional Comedy Scale to new heights. (Really, after reading click here and favorite this on your YouTube account. Quality.)
Each episode of 'Cheap Seats' featured a segment 'Do You Care?' where the brothers fired off the phrase a couple times with quick facts.
So right now, in the wake of U.S. 2-0 result over Spain in the Confederations Cup semifinal, do you care?
It's an open ended question, without a right or wrong answer.
This is a question I'm posing to every human being on earth, no matter race, creed, ethnicity, sexual preference ... or even if you watch the Jim Rome show.
Here's my thoughts/questions. (Sorry about all the numbered lists recently.)
1. Will Europe/the World care?
Did the result make the world stand up and take notice? Hmmm....probably mixed. In all honesty I'm not sure how wrapped up the world, particularly Europe is about the Confederations Cup. Really, in a sentence define what the tournament is, and why it's important?
To be brutally honest, in this edition, it was probably to test out progress of South Africa as a host country. In that case we learned two things 1) they needed plenty of free tickets 2) the vuvuzela is annoying and already has the Brit media in a tizzy.
This isn't to paint Euros, etc. as snobs. Most of them are coming off the long and grueling league season and want to enjoy a month or two without the sport. Would a tournament which had the likes of New Zealand, Iraq, South Africa, Egypt ... and yes, the U.S., have piqued your interests?
The U.S. beating Spain, yes, probably made some people around the globe take notice. But considering the competition, they're not going Francesa-level 'GaGa' over it.
Still, the result, at least for the time being will earn the U.S. a modicum of respect internationally. Will we ever win over the British football media? Never. Should we even care? Of course not. As I've heard thousands of high school and college kids chant at sporting events -- "Scoreboard, Scoreboard."
Also, in America its close to scientific proven fact that we love stats. Love 'em. Loooooooove 'em. Around the world, yeah, the fact that Spain won an international record 15-straight is important, but they're not as hung up on the numbers as we are. It's a big deal the U.S. snapped Spain's unbeaten run, but what the actual number is, not as much.
Spain's 35-game-unbeaten run isn't hanging up next to Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. Maybe in Spain, but not in my mind. They were, and still are, an elite team that will be defined by their flashy play, their brilliant passing, their borderline sexuality questioning togetherness, not the number. (Paging No. 6)
For whatever the reason, stats and numbers just don't resonate as much in the world of soccer. The fact Stan Musial batted over .350 five times in his Major League career, carries some weight. There's simply not enough numbers in soccer, coupled with the endless leagues around the world, to qualify them properly. (One astounding fact, Nicolas Anelka has scored double-digit goals for nine different teams. Prolly says more about him than anything else.)
2. Will Americans care?
For like a day or two, yeah.
Look at some of the stuff that the sports media/media at large have made people interested in over the last couple years. Hell, just as an example that I think every form of human media must use by the end of the month -- Jon and Kate. Does anyone really give two proper fucks about those two?
Sorry, a little off tangent, but the way the news works these days its all cycles.
Right now its a down sports cycle, so the U.S. doing something comes at the perfect time. It'll be hot news for about a week, and then (poof) forgotten. Over that time, casual fans will get inundated with oodles of info about U.S. soccer.
Expect whatever footage from 1950 vs. England that can be exists to be dusted off and recycled, never mind that the circumstances are borderline incomparable. Prepare yourselfs for vintage clips, mullets included, from 1994 and 1998 (Kasey Keller w/hair!) Expect to hear Alexi Lalas talking to you in your sleep -- hopefully without shotgunning an 'energy' drink.
And maybe after all those things running on a loop on ESPNEWS, some people might just plop down in front of their set on Sunday afternoon and watch the final.
After that match ends, some minds will be won over. Yet I'd guess the majority of casuals will tune in, care for all of about 12 seconds, win or lose, and move onto the next thing. Though, a win over possibly Brazil might make it so that all bets are off.
This isn't the worst scenario in the world. If we can ever move the general discourse about soccer in American beyond "heh heh soccer sucks", then well, we've accomplished something, nearly a breakthrough. It's unfortunate there aren't enough qualified media types to rationally discuss the game.
If it's just another false spring, I can live with that too.
Deep down, I just hope that whatever goodwill this stunning result yields, it doesn't get the U.S. soccer team lumped in with the Danica Patricks of the sports world, a curiosity to be dusted off from time-to-time.
One other thing
Underrated story that will develop from the U.S. Confederations Cup run -- money.
As in the money guys like Oguchi Onyewu, Charlie Davies and maybe even Landon Donovan put in some C.R.E.A.M.-worthy displays that should upgrade their club status. (I'd mention Jonathon Spector, but why would he leave the tutelage of Gianfranco Zola, and why now would Jay DeMerit ditch Watford?)
Onyewu probably can take his pick of Europa League or maybe even some fringe Champions League squads after his imposing performance. Yeah, as U.S. fans we know all his limitations -- namely his ability to complete a pass to a teammate, but don't tell me some club president wouldn't want to sign him up to toss strikers around for a season.
The latest rumor was Fenerbache, after that false Birmingham City report. Who knows now.
As for Davies, you'd think someone out there would like his speed. Or it would be better utilized than the Swedish Allsvenskan.
And Donovan. Maybe he convinced a European club to take a shot on him. Why wouldn't a promoted Bundesliga team or heck, why not Michael Bradley's Borussia M-gladbach take a gamble? He might not be good enough for Bayern, but he could play and bring some energy to a team if he were motivated to try it. He does have an offensive skill set which would help teams. Would he be the focal point of a team? No. But he could be an asset for a team in search of a secondary goal-scorer/creator.
Not sure what MLS would charge for a transfer or try to hold up Donovan, but he could use a better World Cup tuneup that what the league has to offer.
Something that also bears watching is the fate of Altidore. Will Villareal want to bring him back even more after he scored against Spain? Or will they loan him out once again? Or what about Xerez? (And what about them, does Altidore count for playing there even if he never appeared in a match. This whole loan process hurts my head sometimes.)
Altidore, it's obvious, needs steady playing time next season because he's still not sharp. Let's be honest, his shot, powerful as it was went directly at St. Iker, who must not have said his prayers that morning, with the bad bad bounce off his hands and all.
(Consider this a companion post to Wednesday's post game rambling. It was hard to try to pin down everything in a timely manner.)
***
Here's your Gold Cup roster:
GOALKEEPERS (3): Jon Busch (Chicago Fire), Troy Perkins (IK Start), Luis Robles (FC Kaiserslautern)
DEFENDERS (7): Steve Cherundolo (Hannover 96), Jimmy Conrad (Kansas City Wizards), Clarence Goodson (IK Start), Jay Heaps (New England Revolution), Chad Marshall (Columbus Crew), Michael Parkhurst (FC Nordsjaellands), Heath Pearce (Hansa Rostock)
MIDFIELDERS (8): Davy Arnaud (Kansas City Wizards), Kyle Beckerman (Real Salt Lake), Colin Clark (Colorado Rapids), Sam Cronin (Toronto FC), Brad Evans (Seattle Sounders), Stuart Holden (Houston Dynamo), Logan Pause (Chicago Fire), Robbie Rogers (Columbus Crew)
FORWARDS (5): Freddy Adu (AS Monaco), Brian Ching (Houston Dynamo), Kenny Cooper (FC Dallas), Charlie Davies (Hammarby IF), Santino Quaranta (D.C. United)
Labels: bob bradley, confederations cup, Soccer, USMNT
Wow, wow, wow, wow.
U.S. 2, Spain 0 ... it happened? Are you sure?
If you glance at it quickly, it seems like a typo. Or if not that, a fluke.
Watching this unfold, it wasn't a fluke. It wasn't luck. It wasn't Spain playing poorly.
See, what the heck do I know. (Oh right, starting Carlos Bocanegra at left back, but who's counting.)
The U.S., to cue the Offspring, came out and played.
Before the match started, I figured the U.S. had no chance. None.
Yet, from the whistle, the U.S. came out and didn't just hunker down. They came at Spain, and Charlie Davies alone must have had the Euro champions collectively say, who? what? Or at least reach for some new hair product.
As much as I've personally ripped Bob Bradley, finally he put the oars in the water and allowed the team to play. There was no fear of the No. 1 team in the world. Or kissing the European Champions ring, which I'm guessing a couple players on Spain were expecting.
Wasn't this display what we fans had been screaming into the darkness, well message boards and blogs, for the last couple years? Don't be afraid and show you belong among the world elite? After what we've been witness two for the last seven years, it's almost hard to the brain to process these developments actually unfurling.
How this team transformed from a bunch of sick puppies vs. Italy and Brazil to a competent, cohesive unit in less than a week is a marvel. Was it just the team responding to the criticism? Really, I'm asking. Has a team in any sport undergone such a transformation in such a short a time?
Did Jozy Altidore get a semi-lucky bounce to score the first goal? Maybe? But the way thing went, the U.S. were due a bounce of the ball.
Plus, as the game evolved, it did truly look like one of those classic Arsenal games from early in last Premier League season, when the Gunners went down early and then attacked the rest of the way, only to be undone by the 'lesser' opponents, who committed to defending as a team.
Cross-after-cross, the U.S. was there to throw a body or head in the way. Oddly enough, the only really great chance for Spain seemed to be that ball Fernando Torres played to himself, which Tim Howard kicked away with his foot. (Howard silenced my would-be goal keeping controversy, eh?)
Right around maybe the 55th minute I figured it was going to be the U.S.'s day. Believe me or not.
The second goal? Terrible mistake by Sergio Ramos, but credit Clint Dempsey once again for being in the right place at the right time.
Perhaps the biggest credit should go to Landon Donovan, who finally, just may have morphed into the player we'll all wanted him to become the last eight years over the last two weeks. For all the crap Lando has taken, he's been equally epic in South Africa.
Equally amazing, both Donovan and Ricardo Clark -- the only two MLSers active for this one -- played out of their minds.
Is it worth complaining, now, about the harsh red card on Michael Bradley that will force him to miss the final on Sunday? Yeah, but let's worry about that game later and the U.S. surely ought to lodge a protest, though I'm sure FIFA will curry no favors for Sunil & Co.
Right now I'm stunned that the U.S. win is the top news on every major sports site around the Inter-tubes. Hell, even WFAN's John Minko read the result during a 20/20 update.
In fact, on ESPN.com a poll is running about 81 percent for people who care that the U.S. won, compared to only six percent at 'not at all'. This is after about 40,000 votes, too. (It was also the top item on 'PTI', too bad there aren't very many talking heads at the WWL qualified to talk intelligently about the game, no Tommy Symth doesn't count.)
It all all makes me wonder, is this that long awaited win that the U.S. has waited for these last decades and decades? Could it actually be the tipping point?
Time will tell, but there are factors working in its favor.
1. It came against the No. 1 team in the world, which not ever the most ardent Frank Deford soccer haters in the world can naysay.
2. It came after everyone, even the diehard fans like ourselves had written off the team.
3. It was aired on ESPN, which will give the match tons of traction over all its platforms the next few games ahead of Sunday's final.
Essentially, it was the perfect storm and the U.S. capitalized. I'm curious to see how the mainstream media reports and reacts to this. Will they finally realize it's a big deal? Or will it lead to another hype machine like pre-2006, settling the U.S. up for another letdown?
However it all plays out, this was certainly a legitimizing win for the U.S. in lieu of the last three years. Again, let's hope it doesn't lead to unparalleled levels of expectations on the U.S., since we've seen the team clearly plays its best when its been written off.
Spain is obviously a lot better than the U.S. from a talent standpoint and thanks to this result alone, the U.S. isn't catching anyone off guard at the real deal in South Africa next year. Also, as good as the U.S. played Wednesday, it's unrealistic to expect it every time on going forward -- it was probably the perfect storm.
Yet, at least the U.S. now has these result in its back pocket to draw upon. It doesn't have to sneak up on the elite teams or catch them on an off-day to win.
Believe me, I'm as stunned as everybody else. I wish there was a better way to capture all this, but who on earth saw this coming? I'm sure I'm not the only person left speechless with a goofy grin on his or her face right now.
For once, though, it's time to pop the cork and celebrate, even if its only a semifinal. The U.S. deserves to take a bow today. Who cares what happens next game or next year.
And since I can't end without curbing my enthusiasm just a little, as pointed out, Mexico has won the Confederations Cup. Just saying.
That said, let's go down to Azteca in a couple of weeks and make this win stand up.
P.S. -- Clint Dempsey can never play a game for the U.S. without the beard ever again.
U.S. 2, Spain 0 ... it happened? Are you sure?
If you glance at it quickly, it seems like a typo. Or if not that, a fluke.
Watching this unfold, it wasn't a fluke. It wasn't luck. It wasn't Spain playing poorly.
See, what the heck do I know. (Oh right, starting Carlos Bocanegra at left back, but who's counting.)
The U.S., to cue the Offspring, came out and played.
Before the match started, I figured the U.S. had no chance. None.
Yet, from the whistle, the U.S. came out and didn't just hunker down. They came at Spain, and Charlie Davies alone must have had the Euro champions collectively say, who? what? Or at least reach for some new hair product.
As much as I've personally ripped Bob Bradley, finally he put the oars in the water and allowed the team to play. There was no fear of the No. 1 team in the world. Or kissing the European Champions ring, which I'm guessing a couple players on Spain were expecting.
Wasn't this display what we fans had been screaming into the darkness, well message boards and blogs, for the last couple years? Don't be afraid and show you belong among the world elite? After what we've been witness two for the last seven years, it's almost hard to the brain to process these developments actually unfurling.
How this team transformed from a bunch of sick puppies vs. Italy and Brazil to a competent, cohesive unit in less than a week is a marvel. Was it just the team responding to the criticism? Really, I'm asking. Has a team in any sport undergone such a transformation in such a short a time?
Did Jozy Altidore get a semi-lucky bounce to score the first goal? Maybe? But the way thing went, the U.S. were due a bounce of the ball.
Plus, as the game evolved, it did truly look like one of those classic Arsenal games from early in last Premier League season, when the Gunners went down early and then attacked the rest of the way, only to be undone by the 'lesser' opponents, who committed to defending as a team.
Cross-after-cross, the U.S. was there to throw a body or head in the way. Oddly enough, the only really great chance for Spain seemed to be that ball Fernando Torres played to himself, which Tim Howard kicked away with his foot. (Howard silenced my would-be goal keeping controversy, eh?)
Right around maybe the 55th minute I figured it was going to be the U.S.'s day. Believe me or not.
The second goal? Terrible mistake by Sergio Ramos, but credit Clint Dempsey once again for being in the right place at the right time.
Perhaps the biggest credit should go to Landon Donovan, who finally, just may have morphed into the player we'll all wanted him to become the last eight years over the last two weeks. For all the crap Lando has taken, he's been equally epic in South Africa.
Equally amazing, both Donovan and Ricardo Clark -- the only two MLSers active for this one -- played out of their minds.
Is it worth complaining, now, about the harsh red card on Michael Bradley that will force him to miss the final on Sunday? Yeah, but let's worry about that game later and the U.S. surely ought to lodge a protest, though I'm sure FIFA will curry no favors for Sunil & Co.
Right now I'm stunned that the U.S. win is the top news on every major sports site around the Inter-tubes. Hell, even WFAN's John Minko read the result during a 20/20 update.
In fact, on ESPN.com a poll is running about 81 percent for people who care that the U.S. won, compared to only six percent at 'not at all'. This is after about 40,000 votes, too. (It was also the top item on 'PTI', too bad there aren't very many talking heads at the WWL qualified to talk intelligently about the game, no Tommy Symth doesn't count.)
It all all makes me wonder, is this that long awaited win that the U.S. has waited for these last decades and decades? Could it actually be the tipping point?
Time will tell, but there are factors working in its favor.
1. It came against the No. 1 team in the world, which not ever the most ardent Frank Deford soccer haters in the world can naysay.
2. It came after everyone, even the diehard fans like ourselves had written off the team.
3. It was aired on ESPN, which will give the match tons of traction over all its platforms the next few games ahead of Sunday's final.
Essentially, it was the perfect storm and the U.S. capitalized. I'm curious to see how the mainstream media reports and reacts to this. Will they finally realize it's a big deal? Or will it lead to another hype machine like pre-2006, settling the U.S. up for another letdown?
However it all plays out, this was certainly a legitimizing win for the U.S. in lieu of the last three years. Again, let's hope it doesn't lead to unparalleled levels of expectations on the U.S., since we've seen the team clearly plays its best when its been written off.
Spain is obviously a lot better than the U.S. from a talent standpoint and thanks to this result alone, the U.S. isn't catching anyone off guard at the real deal in South Africa next year. Also, as good as the U.S. played Wednesday, it's unrealistic to expect it every time on going forward -- it was probably the perfect storm.
Yet, at least the U.S. now has these result in its back pocket to draw upon. It doesn't have to sneak up on the elite teams or catch them on an off-day to win.
Believe me, I'm as stunned as everybody else. I wish there was a better way to capture all this, but who on earth saw this coming? I'm sure I'm not the only person left speechless with a goofy grin on his or her face right now.
For once, though, it's time to pop the cork and celebrate, even if its only a semifinal. The U.S. deserves to take a bow today. Who cares what happens next game or next year.
And since I can't end without curbing my enthusiasm just a little, as pointed out, Mexico has won the Confederations Cup. Just saying.
That said, let's go down to Azteca in a couple of weeks and make this win stand up.
P.S. -- Clint Dempsey can never play a game for the U.S. without the beard ever again.
Labels: confederations cup, Soccer, USMNT
Other than for the games, I don't watch much ESPN. I don't listen to its radio stations either, or read its magazine. Yes, I do read Bill Simmons and check out Soccernet, but still don't own an Insider web account.
If it ever came down to it, I probably could live without ESPN in my life.
Still, let's throw out a number -- 90 percent -- maybe more, of American sports fans get their agenda set by the Worldwide Leader in nearby (for me) Bristol. News topics, which to me seem invented and tedious -- any time an NFL wide receiver does something untoward -- for instance, doesn't interest me yet seem to become huge news once the WWL latches onto them.
There is a time, though, when I will watch some ESPN -- at the gym on the hamster wheel machines after lifting weights. (Yeah, I'm so ripped it hurts.)
The last couple days, especially Monday, the Confederations Cup seems to have gotten a lot of traction on the network, maybe because there is nothing else going on aside from baseball. ESPN devoted a lot of time during the live 'Sportscenter' to the U.S.'s hard-to-believe it actually happened 3-0 win over Egypt, which allowed them to advance to play Spain Wednesday in the Confederations Cup semifinals (Wednesday, live on ESPN, 2:45)
For whatever the reason, somehow that match resonated beyond the usual soccer circles.
Heck, I even had an intelligent chat about the game in pre-Monday night softball warm ups.
Naturally, ESPN isn't doing this out of the goodness of its heart. It owns the property and wants eyeballs on the sets come Wednesday, albeit in the middle of the afternoon. A good turnout here bodes well going forward to the big boy -- the 2010 World Cup, which the network also owns the U.S. rights.
The ideas behind running a cable sports network aside, if only through osmosis people seem to be interested all of a sudden by the plucky, underdog U.S. team. Hey, it's not every day you can actually even label a U.S. team an underdog, right?
If there were time to market and brand the game, it would be the anti-Dream Team -- the U.S. -- against the real Dream Team -- Spain, which just so happens to be riding the all-time international winning streak.
So what's the point here, as per usual?
Wednesday's game represents an opportunity, yet again, for the U.S. national team to win over some more of the skeptical American public. There will be casual eye balls tuned in.
Lay another stinker like the game against Brazil and you'll lose these people, likely forever. At the same time, a listless performance will again open the chorus of if this team is actually capable of competing against top flight competition from the hardcores who've been screaming into the darkness for change.
Play hard and lose to the best team in the world -- maybe it helps in the long run.
Yeah, this game does need to be put into context.
It is only the Confederations Cup, after all. Still, there is something on the line for Spain -- a chance to set the all-time world unbeaten run at 36 matches. This alone is a selling point, and a miracle win over Spain in an international tournament would be the biggest validation of U.S. soccer's advancement to date.
Stopping Spain, even in penalty kicks, would be damned impressive.
The one bit of production ESPN actually does for the U.S. team are those dreadful interviews by the players. You know, where they stare into the camera as if they are hostages sending videos to loved ones and intone how much of an honor it is to play for the stars and stripes.
Wednesday presents a gilded opportunity to impress the country.
Even though I remain a grumpy complainer in the blog world, I'm still a fan. You have me, probably, for life. It's those other casuals you better be worried about vs. Spain -- so don't let them down.
Miscellania
* Since everyone got so wrapped up in the actual result Sunday vs. Egypt we tended to overlook how Bob Bradley has now set himself up for an ultimate second-guess scenario. Playing Brad Guzan in goal, in what we all thought would be the U.S.'s final foray in South Africa this calendar year, sets up a mini controversy.
Tim Howard appeared the No. 1 spot clamped down, but Guzan kept a clean sheet vs. the Pharaohs and looked decent enough doing it.
What if Howard concedes one of those howlers we've all seen him allow vs. Spain? Now you've got a bit of a problem.
Would it lead to an open competition ahead of 2010? (Probably not since Guzan won't see regular time at Aston Villa -- why isn't he loaned out, by the way?)
This still bears watching.
* Being as realistic as possible, how on Earth does the U.S. pull the upset?
1. Luck
2. Spain plays poorly
3. Penalty kicks.
I don't want to write off the U.S., but Spain is that good. You could say there's pressure on to them to win. As Jose Mourinho would say, "What pressure?"
In Spain you have Champions League winners (Xavi and Carlos Puyol), Premier League stars (Cesc Fabregas and Fernando Torres) and just some amazing talents (David Villa, Sergio Ramos, etc.) To these guys, the Confederations Cup isn't a big deal. If they weren't going for the all time unbeaten mark, yeah, the U.S. might catch them disinterested, but they are going for the record -- a record that proves their utter awesomeness.
Meanwhile, the U.S. have nothing to lose so hopefully they'll play like that.
* Keep your fingers crossed or say a prayer for Jonathon Bornstein. If Bob Bradley shows his faith in his former Chivas USA charge, it could be a loooooong day.
Spain loves to set up camp in the opponents flank and wreak its damage.
For whatever reason I get the grim feeling that Spain coach Vicente del Bosque will be yelling out (in Spanish) a line from the excellent 'Simpsons' episode 'Lisa on Ice', namely, "Hack the bone. Hack the bone!!!"
(Overall, I do not like Torres and Villa against our current set of central defenders. Then again, what team can match up with Spain?)
* Based on his touch and ability in a possession game, this would be a good game for Freddy Adu's skill set. Since he hasn't played in a dog's age, he won't see the field. I'm realistic. In any event, the U.S. isn't winning a possession game with Spain, regardless.
* Judging by his last couple games, if he plays Gerard Pique can make mistakes.
* I'm not putting too much stock that the U.S. only lost 1-0 last year in a Euro 2008 tuneup for Spain, since Wednesday there is something on the line.
Lineup guess:
If there's any way to beat Spain, or only get beaten by Spain 1-0, it's doing what Iraq did by clogging lanes and making the most of it on the counter attack. Not sure if Bradley has that kind of lineup at his disposal. If there were ever a game to field 10 defensive midfielders, maybe this is it. I'd also start Clint Dempsey as a withdraw striker behind Jozy Altidore from the start and use Charlie Davies in the final minutes if the game is still up in the air.
GK -- Howard (right?)
DEF -- Spector -- Onyewu -- DeMerit -- Bornstein
MID -- Donovan -- Clark -- Bradley -- Torres
FOR -- Dempsey -- Altidore
Final thoughts:
There's no point in going overboard. Spain is No. 1 in the world for a reason. It will take a 100 percent game from the U.S. to have a chance. That means bringing effort, playing smart, making the most of set pieces -- basic stuff the team flubbed in its first two matches in the tournament.
Let's put it this way. The U.S. can officially prove its not on level terms with New Zealand as we all joked only a week earlier in the Confederations Cup.
Throw out the best players and hope they can give an effort and maybe catch a break of two. There isn't a magic strategy or anything Bradley the Elder can devise that will probably flummox Spain.
For a change a 1-0 loss wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. And of course, once the whistle blows anything can happen and miracles do happen. This, however, is a miracle the U.S. will have to put every ounce of itself toward in order to achieve it.
If it ever came down to it, I probably could live without ESPN in my life.
Still, let's throw out a number -- 90 percent -- maybe more, of American sports fans get their agenda set by the Worldwide Leader in nearby (for me) Bristol. News topics, which to me seem invented and tedious -- any time an NFL wide receiver does something untoward -- for instance, doesn't interest me yet seem to become huge news once the WWL latches onto them.
There is a time, though, when I will watch some ESPN -- at the gym on the hamster wheel machines after lifting weights. (Yeah, I'm so ripped it hurts.)
The last couple days, especially Monday, the Confederations Cup seems to have gotten a lot of traction on the network, maybe because there is nothing else going on aside from baseball. ESPN devoted a lot of time during the live 'Sportscenter' to the U.S.'s hard-to-believe it actually happened 3-0 win over Egypt, which allowed them to advance to play Spain Wednesday in the Confederations Cup semifinals (Wednesday, live on ESPN, 2:45)
For whatever the reason, somehow that match resonated beyond the usual soccer circles.
Heck, I even had an intelligent chat about the game in pre-Monday night softball warm ups.
Naturally, ESPN isn't doing this out of the goodness of its heart. It owns the property and wants eyeballs on the sets come Wednesday, albeit in the middle of the afternoon. A good turnout here bodes well going forward to the big boy -- the 2010 World Cup, which the network also owns the U.S. rights.
The ideas behind running a cable sports network aside, if only through osmosis people seem to be interested all of a sudden by the plucky, underdog U.S. team. Hey, it's not every day you can actually even label a U.S. team an underdog, right?
If there were time to market and brand the game, it would be the anti-Dream Team -- the U.S. -- against the real Dream Team -- Spain, which just so happens to be riding the all-time international winning streak.
So what's the point here, as per usual?
Wednesday's game represents an opportunity, yet again, for the U.S. national team to win over some more of the skeptical American public. There will be casual eye balls tuned in.
Lay another stinker like the game against Brazil and you'll lose these people, likely forever. At the same time, a listless performance will again open the chorus of if this team is actually capable of competing against top flight competition from the hardcores who've been screaming into the darkness for change.
Play hard and lose to the best team in the world -- maybe it helps in the long run.
Yeah, this game does need to be put into context.
It is only the Confederations Cup, after all. Still, there is something on the line for Spain -- a chance to set the all-time world unbeaten run at 36 matches. This alone is a selling point, and a miracle win over Spain in an international tournament would be the biggest validation of U.S. soccer's advancement to date.
Stopping Spain, even in penalty kicks, would be damned impressive.
The one bit of production ESPN actually does for the U.S. team are those dreadful interviews by the players. You know, where they stare into the camera as if they are hostages sending videos to loved ones and intone how much of an honor it is to play for the stars and stripes.
Wednesday presents a gilded opportunity to impress the country.
Even though I remain a grumpy complainer in the blog world, I'm still a fan. You have me, probably, for life. It's those other casuals you better be worried about vs. Spain -- so don't let them down.
Miscellania
* Since everyone got so wrapped up in the actual result Sunday vs. Egypt we tended to overlook how Bob Bradley has now set himself up for an ultimate second-guess scenario. Playing Brad Guzan in goal, in what we all thought would be the U.S.'s final foray in South Africa this calendar year, sets up a mini controversy.
Tim Howard appeared the No. 1 spot clamped down, but Guzan kept a clean sheet vs. the Pharaohs and looked decent enough doing it.
What if Howard concedes one of those howlers we've all seen him allow vs. Spain? Now you've got a bit of a problem.
Would it lead to an open competition ahead of 2010? (Probably not since Guzan won't see regular time at Aston Villa -- why isn't he loaned out, by the way?)
This still bears watching.
* Being as realistic as possible, how on Earth does the U.S. pull the upset?
1. Luck
2. Spain plays poorly
3. Penalty kicks.
I don't want to write off the U.S., but Spain is that good. You could say there's pressure on to them to win. As Jose Mourinho would say, "What pressure?"
In Spain you have Champions League winners (Xavi and Carlos Puyol), Premier League stars (Cesc Fabregas and Fernando Torres) and just some amazing talents (David Villa, Sergio Ramos, etc.) To these guys, the Confederations Cup isn't a big deal. If they weren't going for the all time unbeaten mark, yeah, the U.S. might catch them disinterested, but they are going for the record -- a record that proves their utter awesomeness.
Meanwhile, the U.S. have nothing to lose so hopefully they'll play like that.
* Keep your fingers crossed or say a prayer for Jonathon Bornstein. If Bob Bradley shows his faith in his former Chivas USA charge, it could be a loooooong day.
Spain loves to set up camp in the opponents flank and wreak its damage.
For whatever reason I get the grim feeling that Spain coach Vicente del Bosque will be yelling out (in Spanish) a line from the excellent 'Simpsons' episode 'Lisa on Ice', namely, "Hack the bone. Hack the bone!!!"
(Overall, I do not like Torres and Villa against our current set of central defenders. Then again, what team can match up with Spain?)
* Based on his touch and ability in a possession game, this would be a good game for Freddy Adu's skill set. Since he hasn't played in a dog's age, he won't see the field. I'm realistic. In any event, the U.S. isn't winning a possession game with Spain, regardless.
* Judging by his last couple games, if he plays Gerard Pique can make mistakes.
* I'm not putting too much stock that the U.S. only lost 1-0 last year in a Euro 2008 tuneup for Spain, since Wednesday there is something on the line.
Lineup guess:
If there's any way to beat Spain, or only get beaten by Spain 1-0, it's doing what Iraq did by clogging lanes and making the most of it on the counter attack. Not sure if Bradley has that kind of lineup at his disposal. If there were ever a game to field 10 defensive midfielders, maybe this is it. I'd also start Clint Dempsey as a withdraw striker behind Jozy Altidore from the start and use Charlie Davies in the final minutes if the game is still up in the air.
GK -- Howard (right?)
DEF -- Spector -- Onyewu -- DeMerit -- Bornstein
MID -- Donovan -- Clark -- Bradley -- Torres
FOR -- Dempsey -- Altidore
Final thoughts:
There's no point in going overboard. Spain is No. 1 in the world for a reason. It will take a 100 percent game from the U.S. to have a chance. That means bringing effort, playing smart, making the most of set pieces -- basic stuff the team flubbed in its first two matches in the tournament.
Let's put it this way. The U.S. can officially prove its not on level terms with New Zealand as we all joked only a week earlier in the Confederations Cup.
Throw out the best players and hope they can give an effort and maybe catch a break of two. There isn't a magic strategy or anything Bradley the Elder can devise that will probably flummox Spain.
For a change a 1-0 loss wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. And of course, once the whistle blows anything can happen and miracles do happen. This, however, is a miracle the U.S. will have to put every ounce of itself toward in order to achieve it.
Labels: bob bradley, confederations cup, Freddy Adu, Landon Donovan, Soccer, USMNT
With a day or two to catch our breath before U.S. v. Spain on Wednesday -- aka Bob of La Mancha (the impossible dream) -- let's discuss a couple other things floating around the world these days with a nice quickee post.
1. Carlos Tevez leaves Manchester United. Carlito was a weird case study at Old Trafford. He didn't start, but it seemed every one of his 18 goals were important or came at critical times.
That said, was it worth Sir Alex breaking the bank for Hulk Hair? Not sure. The Red Devils do have some young forwards in the pipeline -- Macheda and Welback -- and can now move Wayne Rooney to a more traditional forward role.
In short, the player of Tevez can easily be replaced, but the intangibles are another story.
Where Tevez ends up? If I'm Rafa Benitez I do everything in my power to add Tevez to Liverpool, but tell him up front he might not be a week-in, week-out starter. Tevez might finally offer some cover for those two or three times Fernando Torres picked up those niggling injuries during the season.
Manchester City already signed Roque Santa Cruz, so that wouldn't seem like a destination for Tevez. There's always Spain or Italy, though.
2. Every star player is leaving Serie A. Yeah, speaking of Italy it seems like big name players are running away from the 'boot' faster than audiences from Will Ferrell's 'Land of the Lost' movie.
Zlatan Ibrahimović, Andrea Pirlo, Maicon, etc. seem to be following the Kaka to greener pastures.
My only question here, who is running the books for these clubs? Or is the Italian structure so messed up its why Serie A broke away from the Italian FA?
Suffice to say, Jose Mourinho better figure out a way to get Inter to at least the Champions League semifinals this upcoming season, even with a player exodus.
3. Television merry-go-round. Monday ESPN acquired some rights to air La Liga matches in America. Mostly it'll be on ESPN360 and ESPN Deportes.
To me, this is a good thing since GolTV (which will still air matches) looks like it's being produced out of a shed in the Florida Everglades. Plus, I'm not a member of the Cult of Roy Hudson, who makes me want to turn the game off more than anything else. Then again, if it's Tommy Smythe involved on ESPN, well, that's a push ... and a push for the mute button too.
Also, apparently even if Setanta lost its rights to air the Premier League in the UK, it's contract in America is still valid, at least for now. (ESPN's UK channels added about 46 games, Monday.)
Expect ESPN to make a run at the rights starting with the 2010-2011 season, hopefully sharing them with FSC. So long as ESPN doesn't louse it up and add sideline reporters, I won't mind.
Obviously, stay tuned.
(More stuff on Spain/US Tuesday.)
1. Carlos Tevez leaves Manchester United. Carlito was a weird case study at Old Trafford. He didn't start, but it seemed every one of his 18 goals were important or came at critical times.
That said, was it worth Sir Alex breaking the bank for Hulk Hair? Not sure. The Red Devils do have some young forwards in the pipeline -- Macheda and Welback -- and can now move Wayne Rooney to a more traditional forward role.
In short, the player of Tevez can easily be replaced, but the intangibles are another story.
Where Tevez ends up? If I'm Rafa Benitez I do everything in my power to add Tevez to Liverpool, but tell him up front he might not be a week-in, week-out starter. Tevez might finally offer some cover for those two or three times Fernando Torres picked up those niggling injuries during the season.
Manchester City already signed Roque Santa Cruz, so that wouldn't seem like a destination for Tevez. There's always Spain or Italy, though.
2. Every star player is leaving Serie A. Yeah, speaking of Italy it seems like big name players are running away from the 'boot' faster than audiences from Will Ferrell's 'Land of the Lost' movie.
Zlatan Ibrahimović, Andrea Pirlo, Maicon, etc. seem to be following the Kaka to greener pastures.
My only question here, who is running the books for these clubs? Or is the Italian structure so messed up its why Serie A broke away from the Italian FA?
Suffice to say, Jose Mourinho better figure out a way to get Inter to at least the Champions League semifinals this upcoming season, even with a player exodus.
3. Television merry-go-round. Monday ESPN acquired some rights to air La Liga matches in America. Mostly it'll be on ESPN360 and ESPN Deportes.
To me, this is a good thing since GolTV (which will still air matches) looks like it's being produced out of a shed in the Florida Everglades. Plus, I'm not a member of the Cult of Roy Hudson, who makes me want to turn the game off more than anything else. Then again, if it's Tommy Smythe involved on ESPN, well, that's a push ... and a push for the mute button too.
Also, apparently even if Setanta lost its rights to air the Premier League in the UK, it's contract in America is still valid, at least for now. (ESPN's UK channels added about 46 games, Monday.)
Expect ESPN to make a run at the rights starting with the 2010-2011 season, hopefully sharing them with FSC. So long as ESPN doesn't louse it up and add sideline reporters, I won't mind.
Obviously, stay tuned.
(More stuff on Spain/US Tuesday.)
Labels: Liverpool, manchester United, raf, Soccer
Word of warning up front, judging by the title of this post alone, feel free to skip ahead since it might be a case of keyboard diarrhea, admittedly that's not a pretty picture. I'm going to be honest and tell you right up front, this is a pretty selfish post of me getting stuff off my chest. I make no promises to repay the three or four minutes it takes to get through this.
***
Basically, I've been writing in one way, shape or form for the last decade or so. As you'd guess, most of the time I try to take a humorous albeit cynical, sort of Devils' Advocate type style.
Anyways, Sunday the U.S. pulled off the miracle of miracles beating Egypt 3-0 and advancing to play Spain on Wednesday in the Confederations Cup thanks to Italy crapping the bed against Brazil, which if you're the Azzurri is probably a good thing long-term because you're not winning consecutive World Cups with the same lineup from four years ago.
That's besides the point.
When I started writing on this blog heavily about soccer about five or so years ago, it was because I was fed up with the limited opinions I was reading after the U.S. would play and wanted to chime in. If you want to get specific, it was my irate anger at FIFA following the draw for the 06 World Cup.
As you know, as time wore on, I've tried to write at least something every time the U.S. has played. Maybe it's just irrational opinions of a raving fan? Maybe I've made some valid points? Maybe I've helped stir the conversation.
Either way, I've enjoyed doing it. Yet you tend to paint yourself into that corner, instead of enjoying the matches as a fan and what they should be for -- fun -- you tend to turn a critical eye to everything. That's probably just me. I'm not interested in reading human interest stories and fluff or filler quotes. Analysis and opinion is what I'm keen on in the whole world of journalism.
That's jumping ahead of things, though.
Here's another story worth sharing to show you where I'm coming from.
As a kid and growing up, there wasn't a more enjoyable thing to do in my adolescent life than watching UConn basketball games with my dad. We wouldn't miss a game. We'd jump up and down the house with the good times, and admittedly I cried my eyes out when the team came up short of the Final Four throughout the majority of the 1990s.
Eventually the Huskies won the title, beating those jerks from Duke in 1999 and the ensuing celebration at UConn -- where I was now a pale-faced freshman -- was one of the best nights of my life.
Flash forward two years and I began to cover the UConn basketball team for the Daily Campus, the school newspaper. Slowly I transformed from fan to critic. Yeah, it was still nice to see the team win, but it was always easier to write a postgame column after a tough loss -- or even when the team made the NIT my first year on the beat.
That whole theory of 'no cheering in the press box' -- it hit me hard.
So fast forward to Sunday, watching the U.S. game with my dad on Father's Day, we both sort of, kind of, entered the game with the idea the team needed to lose so maybe change would come. Granted that's never the way you want to be as a fan, who after the last couple weeks where did the U.S. give the fanbase any reason to belief? Blind faith? Not my style.
When Charlie Davies scored that first goal, I could tell the old man changed his tune and the monkey wheels inside his brain were trying to compute the math for the unlikeliest of unlikely results.
Meanwhile, me, I'm scribbling notes down, furrowing my brow and trying to think of some sort of angle if somehow the miracle of all miracles happens.
Instead of celebrating an impossible win -- a win that we may never see replicated even if it happen in a tertiary tournament -- I'm more concerned with big picture goals and writing off the Spain game. As a person who's traveled far and wide to support the U.S. team, this is not a good development.
That's not to say I don't stand by everything I wrote postgame. It was an epic win, but doesn't deflect all the lingering problems we've complained about for the better part of a year. (No need to rehash that again in this space.)
And the other day I mentioned this quote from WFAN radio talk show host Mike Francesa and it's very true, maybe because of the hours listening to him has cooked my cerebellum -- "When the Giants win the World Series its a nine. When the Mets blow the division on the last day of the season, it's a 10." (FYI, Francesa might be the most unlikely Internet meme of all time. Be warned if you click here, here or here. Or especially here.)
In short, it's very hard to separate the fan inside you and then the writer. That's one of the reasons I always respected Deadspin when Will Leitch was running it during its infancy. His initial, founding ethos -- I think -- behind it all was covering sports without the access, the very access which make the people covering sports eventually loathe covering and writing about sports, will keep it fun and interesting. Look it up, the Tractor Traylor story, it's in one of his books.
Plus throw in the patron saint of the blog-world -- Bill Simmons -- you should still be able to write about the teams you follow and retain your inner fandom. To me, a blog is a great tool and way to spread ideas, but at its core needs to retain some of its fun and irreverence.
But back to the topic at hand, you may or may not know I'm a die-hard Detroit Tigers fan. In the history of this site I think I've written two posts about the Motor City Nine -- one a trip my and the old man took on a whim to see them play in the last week of the 2006 season and the other after they choked the AL Central on the final day of the season and won the Wild Card and subsequently beat the Yankees.
In a lot of ways, this makes the Tigers the only team I can actually be a full-fledged fan. I can read the blogs and the news sites for fun. I can listen and watch the games and bitch about Jim Leyland's decisions knowing I won't try to assemble a 600-word post in 15 minutes after the match is over.
There's probably no conclusion here. If you made it this far, thanks for the indulgences.
If there is a conclusion to be had, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to heed my own advice vis-a-vis the USMNT. I've talked how the team had become stale and one-note.
Let's see how she goes on Wednesday vs. the best team assembled since Mr. Burns and Smithers rounded up all those ringers for the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant.
It's a knockout game so anything's possible, right? Maybe we can even get David Villa to shave those ice pick sideburns of his.
Basically, I've been writing in one way, shape or form for the last decade or so. As you'd guess, most of the time I try to take a humorous albeit cynical, sort of Devils' Advocate type style.
Anyways, Sunday the U.S. pulled off the miracle of miracles beating Egypt 3-0 and advancing to play Spain on Wednesday in the Confederations Cup thanks to Italy crapping the bed against Brazil, which if you're the Azzurri is probably a good thing long-term because you're not winning consecutive World Cups with the same lineup from four years ago.
That's besides the point.
When I started writing on this blog heavily about soccer about five or so years ago, it was because I was fed up with the limited opinions I was reading after the U.S. would play and wanted to chime in. If you want to get specific, it was my irate anger at FIFA following the draw for the 06 World Cup.
As you know, as time wore on, I've tried to write at least something every time the U.S. has played. Maybe it's just irrational opinions of a raving fan? Maybe I've made some valid points? Maybe I've helped stir the conversation.
Either way, I've enjoyed doing it. Yet you tend to paint yourself into that corner, instead of enjoying the matches as a fan and what they should be for -- fun -- you tend to turn a critical eye to everything. That's probably just me. I'm not interested in reading human interest stories and fluff or filler quotes. Analysis and opinion is what I'm keen on in the whole world of journalism.
That's jumping ahead of things, though.
Here's another story worth sharing to show you where I'm coming from.
As a kid and growing up, there wasn't a more enjoyable thing to do in my adolescent life than watching UConn basketball games with my dad. We wouldn't miss a game. We'd jump up and down the house with the good times, and admittedly I cried my eyes out when the team came up short of the Final Four throughout the majority of the 1990s.
Eventually the Huskies won the title, beating those jerks from Duke in 1999 and the ensuing celebration at UConn -- where I was now a pale-faced freshman -- was one of the best nights of my life.
Flash forward two years and I began to cover the UConn basketball team for the Daily Campus, the school newspaper. Slowly I transformed from fan to critic. Yeah, it was still nice to see the team win, but it was always easier to write a postgame column after a tough loss -- or even when the team made the NIT my first year on the beat.
That whole theory of 'no cheering in the press box' -- it hit me hard.
So fast forward to Sunday, watching the U.S. game with my dad on Father's Day, we both sort of, kind of, entered the game with the idea the team needed to lose so maybe change would come. Granted that's never the way you want to be as a fan, who after the last couple weeks where did the U.S. give the fanbase any reason to belief? Blind faith? Not my style.
When Charlie Davies scored that first goal, I could tell the old man changed his tune and the monkey wheels inside his brain were trying to compute the math for the unlikeliest of unlikely results.
Meanwhile, me, I'm scribbling notes down, furrowing my brow and trying to think of some sort of angle if somehow the miracle of all miracles happens.
Instead of celebrating an impossible win -- a win that we may never see replicated even if it happen in a tertiary tournament -- I'm more concerned with big picture goals and writing off the Spain game. As a person who's traveled far and wide to support the U.S. team, this is not a good development.
That's not to say I don't stand by everything I wrote postgame. It was an epic win, but doesn't deflect all the lingering problems we've complained about for the better part of a year. (No need to rehash that again in this space.)
And the other day I mentioned this quote from WFAN radio talk show host Mike Francesa and it's very true, maybe because of the hours listening to him has cooked my cerebellum -- "When the Giants win the World Series its a nine. When the Mets blow the division on the last day of the season, it's a 10." (FYI, Francesa might be the most unlikely Internet meme of all time. Be warned if you click here, here or here. Or especially here.)
In short, it's very hard to separate the fan inside you and then the writer. That's one of the reasons I always respected Deadspin when Will Leitch was running it during its infancy. His initial, founding ethos -- I think -- behind it all was covering sports without the access, the very access which make the people covering sports eventually loathe covering and writing about sports, will keep it fun and interesting. Look it up, the Tractor Traylor story, it's in one of his books.
Plus throw in the patron saint of the blog-world -- Bill Simmons -- you should still be able to write about the teams you follow and retain your inner fandom. To me, a blog is a great tool and way to spread ideas, but at its core needs to retain some of its fun and irreverence.
But back to the topic at hand, you may or may not know I'm a die-hard Detroit Tigers fan. In the history of this site I think I've written two posts about the Motor City Nine -- one a trip my and the old man took on a whim to see them play in the last week of the 2006 season and the other after they choked the AL Central on the final day of the season and won the Wild Card and subsequently beat the Yankees.
In a lot of ways, this makes the Tigers the only team I can actually be a full-fledged fan. I can read the blogs and the news sites for fun. I can listen and watch the games and bitch about Jim Leyland's decisions knowing I won't try to assemble a 600-word post in 15 minutes after the match is over.
There's probably no conclusion here. If you made it this far, thanks for the indulgences.
If there is a conclusion to be had, perhaps it wouldn't hurt to heed my own advice vis-a-vis the USMNT. I've talked how the team had become stale and one-note.
Let's see how she goes on Wednesday vs. the best team assembled since Mr. Burns and Smithers rounded up all those ringers for the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant.
It's a knockout game so anything's possible, right? Maybe we can even get David Villa to shave those ice pick sideburns of his.
Labels: blogs, Detroit Tigers, UConn basketball, USMNT, writing
Wow. U.S. 3, Egpyt 0.
Howdoyalikethat?
It was almost like Thebes answering the riddle of the Sphinx with the answer so obvious nobody else saw it -- it was all DaMarcus Beasley's fault.
Joking aside, I'm tickled pink (for lack of a better term) we'll get to see the U.S. lose to Spain Wednesday and now get to put a positive spin on the rest of the Confederations Cup with the inevitable third place finish after beating South Africa Sunday. The USSF can trumpet that result and try to sucker people into believing the team can still make noise in 2010.
Okay, that's a little too cynical even for Larry David.
In light of everything (and again trying not to be too cynical), I just have more questions that answers?
Namely, what was the true reason for Sunday's stunning string of results -- heart or luck or something else entirely?
Do we attribute the U.S. digging down deep and finding something they lacked in the second half against Italy and for 90 minutes vs. Brazil?
Or do we realize that if not for an Andrea Dossena own-goal in the dying minutes of the first half of Italy against Brasil coupled with Egyptian Essam El-Hadary keeper getting kicked in the head by his teammate (nice bandage job, by the way), this probably doesn't all unfurl so that Bob Bradley actually showed some emotion on the sideline?
Is the simplistic reason of "heart" and "emotion" all that separates the U.S. from looking like a Sunday rec team one minute and world beaters the next? Look, we've all been asking for heart, so why did it take a back against the walls performance to finally show it?
Are Clint Dempsey's 89 minutes of putridity offset by scoring the decisive goal? (And does that goal buy him a lifetime pass in Bradley's book?)
Should we, as American fans who've been craving the team to take the proverbial, nay mythical 'next step', gloss over the fact that Egypt had well over a dozen nice crosses played into the U.S. box, yet never could get a head over the towering Oguchi Onyewu or Jay DeMerit? (If you read my Saturday post, it turns out Hassan Shehata was more of figurehead than I thought. Man, his in-game tactics were sub-Bradley level.)
Do we care that Egypt gave the U.S. acres of space to operate in the center of the field? (Not to poo-poo everything, but Egypt certainly looked more like the team that's in last place in its World Cup qualifying group than the African champs.)
Basically, the question is this -- does Sunday's performance gloss over the previous two stinkbombs? Do the arguments about superior competition and playing a man down now, in retrospect, hold merit? Is the shining light from Sunday enough to keep the fuels stoked for the next 365 days?
Honestly, I don't have an answer. I just don't want the USSF and the Bradley brain trust to rest on the laurels of this singular result and not address some of the lingering issues that still remain around the squad from soup-to-nuts.
Take your bows today -- you deserve it -- hell, you might even make the final three minutes of 'Sportscenter'. Just make sure to get back to work in addressing all the issues the other two results brought to the forefront.
Sunday's stunning result obviously is something to draw on and store away for the future. Yet it's not something you can rely on in a Group Stage setting for the future, where EVERYTHING broke the right way. But hey, luck is part of life.
Still, credit the U.S. for finally showing up from the opening whistle for a change. Perhaps it took two humiliations for the light bulbs to finally go off over their heads.
In the big picture, this is obviously a good thing, because at least the team showed enough guts to respond to all the mounting pressure. It probably even helps the casual fans, who'll no doubt take notice about basically what was a near miracle.
At least Bradley the Elder decided to play two pure forwards Sunday in a game where they needed goals. Charlie Davies somehow scored that first one without anyone getting called for a foul, which was amazing in-and-of itself. I still don't understand why Bradley insists on playing Jozy Altidore as a hold-the-ball forward, instead of trying to play balls to him. The immortal Brian Ching is hurt, so we have to try to shoehorn a player into that role instead of adjusting?
Whatever, at least Michael Bradley finally converted a ball played off to another player inside the box during this tournament.
And Dempsey? Good job. One goal, at least today, offsets all the turnovers, flops and whining. One thing, you need to pay Nick Swisher some royalties for the white-guy sky point.
Brad Guzan over Tim Howard was a strange move, especially in light of the U.S. advancing. Without knowing it, Bradley now created a minor question in the nets. Interesting. Guzan did play well, handling everything Egypt threw at him.
Overall, other than lackluster showings from Dempsey, Altidore and Jonathon Bornstein, it was a solid effort from the U.S. Landon Donovan, given enough space to build a house, was his efficient best running at defenders and should have scored at least one goal in the first half. The defense dealt with all the Egypt crosses, with their height a clear advantage for once since the injury-depleted Pharaohs never attacked them on the ground. Even Ricardo Clark had a positive game, next to Bradley the Younger's tireless running. (I'll give a pass, too, for Connor Casey making me cringe whenever he touched it in the dying minutes.)
As I've been saying a lot, thanks to Ray from 'Trailer Park Boys' -- "That's the way she goes."
Sometimes she goes, today it did for the U.S. so let's applaud them for it.
Sunday almost hearkened back to the theme a lot of commentators brought in regard to the 2002 run, how it was fueled by a lot of good fortune. This time the U.S. advances despite winning once and losing twice thanks to more goals scored than Italy.
Considering all the negativity since Monday, we'll take it, yet it doesn't mean there isn't a lot of work to do. The U.S. clearly wasn't as bad as the first two games, but not as good as Sunday.
Again today me and everyone else on the Internets eats a big slice of humble pie, still the question remains -- does today's implausible result justify everything else we've seen for the last five days and the next 350 or so going forward?
P.S. -- Marcello Lippi, grazie, for playing the corpse of Mauro Camoranesi, who after three years still hasn't learned the words to the Italian National Anthem. I have to admit, when I saw the lineup the Azzurri lined up before switching over to the U.S. game I figured they might actually have a slight chance of magic happening.
P.S.S. -- Scanning through some reactionary boards around the 'Net, Americans are taking plenty of swipes at Giuseppe Rossi. Yeah, I'm sure he's totally dispondent he chose Italy today -- let's not forget the Confederation Cup means something to the U.S., not so much when you have four World Cup trophies in stock.
Howdoyalikethat?
It was almost like Thebes answering the riddle of the Sphinx with the answer so obvious nobody else saw it -- it was all DaMarcus Beasley's fault.
Joking aside, I'm tickled pink (for lack of a better term) we'll get to see the U.S. lose to Spain Wednesday and now get to put a positive spin on the rest of the Confederations Cup with the inevitable third place finish after beating South Africa Sunday. The USSF can trumpet that result and try to sucker people into believing the team can still make noise in 2010.
Okay, that's a little too cynical even for Larry David.
In light of everything (and again trying not to be too cynical), I just have more questions that answers?
Namely, what was the true reason for Sunday's stunning string of results -- heart or luck or something else entirely?
Do we attribute the U.S. digging down deep and finding something they lacked in the second half against Italy and for 90 minutes vs. Brazil?
Or do we realize that if not for an Andrea Dossena own-goal in the dying minutes of the first half of Italy against Brasil coupled with Egyptian Essam El-Hadary keeper getting kicked in the head by his teammate (nice bandage job, by the way), this probably doesn't all unfurl so that Bob Bradley actually showed some emotion on the sideline?
Is the simplistic reason of "heart" and "emotion" all that separates the U.S. from looking like a Sunday rec team one minute and world beaters the next? Look, we've all been asking for heart, so why did it take a back against the walls performance to finally show it?
Are Clint Dempsey's 89 minutes of putridity offset by scoring the decisive goal? (And does that goal buy him a lifetime pass in Bradley's book?)
Should we, as American fans who've been craving the team to take the proverbial, nay mythical 'next step', gloss over the fact that Egypt had well over a dozen nice crosses played into the U.S. box, yet never could get a head over the towering Oguchi Onyewu or Jay DeMerit? (If you read my Saturday post, it turns out Hassan Shehata was more of figurehead than I thought. Man, his in-game tactics were sub-Bradley level.)
Do we care that Egypt gave the U.S. acres of space to operate in the center of the field? (Not to poo-poo everything, but Egypt certainly looked more like the team that's in last place in its World Cup qualifying group than the African champs.)
Basically, the question is this -- does Sunday's performance gloss over the previous two stinkbombs? Do the arguments about superior competition and playing a man down now, in retrospect, hold merit? Is the shining light from Sunday enough to keep the fuels stoked for the next 365 days?
Honestly, I don't have an answer. I just don't want the USSF and the Bradley brain trust to rest on the laurels of this singular result and not address some of the lingering issues that still remain around the squad from soup-to-nuts.
Take your bows today -- you deserve it -- hell, you might even make the final three minutes of 'Sportscenter'. Just make sure to get back to work in addressing all the issues the other two results brought to the forefront.
Sunday's stunning result obviously is something to draw on and store away for the future. Yet it's not something you can rely on in a Group Stage setting for the future, where EVERYTHING broke the right way. But hey, luck is part of life.
Still, credit the U.S. for finally showing up from the opening whistle for a change. Perhaps it took two humiliations for the light bulbs to finally go off over their heads.
In the big picture, this is obviously a good thing, because at least the team showed enough guts to respond to all the mounting pressure. It probably even helps the casual fans, who'll no doubt take notice about basically what was a near miracle.
At least Bradley the Elder decided to play two pure forwards Sunday in a game where they needed goals. Charlie Davies somehow scored that first one without anyone getting called for a foul, which was amazing in-and-of itself. I still don't understand why Bradley insists on playing Jozy Altidore as a hold-the-ball forward, instead of trying to play balls to him. The immortal Brian Ching is hurt, so we have to try to shoehorn a player into that role instead of adjusting?
Whatever, at least Michael Bradley finally converted a ball played off to another player inside the box during this tournament.
And Dempsey? Good job. One goal, at least today, offsets all the turnovers, flops and whining. One thing, you need to pay Nick Swisher some royalties for the white-guy sky point.
Brad Guzan over Tim Howard was a strange move, especially in light of the U.S. advancing. Without knowing it, Bradley now created a minor question in the nets. Interesting. Guzan did play well, handling everything Egypt threw at him.
Overall, other than lackluster showings from Dempsey, Altidore and Jonathon Bornstein, it was a solid effort from the U.S. Landon Donovan, given enough space to build a house, was his efficient best running at defenders and should have scored at least one goal in the first half. The defense dealt with all the Egypt crosses, with their height a clear advantage for once since the injury-depleted Pharaohs never attacked them on the ground. Even Ricardo Clark had a positive game, next to Bradley the Younger's tireless running. (I'll give a pass, too, for Connor Casey making me cringe whenever he touched it in the dying minutes.)
As I've been saying a lot, thanks to Ray from 'Trailer Park Boys' -- "That's the way she goes."
Sometimes she goes, today it did for the U.S. so let's applaud them for it.
Sunday almost hearkened back to the theme a lot of commentators brought in regard to the 2002 run, how it was fueled by a lot of good fortune. This time the U.S. advances despite winning once and losing twice thanks to more goals scored than Italy.
Considering all the negativity since Monday, we'll take it, yet it doesn't mean there isn't a lot of work to do. The U.S. clearly wasn't as bad as the first two games, but not as good as Sunday.
Again today me and everyone else on the Internets eats a big slice of humble pie, still the question remains -- does today's implausible result justify everything else we've seen for the last five days and the next 350 or so going forward?
P.S. -- Marcello Lippi, grazie, for playing the corpse of Mauro Camoranesi, who after three years still hasn't learned the words to the Italian National Anthem. I have to admit, when I saw the lineup the Azzurri lined up before switching over to the U.S. game I figured they might actually have a slight chance of magic happening.
P.S.S. -- Scanning through some reactionary boards around the 'Net, Americans are taking plenty of swipes at Giuseppe Rossi. Yeah, I'm sure he's totally dispondent he chose Italy today -- let's not forget the Confederation Cup means something to the U.S., not so much when you have four World Cup trophies in stock.
Labels: bob bradley, confederations cup, Soccer, USMNT
"When you listen to fools ... the mob rules." -- Ronnie James Dio.
As a would-be history buff, the French so-called 'Reign of Terror' is fairly fascinating. My modern mind can't comprehend how the peasant rabble would get so excited a guillotine be-headings. Maybe it's just because I have a weak stomach for that sort of gore.
Anyways, the Inter-nets is all abuzz with its own Jacobin movement in terms of the United States national team and the removal of coach Bob Bradley light of the 2009 Confederations Cup.
Admittedly, I'm no Robespierre, though I've been on record as against the Bradley hiring from the get-go. My reasons at the time -- it was an uninspired hire in light of the way the Bruce Arena era ended. Bradley was a competent coach, but his Princetonian, academia style wasn't going to help nudge the U.S. program forward. He wasn't going to hurt the team, but he wasn't going to help it advance either.
On top of that, he uninspiring demeanor in interviews and on the sideline makes for an easily infuriating target.
For whatever the reason, I fear that the growing Internet rancor won't force Sunil Gulati or the USSF's hand. It may do the reverse as they show resolve in not wanting to wilt to the pressure. They could even go on their high horse and dismiss all the criticism of Bradley as Internet ranting, anyway.
So, what if in a fantasy world, Bradley was dismissed?
It's not exactly a pretty picture either.
Let's explore it.
To me, there's about three different types of successful national team coaches around the globe.
1. The Figurehead/Strongman. You know the type I'm talking about, usually sporting a sweet 'buffo' style mustache and a lot of chest hair. Think of Fatih Terim with Turkey or even Egypt's Hassan Shehata. Big Phil Scolari probably falls in this category too.
These are guys that inspire their teams, mostly through fear and machismo. At the same time, these coaches bear the bulk of the pressure on their squad themselves, taking that weight off the players.
For this type of coach to be successful, they probably need a good support staff.
2. The former legend. Plenty of countries have gone down this route. Grab a great ex-player, put him in a track suit ... or tailored suit and turn him loose hoping he can catch lightning in a bottle as a player and a coach, too.
Brasil's Dunga and Jurgen Klinsmann at Germany are two recent examples. Same with Marco Van Basten with Holland at last year's Euros.
This only works if you have stars from the past to draw on that the current players will respect, ruling out most U.S. would-be candidates.
3. The tactical mastermind. This is probably the most common variety of national team coach. Unlike a club, you're not game-planning week-to-week, so you have a lot more time to stew and marinate on ideas. Your biggest question here is team selection.
The best example of this coach is obviously Guus Hiddink.
This type of coach can coax strong performances from lesser players, by devising positive game plans to best utilize the players at his disposal.
Success with this type of coach seems quite varied since there are plenty of self-styled geniuses throughout the world.
Saying all this, if the USSF gives Bradley his walking papers, where the are they going to turn?
It's doubtful too many coaches across the globe are salivating to take over the U.S. team. Even with the resources at America's disposal, not to mention plenty of Nike gear, coaching the U.S. isn't all that attractive. It's not like the USSF will break the bank to overwhelm a coach to come here either. (If they did can Bradley, they'd better have an agreement for a replacement immediately.)
For one, as U.S. coach you have to deal with your presumed 'best' players spread out all over the world, coupled with the elephant in the room that is MLS. This is a bigger issue that you might think. It's not like the coach of the U.S. can pull a Fabio Capello and watch half his first XI when Manchester United and Cheslea play a league match.
There's also the disinterested America public, which could be a blessing and a curse since there's not a lot of external pressure on the team. This could appeal to a certain type of coach, who might be draw to the Quixiote appeal of breaking the sport through in America.
Sadly, there aren't too many qualified coaches out there that even have the slightest familiarity of the current U.S. players, anyway. This might be a good thing, perhaps, going forward to 2010 because maybe the U.S. needs the proverbial 'new set of eyes' to look at the team.
One glaring issue that this sort of questioning leads to, is the MLS scenario. For years the league has recycled its coaches, with a couple former players (Jason Kreis, Preki) adding what counts for fresh blood. It's not like the U.S. could dip into its waters to find somebody better than Bradley. The only possible candidates would be Sigi Schmid or Dominic Kinnear.
The bigger problem, where -- if ever -- are any bright young soccer minds going to come from in the U.S., bring some sense of dynamism with them? This extend even down to the grassroots level, where youth coaching in America remains spotty and stagnant.
Some more questions -- has there ever been an American born tactical whiz? Who is going to teach and instill the mentality of U.S. players at a young age that will eventually bear fruit at the senior level?
As many issues as I've had with Bradley going back to 2007, he basically holds onto the job by default. If it were up to me, he'd be out the door even if it meant scrambling to find a replacement. Still, right now the alternatives seem pretty grim, too.
Still, why not make another run at Klinsmann. It's a gamble, sure, but at least it wouldn't be more of the same.
As a would-be history buff, the French so-called 'Reign of Terror' is fairly fascinating. My modern mind can't comprehend how the peasant rabble would get so excited a guillotine be-headings. Maybe it's just because I have a weak stomach for that sort of gore.
Anyways, the Inter-nets is all abuzz with its own Jacobin movement in terms of the United States national team and the removal of coach Bob Bradley light of the 2009 Confederations Cup.
Admittedly, I'm no Robespierre, though I've been on record as against the Bradley hiring from the get-go. My reasons at the time -- it was an uninspired hire in light of the way the Bruce Arena era ended. Bradley was a competent coach, but his Princetonian, academia style wasn't going to help nudge the U.S. program forward. He wasn't going to hurt the team, but he wasn't going to help it advance either.
On top of that, he uninspiring demeanor in interviews and on the sideline makes for an easily infuriating target.
For whatever the reason, I fear that the growing Internet rancor won't force Sunil Gulati or the USSF's hand. It may do the reverse as they show resolve in not wanting to wilt to the pressure. They could even go on their high horse and dismiss all the criticism of Bradley as Internet ranting, anyway.
So, what if in a fantasy world, Bradley was dismissed?
It's not exactly a pretty picture either.
Let's explore it.
To me, there's about three different types of successful national team coaches around the globe.
1. The Figurehead/Strongman. You know the type I'm talking about, usually sporting a sweet 'buffo' style mustache and a lot of chest hair. Think of Fatih Terim with Turkey or even Egypt's Hassan Shehata. Big Phil Scolari probably falls in this category too.
These are guys that inspire their teams, mostly through fear and machismo. At the same time, these coaches bear the bulk of the pressure on their squad themselves, taking that weight off the players.
For this type of coach to be successful, they probably need a good support staff.
2. The former legend. Plenty of countries have gone down this route. Grab a great ex-player, put him in a track suit ... or tailored suit and turn him loose hoping he can catch lightning in a bottle as a player and a coach, too.
Brasil's Dunga and Jurgen Klinsmann at Germany are two recent examples. Same with Marco Van Basten with Holland at last year's Euros.
This only works if you have stars from the past to draw on that the current players will respect, ruling out most U.S. would-be candidates.
3. The tactical mastermind. This is probably the most common variety of national team coach. Unlike a club, you're not game-planning week-to-week, so you have a lot more time to stew and marinate on ideas. Your biggest question here is team selection.
The best example of this coach is obviously Guus Hiddink.
This type of coach can coax strong performances from lesser players, by devising positive game plans to best utilize the players at his disposal.
Success with this type of coach seems quite varied since there are plenty of self-styled geniuses throughout the world.
Saying all this, if the USSF gives Bradley his walking papers, where the are they going to turn?
It's doubtful too many coaches across the globe are salivating to take over the U.S. team. Even with the resources at America's disposal, not to mention plenty of Nike gear, coaching the U.S. isn't all that attractive. It's not like the USSF will break the bank to overwhelm a coach to come here either. (If they did can Bradley, they'd better have an agreement for a replacement immediately.)
For one, as U.S. coach you have to deal with your presumed 'best' players spread out all over the world, coupled with the elephant in the room that is MLS. This is a bigger issue that you might think. It's not like the coach of the U.S. can pull a Fabio Capello and watch half his first XI when Manchester United and Cheslea play a league match.
There's also the disinterested America public, which could be a blessing and a curse since there's not a lot of external pressure on the team. This could appeal to a certain type of coach, who might be draw to the Quixiote appeal of breaking the sport through in America.
Sadly, there aren't too many qualified coaches out there that even have the slightest familiarity of the current U.S. players, anyway. This might be a good thing, perhaps, going forward to 2010 because maybe the U.S. needs the proverbial 'new set of eyes' to look at the team.
One glaring issue that this sort of questioning leads to, is the MLS scenario. For years the league has recycled its coaches, with a couple former players (Jason Kreis, Preki) adding what counts for fresh blood. It's not like the U.S. could dip into its waters to find somebody better than Bradley. The only possible candidates would be Sigi Schmid or Dominic Kinnear.
The bigger problem, where -- if ever -- are any bright young soccer minds going to come from in the U.S., bring some sense of dynamism with them? This extend even down to the grassroots level, where youth coaching in America remains spotty and stagnant.
Some more questions -- has there ever been an American born tactical whiz? Who is going to teach and instill the mentality of U.S. players at a young age that will eventually bear fruit at the senior level?
As many issues as I've had with Bradley going back to 2007, he basically holds onto the job by default. If it were up to me, he'd be out the door even if it meant scrambling to find a replacement. Still, right now the alternatives seem pretty grim, too.
Still, why not make another run at Klinsmann. It's a gamble, sure, but at least it wouldn't be more of the same.
Labels: bob bradley, Soccer, sunil gulati, USMNT, ussf
Sorry, simply couldn't resist the lay-up of a Bangles joke, what with the U.S. playing Egypt on Sunday in the Confederations Cup. It's an excuse, anyway, to mention that Susanna Hoffs is still spry after all these years.
That said, 80s novelty pop songs probably don't have too much to do with the upcoming match, especially with the rancor flowing from the 3-1 Italian Job and 3-0 Brazilian battering in the previous two Group B matches.
Treading lightly through the chum filled waters of the Inter-nets, there's definitely a growing distaste among U.S. fans, with even the generally milquetoast Soccer America taking some shots at the Bob Bradley helmed squad. My old pals at the Associated Press are chiming in, too, with self-styled soccer expert Nancy Armour tracking down some familiar names.
First, let's all agree that getting results against Italy and Brasil, even in the most perfect scenarios would have been a yeoman's task. I'd wager all U.S. fans realize there is a gulf in talent, soup-to-nuts with both sides.
What most U.S. fans wanted to see, at least, when the draw came out was simply to see how well the U.S. stacked up with these teams. Has there been any progress? Could, at a neutral site, the U.S. for once stand toe-to-toe with a world elite and give a good account of itself?
We weren't searching for the "moral victory", but simply for the team to show something.
After 180 minutes, we have an answer.
There are certainly ways, if you're inclined, to mitigate the results. Yet that turd in that line of thinking's punch bowl will be staring across the field in Rustenberg -- Egypt.
If you've been reading this site for a while, you know by now that I've been on the Pharaohs bandwagon since last February's African Cup of Nations. Egypt is a good team, emphasis on the word team.
Coming into the Confederations Cup, the two most well-known Egpytian players -- Mido and Amr Zaky -- weren't even on the roster. Instead you've got 19 of the 23 Egyptian players plying their trade in the domestic league, which I couldn't begin to quantify how strong or weak it might be comparatively.
Yet with a dearth of European household names, the Pharaohs took Brazil to the brink and held on to beat Italy.
That's the real burn, so far of the Confederations Cup, there's even a gap between the U.S. and Egypt. The U.S. is still a team, that when the 2010 World Cup draw is pulled, that the world powers will be happy to see in their pot.
Two thirds of the way through the competition there's about three truths we've learned about the U.S.
1. The U.S. is predictable. There's been a lot of talk about the 2002 World Cup quarterfinal run and some revisionist history. One thing that can't be disputed is that in the first game Bruce Arena came up with a game plan and totally took Portugal by surprise.
What's changed now is we don't have players, or at least unknown worldwide commodities like DaMarcus Beasley and Landon Donovan were in 2002, playing in MLS. Right now is there a breakout, young American star in MLS? Well, Jozy Altidore and Freddy Adu were on their way, possibly, until being sold off to European clubs and promptly riding the bench at Villareal/Xerez and Monaco.
Of the MLS players on Bradley's current roster, is there anyone to build around or use as a secret weapon? Sacha Kljestan answered his possibility with a ridicioulsy rash challenge and red card.
Granted, I've done a bad job taking MLS into account this season, but is there anyone out there that could get a shot in the Gold Cup and possibly breakout by next June? I'm going to throw out some names: Dax McCarty, Brek Shea, Stuart Holden, Sean Franklin, Eddie Gaven, Arturo Alvarez, Robbie Rogers, etc.
Anyway, the lure or Europe for young Americans is clearly hurting the depth/pipeline from the league to the National Team. And with most of these players going to isolated outposts and fighting for fringe playing time, it doesn't exactly help the national team, where the supposed "core" is fraying game-by-game.
But getting back to the point here. If you're an opposing coach, the U.S. must be so easy to game plan against.
Here'd be my grease board bullet points:
* Strong, physical defense, but will make mistakes.
* Weak outside players.
* Landon Donovan is dangerous making runs at players, keep an eye on him.
* If they play with a lone forward, he will not turn at goal, instead opting to hold up for others to join attack.
* Can score on set pieces, if delivery is quality.
That's not too hard to deal with. Hell, we've seen CONCACAF teams taken the U.S. to task, not just Brasil and Italy.
2. The discipline problems have to stop. Time to end the chorus of "we only had 10 men."
It's one thing to be a crunching midfield enforcer. It's another to go flying around with awful slide tackles.
Maybe Schalke's Jeremaine Jones or the return of Maurice Edu from injury ameliorates this problem, or maybe it doesn't.
So long as Michael Bradley is a first choice center midfielder, his running mate must have discipline, because the younger Bradley is a red card waiting to happen each match.
At this point, a red card by anyone against Egypt, aside from an inadvertent handball in the box is a real reason to call for Bradley's head, because this can be corrected.
3. The U.S. is media savvy. If there's one area the U.S. Fed excels at, it's media coaching.
For two straight games the U.S. players and coaches were able to spin questions away from the losses and to the idea of playing down a man. Or they can say they hit the post ... even if it was 3-0 at that point.
This is facilitated, because I'm not sure if any U.S. media outlet actually sent a reporter or staff down to South Africa for this event. Therefore there aren't too many tough questions mixed in.
Every other national team in the world gets fan pressure or media pressure, so the U.S. can't shell up or whine when the hard questions are posed.
Other stuff
* Now that this game technically still means something let's pray Bradley the Elder doesn't go conservative.
* The U.S. needs at least three goals to have any semblance of a chance to advance. I don't see Egypt conceding three penalties, so where are the goals going to come from? If Bradley doesn't drill into each player "TAKE YOUR CHANCES", then I'm at even more of a loss.
* Not to say I told you so, but how long have I been wondering if Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey could play effectively in the same lineup? (If you're an optimist, all Dempsey needs is a rest after the grueling season with Fulham. Yeah, that's the ticket.)
* Would a win vs. the Pharaohs, even without advancement, put a positive spin on the tournament? Or would we see through the veiled "we dug down" and "we showed heart" speeches that would likely follow?
* Is there even a player on the roster who has the guts to challenge the team to actually show some guts vs. Egypt. Jay DeMerit is a captain at Watford, but a fringe player here. His spot is tenuous, as he's not part of the favorite Bradley clique, so all I guess he can do is lead by example on the field.
* Speaking of DeMerit's competent showing this week. Will it ever lead to Bradley at least considering Carlos Bocanegra as an option at left back? Would a Spector-Onyewu-DeMerit-Bocanegra back four be such a bad thing?
* To me, a lot of the calls for Bradley's head sound like talk radio callers bemoaning a flat baseball team looking for the manager to throw over the proverbial post game spread as a way to energize the team. Can't see Bradley ever doing anything like this, instead staring disappointingly at the players with a hang dog look.
* So let's just finally get this straight. Beasley failing to play for Rangers and coming off an injury is okay, but Freddy Adu getting caught up in the politics at Monaco and playing sparingly means he doesn't see the field, except in practice.
* Please ESPN, if the U.S. lays another egg. Don't bite anyone's tongue. John Harkes, even with his bizarre rehashing of the allegedly halycon days of the 1990s, seems to be getting in that direction. People are upset, don't sugarcoat it. There is no silver lining to going 0-3-0, unless it forces major changes.
Lineup guess
Why, like Sisyphus, do I continue to do this?
GK -- Howard
DEF -- Bornstein -- Onyewu -- DeMerit -- Spector
MID -- Donovan -- Bradley --Jesse MarschClark -- Torres
FOR -- Altidore -- Feilhaber
My tweaks, play Feilhaber straight in the middle next to Bradley, or put him right and swap him with Torres. I've come to the realization Freddy Adu won't play, though I'm waiting to be pleasantly surprised. Start Charlie Davies and see what he's worth and give Altidore a running mate to play off of, instead of isolating all by himself.
I'm truly worried Bradley is too afraid to bench Dempsey or Beasley, too.
You know what I would do in this match. Turn Freddy lose and see if he's got "it."
Final thoughts:
One of the good things about following U.S. soccer, there's always oddly enough plenty to talk about.
In a games like this, the final of a group stage with minimal chance to advance, most teams tend to roll over and mail in the performance.
That's not the American way? Or, like everything else, does the American ethos take on bizarro logic once applied to the beautiful game?
That said, 80s novelty pop songs probably don't have too much to do with the upcoming match, especially with the rancor flowing from the 3-1 Italian Job and 3-0 Brazilian battering in the previous two Group B matches.
Treading lightly through the chum filled waters of the Inter-nets, there's definitely a growing distaste among U.S. fans, with even the generally milquetoast Soccer America taking some shots at the Bob Bradley helmed squad. My old pals at the Associated Press are chiming in, too, with self-styled soccer expert Nancy Armour tracking down some familiar names.
First, let's all agree that getting results against Italy and Brasil, even in the most perfect scenarios would have been a yeoman's task. I'd wager all U.S. fans realize there is a gulf in talent, soup-to-nuts with both sides.
What most U.S. fans wanted to see, at least, when the draw came out was simply to see how well the U.S. stacked up with these teams. Has there been any progress? Could, at a neutral site, the U.S. for once stand toe-to-toe with a world elite and give a good account of itself?
We weren't searching for the "moral victory", but simply for the team to show something.
After 180 minutes, we have an answer.
There are certainly ways, if you're inclined, to mitigate the results. Yet that turd in that line of thinking's punch bowl will be staring across the field in Rustenberg -- Egypt.
If you've been reading this site for a while, you know by now that I've been on the Pharaohs bandwagon since last February's African Cup of Nations. Egypt is a good team, emphasis on the word team.
Coming into the Confederations Cup, the two most well-known Egpytian players -- Mido and Amr Zaky -- weren't even on the roster. Instead you've got 19 of the 23 Egyptian players plying their trade in the domestic league, which I couldn't begin to quantify how strong or weak it might be comparatively.
Yet with a dearth of European household names, the Pharaohs took Brazil to the brink and held on to beat Italy.
That's the real burn, so far of the Confederations Cup, there's even a gap between the U.S. and Egypt. The U.S. is still a team, that when the 2010 World Cup draw is pulled, that the world powers will be happy to see in their pot.
Two thirds of the way through the competition there's about three truths we've learned about the U.S.
1. The U.S. is predictable. There's been a lot of talk about the 2002 World Cup quarterfinal run and some revisionist history. One thing that can't be disputed is that in the first game Bruce Arena came up with a game plan and totally took Portugal by surprise.
What's changed now is we don't have players, or at least unknown worldwide commodities like DaMarcus Beasley and Landon Donovan were in 2002, playing in MLS. Right now is there a breakout, young American star in MLS? Well, Jozy Altidore and Freddy Adu were on their way, possibly, until being sold off to European clubs and promptly riding the bench at Villareal/Xerez and Monaco.
Of the MLS players on Bradley's current roster, is there anyone to build around or use as a secret weapon? Sacha Kljestan answered his possibility with a ridicioulsy rash challenge and red card.
Granted, I've done a bad job taking MLS into account this season, but is there anyone out there that could get a shot in the Gold Cup and possibly breakout by next June? I'm going to throw out some names: Dax McCarty, Brek Shea, Stuart Holden, Sean Franklin, Eddie Gaven, Arturo Alvarez, Robbie Rogers, etc.
Anyway, the lure or Europe for young Americans is clearly hurting the depth/pipeline from the league to the National Team. And with most of these players going to isolated outposts and fighting for fringe playing time, it doesn't exactly help the national team, where the supposed "core" is fraying game-by-game.
But getting back to the point here. If you're an opposing coach, the U.S. must be so easy to game plan against.
Here'd be my grease board bullet points:
* Strong, physical defense, but will make mistakes.
* Weak outside players.
* Landon Donovan is dangerous making runs at players, keep an eye on him.
* If they play with a lone forward, he will not turn at goal, instead opting to hold up for others to join attack.
* Can score on set pieces, if delivery is quality.
That's not too hard to deal with. Hell, we've seen CONCACAF teams taken the U.S. to task, not just Brasil and Italy.
2. The discipline problems have to stop. Time to end the chorus of "we only had 10 men."
It's one thing to be a crunching midfield enforcer. It's another to go flying around with awful slide tackles.
Maybe Schalke's Jeremaine Jones or the return of Maurice Edu from injury ameliorates this problem, or maybe it doesn't.
So long as Michael Bradley is a first choice center midfielder, his running mate must have discipline, because the younger Bradley is a red card waiting to happen each match.
At this point, a red card by anyone against Egypt, aside from an inadvertent handball in the box is a real reason to call for Bradley's head, because this can be corrected.
3. The U.S. is media savvy. If there's one area the U.S. Fed excels at, it's media coaching.
For two straight games the U.S. players and coaches were able to spin questions away from the losses and to the idea of playing down a man. Or they can say they hit the post ... even if it was 3-0 at that point.
This is facilitated, because I'm not sure if any U.S. media outlet actually sent a reporter or staff down to South Africa for this event. Therefore there aren't too many tough questions mixed in.
Every other national team in the world gets fan pressure or media pressure, so the U.S. can't shell up or whine when the hard questions are posed.
Other stuff
* Now that this game technically still means something let's pray Bradley the Elder doesn't go conservative.
* The U.S. needs at least three goals to have any semblance of a chance to advance. I don't see Egypt conceding three penalties, so where are the goals going to come from? If Bradley doesn't drill into each player "TAKE YOUR CHANCES", then I'm at even more of a loss.
* Not to say I told you so, but how long have I been wondering if Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey could play effectively in the same lineup? (If you're an optimist, all Dempsey needs is a rest after the grueling season with Fulham. Yeah, that's the ticket.)
* Would a win vs. the Pharaohs, even without advancement, put a positive spin on the tournament? Or would we see through the veiled "we dug down" and "we showed heart" speeches that would likely follow?
* Is there even a player on the roster who has the guts to challenge the team to actually show some guts vs. Egypt. Jay DeMerit is a captain at Watford, but a fringe player here. His spot is tenuous, as he's not part of the favorite Bradley clique, so all I guess he can do is lead by example on the field.
* Speaking of DeMerit's competent showing this week. Will it ever lead to Bradley at least considering Carlos Bocanegra as an option at left back? Would a Spector-Onyewu-DeMerit-Bocanegra back four be such a bad thing?
* To me, a lot of the calls for Bradley's head sound like talk radio callers bemoaning a flat baseball team looking for the manager to throw over the proverbial post game spread as a way to energize the team. Can't see Bradley ever doing anything like this, instead staring disappointingly at the players with a hang dog look.
* So let's just finally get this straight. Beasley failing to play for Rangers and coming off an injury is okay, but Freddy Adu getting caught up in the politics at Monaco and playing sparingly means he doesn't see the field, except in practice.
* Please ESPN, if the U.S. lays another egg. Don't bite anyone's tongue. John Harkes, even with his bizarre rehashing of the allegedly halycon days of the 1990s, seems to be getting in that direction. People are upset, don't sugarcoat it. There is no silver lining to going 0-3-0, unless it forces major changes.
Lineup guess
Why, like Sisyphus, do I continue to do this?
GK -- Howard
DEF -- Bornstein -- Onyewu -- DeMerit -- Spector
MID -- Donovan -- Bradley --
FOR -- Altidore -- Feilhaber
My tweaks, play Feilhaber straight in the middle next to Bradley, or put him right and swap him with Torres. I've come to the realization Freddy Adu won't play, though I'm waiting to be pleasantly surprised. Start Charlie Davies and see what he's worth and give Altidore a running mate to play off of, instead of isolating all by himself.
I'm truly worried Bradley is too afraid to bench Dempsey or Beasley, too.
You know what I would do in this match. Turn Freddy lose and see if he's got "it."
Final thoughts:
One of the good things about following U.S. soccer, there's always oddly enough plenty to talk about.
In a games like this, the final of a group stage with minimal chance to advance, most teams tend to roll over and mail in the performance.
That's not the American way? Or, like everything else, does the American ethos take on bizarro logic once applied to the beautiful game?
Labels: bob bradley, confederations cup, Soccer, USMNT
"This is awful. I can't wait for this to be over. ... I'm rooting for Brazil to score a goal just to see some action." -- My friend Nick, in the wheezing, gasping moments of the U.S's 3-0 loss to Brazil Thursday.
Well...what more is there really to say?
If you watched that shit show play out, you don't need me to rehash how disheartening the limp U.S. performance really was.
Instead, let's just focus on the reactions. Notice, on the official US Soccer site, the headline reads "U.S. Falls to Five-Time Champs" and that "the U.S. Men’s National Team had to play a man down against one of the best teams in the world and eventually fell ..."
No amount of spin can take the stink of this turd.
Even before the quick Felip Melo header, the U.S. seemed to have capitulated to the better Braslians, who chumpatized the Americans without really trying too hard.
And the lack of a fight back, or any sense of attacking spirit is quite disappointing in light of how Egypt fought back from 3-1 in the second half on Monday.
Personally, I don't want to fuel any www.firebobbradley.com sentiments, but obviously he had no idea how to either motivate the American players or come up with some tactics that work. I'd really like to give him some truth serum and get his honest thoughts of what he was thinking before this one. His cerebral, detached approach clearly is not inspiring the team, especially since most of them feel their spot is secure for next year's World Cup.
If he goes back the Clint Dempsey/DaMarcus Beasley well again on Sunday, I just might turn the game off. (Beasley, really, REALLY? How do you lose it so quick.)
For all the times we've seen those monotone interviews by U.S. players about what an honor it is to play for your country, well, that didn't show up too much today.
Of course, trying Freddy Adu or Jose Torres against the Pharaohs on Sunday only opens the door for second-guessing, and the U.S. would rather not operate in that realm. Let's just play it close to the vest, give the ol' college try and be play the 'happy to be there' card.
Hey then again, we hit the post twice! It was that close. (End sarcasm.)
One thing the U.S. can't lean on is the red card to Sacha Kljestan in the second half. The game was 2-0 and decided at that point.
The second straight game a U.S. player is shown a red card isn't a conspiracy by the refs, it's an alarming trend. Shouldn't this be something easy to correct? Tell the guys to take a chill and avoid lunging, rash challenges.
Really, I'm just fed up.
There's no shame in losing to Brazil and Italy. They have much better players than the U.S. Yet the uninspiring way these losses played out really stinks. Granted, there's a gulf in talent, but there is a way to make up for a lack of skill with tactics? Even Iraq looked like a more organized, cohesive team Wednesday vs. Spain than the U.S. did.
Landon Donovan, was positive again. Jay DeMerit seemed to hustle in the back, even if he's not that skilled. Jonathon Spector, even if he was run over by Felipe Melo on the header, played decently.
I wish there was a better way to put it, but why? What is going to change come 2010? There isn't a magic pill that will save everything and turn the current U.S. team into Brazil 1970.
It's just maddening that both John Harkes and Alexi Lalas said there were actually "positives" from the U.S. display in Pretoria. Really, I'm almost at a lack of words.
Will this loss and a possibly last-place finish at the Confederations Cup put any pressure on Bradley the Elder? Will we see a mild lineup shakeup? (Especially since we're only ahead of New Zealand on goal-difference. Didn't the U.S. look eerily similar to the All White?)
Unless the fan uproar is too much -- up to and including protests at the Gold Cup matches -- nobody in Chicago is going to care to make a change, instead they'll bask in the warm glow of being the biggest fish in a tepid pond and lean back on World Cup qualification. It's politics, too.
Maybe we just need to accept what the U.S. team is and all its liabilities and shortcomings. Perhaps we'll get a lucky draw in 2010 or capture lightning in a bottle.
Until then it's 2014 ... or 2018 ... or 2022 or bust!
** UPDATE -- The U.S. is still alive ... if they beat Egypt 5-0. Mission accomplished!
(If you need a laugh, please go here.)
** Apologies for more more typos that usual in this post. I was almost to disgusted to reread my crude sentiments until many hours later.
Well...what more is there really to say?
If you watched that shit show play out, you don't need me to rehash how disheartening the limp U.S. performance really was.
Instead, let's just focus on the reactions. Notice, on the official US Soccer site, the headline reads "U.S. Falls to Five-Time Champs" and that "the U.S. Men’s National Team had to play a man down against one of the best teams in the world and eventually fell ..."
No amount of spin can take the stink of this turd.
Even before the quick Felip Melo header, the U.S. seemed to have capitulated to the better Braslians, who chumpatized the Americans without really trying too hard.
And the lack of a fight back, or any sense of attacking spirit is quite disappointing in light of how Egypt fought back from 3-1 in the second half on Monday.
Personally, I don't want to fuel any www.firebobbradley.com sentiments, but obviously he had no idea how to either motivate the American players or come up with some tactics that work. I'd really like to give him some truth serum and get his honest thoughts of what he was thinking before this one. His cerebral, detached approach clearly is not inspiring the team, especially since most of them feel their spot is secure for next year's World Cup.
If he goes back the Clint Dempsey/DaMarcus Beasley well again on Sunday, I just might turn the game off. (Beasley, really, REALLY? How do you lose it so quick.)
For all the times we've seen those monotone interviews by U.S. players about what an honor it is to play for your country, well, that didn't show up too much today.
Of course, trying Freddy Adu or Jose Torres against the Pharaohs on Sunday only opens the door for second-guessing, and the U.S. would rather not operate in that realm. Let's just play it close to the vest, give the ol' college try and be play the 'happy to be there' card.
Hey then again, we hit the post twice! It was that close. (End sarcasm.)
One thing the U.S. can't lean on is the red card to Sacha Kljestan in the second half. The game was 2-0 and decided at that point.
The second straight game a U.S. player is shown a red card isn't a conspiracy by the refs, it's an alarming trend. Shouldn't this be something easy to correct? Tell the guys to take a chill and avoid lunging, rash challenges.
Really, I'm just fed up.
There's no shame in losing to Brazil and Italy. They have much better players than the U.S. Yet the uninspiring way these losses played out really stinks. Granted, there's a gulf in talent, but there is a way to make up for a lack of skill with tactics? Even Iraq looked like a more organized, cohesive team Wednesday vs. Spain than the U.S. did.
Landon Donovan, was positive again. Jay DeMerit seemed to hustle in the back, even if he's not that skilled. Jonathon Spector, even if he was run over by Felipe Melo on the header, played decently.
I wish there was a better way to put it, but why? What is going to change come 2010? There isn't a magic pill that will save everything and turn the current U.S. team into Brazil 1970.
It's just maddening that both John Harkes and Alexi Lalas said there were actually "positives" from the U.S. display in Pretoria. Really, I'm almost at a lack of words.
Will this loss and a possibly last-place finish at the Confederations Cup put any pressure on Bradley the Elder? Will we see a mild lineup shakeup? (Especially since we're only ahead of New Zealand on goal-difference. Didn't the U.S. look eerily similar to the All White?)
Unless the fan uproar is too much -- up to and including protests at the Gold Cup matches -- nobody in Chicago is going to care to make a change, instead they'll bask in the warm glow of being the biggest fish in a tepid pond and lean back on World Cup qualification. It's politics, too.
Maybe we just need to accept what the U.S. team is and all its liabilities and shortcomings. Perhaps we'll get a lucky draw in 2010 or capture lightning in a bottle.
Until then it's 2014 ... or 2018 ... or 2022 or bust!
** UPDATE -- The U.S. is still alive ... if they beat Egypt 5-0. Mission accomplished!
(If you need a laugh, please go here.)
** Apologies for more more typos that usual in this post. I was almost to disgusted to reread my crude sentiments until many hours later.
Labels: bob bradley, Brasil, confederations cup, Freddy Adu, Landon Donovan, Soccer, USMNT
With less than 24 hours before the U.S. kicks off against Brasil in the Confederations Cup, let's maybe try an unconventional look. There are so many different emotions and ideas floating around, it's important to realize this is just one game of many. Somehow finding a way to upset Kaka & Co. doesn't all of a sudden mean the U.S. is a favorite at the 2010 World Cup and losing doesn't mean we're back to square one.
So, I'm turning to a couple great minds as a jumping off point. Hope it works.
"Why bother. It's gonna hurt me. It's gonna kill when you desert me." -- Weezer, 'Why Bother'.
That might be the majority mindset coming off the loss to Italy Monday, or specifically the second half 10-man meltdown.
In a lot of corners of the Inter-tubes, and here, there's a growing sentiment that the U.S., no matter what, isn't that good. We're South Korea or Australia.
We're the chaff, not the wheat.
So saying that, no matter what lineup Bob Bradley tosses out against Brasil, it's not going to matter. The U.S. will qualify for the next World Cup, and barring a series of fortuitous bounces like what happened in 2002, it'll be three and out and an eye toward 2014 in Brasil.
It's a realistic, albeit overtly negative, tone.
Based on the last string of results and performances from the U.S., it's justifiable, too.
"The Giants winning the Super Bowl is a nine ... The Mets blowing the division is a 10." -- Mike Francesa from a segment on a Bob Costas HBO special last year regarding sports talk radio.
I'm going to pull a mea culpa here.
The fact Giuseppe Rossi scored two of the three Italy goals probably made the loss on Monday sting more than it should have.
Inside of the loss, we're glossing over a pretty competent first half by the U.S., particularly Landon Donovan. Throw in two fluffed chances inside the box, and it was a different game.
So to me, the loss to Italy shouldn't have been an out-and-out referendum on all that ails the U.S. and the USSF. It turned out to be a perfect storm of events and thusly a gilded chance to bitch and complain about three years worth of frustration.
For a change, the U.S. did have some defensible excuses, namely the Ricardo Clark sending off. Still, red cards are part of the game and when you emphasize crunching tackles over skilled passing in the midfield, it's what you get.
If you want to get into it, the stinkbomb vs. Costa Rica and most of the Honduras game were probably more concerning than the Italy game, yet those opponents didn't have a star substitute who was born in New Jersey making the U.S. look stupid.
"When you aint got nothing, you got noting to lose." -- Bob Dylan, 'Like a Rolling Stone."
This brings it back home to Thursday's match against Brasil, which now really doesn't mean a ton for the Confederations Cup per say, but could have a bigger impact for the coming year that we might think.
In simplest terms, there's no discernible way the U.S. has an advantage in this match. The U.S. is expected to show up, put the kits on and lose. The U.S. needs a point to have any chance to advance and going for it the 0-0 draw rout is a loser mentality and strategy doomed to fail.
Getting more conservative or more defensive isn't the way to go, especially with Clark suspended.
There's another course of thought, the U.S. really could go the anti-soccer, thug rout to compensate for their lack of skill and try to go chippy against the better opponents. Hell, just watch some clips of Guatemala. Yet, just as the U.S. players won't dive or try to sell a foul call, playing this way is against our American sporting DNA. It might have flown in 1994 with Bora, but not any more. Plus, I doubt the U.S. has the guts and resolve to pull this kind of game off, they don't have anyone cagey or grimy enough to do it, we're too nice to agitate.
Saying that, why not go toe-to-toe with Brasil on Thursday?
What's the negative? Why not put your eleven best players out there, or at least the best attackers and try to take it to Brasil, who played Gilberto Silva Monday against Egypt and have Kleberson rostered, for Pete's sake.
Going with a milquetoast 4-4-2 and waiting for the shoe to drop doesn't make sense. Suppose the U.S. plays it close to the vest, I'd like Brasil's chances to conjure something out of nothing when they have a Kaka or a Robinho or a Maicon on the roster compared to who the U.S. has playing.
Why not drop the scared, amateur routine and show the world we can actually play football, the one without pads? The time to be awed by the Brasil's of the world is over. Once you step on the field that world rankings, the massive club contracts and everything else don't count -- results do.
You saw Egypt on Monday. Did they get scared and roll over down 3-1?
Show the fans you're not afraid any more. Come out and play.
Other stuff
* I made it this far without mentioning a certain Ghana-born, one-time teenage hype machine. If that certain fellow doesn't get some burn in this match, a match where touch, passing and vision have value, why is he even on the roster?
* If there's a big worry here, it's again the outside of defense. Jonathon Spector looked competent vs. Italy, Jonathon Bornstein ... not so much. With the speed and skill of the Brasil outside players, there could be massive chunks of real estate on the U.S. backline because as we know Oguchi Onyewu and Carlos Bocanegra (if healthy) don't cover that much ground.
* Clint Dempsey and DaMarcus Beasley, this is a referendum game for you guys. Show why and U.S. fan should have faith in you two going forward.
* Donovan liked spry vs. Italy, but the fact that eight of his last 10 international goals have come from the penalty spot is scary. In fact, where and when is the U.S. going to be able to score from the run of play?
Lineup guess:
Here's my idea, mainly a 4-4-2, or a 4-4-1-1
GK -- Howard
DEF -- Spector -- Onyewu -- Bocanegra/DeMerit -- Bornstein
MID -- Donovan -- Torres -- Bradley -- Dempsey (who else?)
SS -- Adu (in the hole)
FOR -- Altidore
Sadly, I'd guess Bradley selects Connor Casey over Freddy.
ESPN Zoned
* At this point, the mixed messages toward soccer from ESPN just make me smile.
Thanks to reader Erik C. Kriebel for sending me this audio link from Chris McKendry.
Hey, Chris, get down from your high horse and instead of chastising us "Soccer Snobs" for using the term stoppage time, why not get your fellow anchors to actually pronounce players names correctly when reading the highlights. Or actually getting through a soccer highlights without a backhanded or snide comment? Or hell, even show MLS highlights.
So what is it ESPN, do you want to take soccer seriously or not? Please God, let Setanta come up with the money so the WWL doesn't snare the Premier League rights. Please.
But hey, ESPN is giving Nelson Mandela an ESPY, so at least that deserves a boo-yah!
(Live blog/chat at AOL, so stop by.)
So, I'm turning to a couple great minds as a jumping off point. Hope it works.
"Why bother. It's gonna hurt me. It's gonna kill when you desert me." -- Weezer, 'Why Bother'.
That might be the majority mindset coming off the loss to Italy Monday, or specifically the second half 10-man meltdown.
In a lot of corners of the Inter-tubes, and here, there's a growing sentiment that the U.S., no matter what, isn't that good. We're South Korea or Australia.
We're the chaff, not the wheat.
So saying that, no matter what lineup Bob Bradley tosses out against Brasil, it's not going to matter. The U.S. will qualify for the next World Cup, and barring a series of fortuitous bounces like what happened in 2002, it'll be three and out and an eye toward 2014 in Brasil.
It's a realistic, albeit overtly negative, tone.
Based on the last string of results and performances from the U.S., it's justifiable, too.
"The Giants winning the Super Bowl is a nine ... The Mets blowing the division is a 10." -- Mike Francesa from a segment on a Bob Costas HBO special last year regarding sports talk radio.
I'm going to pull a mea culpa here.
The fact Giuseppe Rossi scored two of the three Italy goals probably made the loss on Monday sting more than it should have.
Inside of the loss, we're glossing over a pretty competent first half by the U.S., particularly Landon Donovan. Throw in two fluffed chances inside the box, and it was a different game.
So to me, the loss to Italy shouldn't have been an out-and-out referendum on all that ails the U.S. and the USSF. It turned out to be a perfect storm of events and thusly a gilded chance to bitch and complain about three years worth of frustration.
For a change, the U.S. did have some defensible excuses, namely the Ricardo Clark sending off. Still, red cards are part of the game and when you emphasize crunching tackles over skilled passing in the midfield, it's what you get.
If you want to get into it, the stinkbomb vs. Costa Rica and most of the Honduras game were probably more concerning than the Italy game, yet those opponents didn't have a star substitute who was born in New Jersey making the U.S. look stupid.
"When you aint got nothing, you got noting to lose." -- Bob Dylan, 'Like a Rolling Stone."
This brings it back home to Thursday's match against Brasil, which now really doesn't mean a ton for the Confederations Cup per say, but could have a bigger impact for the coming year that we might think.
In simplest terms, there's no discernible way the U.S. has an advantage in this match. The U.S. is expected to show up, put the kits on and lose. The U.S. needs a point to have any chance to advance and going for it the 0-0 draw rout is a loser mentality and strategy doomed to fail.
Getting more conservative or more defensive isn't the way to go, especially with Clark suspended.
There's another course of thought, the U.S. really could go the anti-soccer, thug rout to compensate for their lack of skill and try to go chippy against the better opponents. Hell, just watch some clips of Guatemala. Yet, just as the U.S. players won't dive or try to sell a foul call, playing this way is against our American sporting DNA. It might have flown in 1994 with Bora, but not any more. Plus, I doubt the U.S. has the guts and resolve to pull this kind of game off, they don't have anyone cagey or grimy enough to do it, we're too nice to agitate.
Saying that, why not go toe-to-toe with Brasil on Thursday?
What's the negative? Why not put your eleven best players out there, or at least the best attackers and try to take it to Brasil, who played Gilberto Silva Monday against Egypt and have Kleberson rostered, for Pete's sake.
Going with a milquetoast 4-4-2 and waiting for the shoe to drop doesn't make sense. Suppose the U.S. plays it close to the vest, I'd like Brasil's chances to conjure something out of nothing when they have a Kaka or a Robinho or a Maicon on the roster compared to who the U.S. has playing.
Why not drop the scared, amateur routine and show the world we can actually play football, the one without pads? The time to be awed by the Brasil's of the world is over. Once you step on the field that world rankings, the massive club contracts and everything else don't count -- results do.
You saw Egypt on Monday. Did they get scared and roll over down 3-1?
Show the fans you're not afraid any more. Come out and play.
Other stuff
* I made it this far without mentioning a certain Ghana-born, one-time teenage hype machine. If that certain fellow doesn't get some burn in this match, a match where touch, passing and vision have value, why is he even on the roster?
* If there's a big worry here, it's again the outside of defense. Jonathon Spector looked competent vs. Italy, Jonathon Bornstein ... not so much. With the speed and skill of the Brasil outside players, there could be massive chunks of real estate on the U.S. backline because as we know Oguchi Onyewu and Carlos Bocanegra (if healthy) don't cover that much ground.
* Clint Dempsey and DaMarcus Beasley, this is a referendum game for you guys. Show why and U.S. fan should have faith in you two going forward.
* Donovan liked spry vs. Italy, but the fact that eight of his last 10 international goals have come from the penalty spot is scary. In fact, where and when is the U.S. going to be able to score from the run of play?
Lineup guess:
Here's my idea, mainly a 4-4-2, or a 4-4-1-1
GK -- Howard
DEF -- Spector -- Onyewu -- Bocanegra/DeMerit -- Bornstein
MID -- Donovan -- Torres -- Bradley -- Dempsey (who else?)
SS -- Adu (in the hole)
FOR -- Altidore
Sadly, I'd guess Bradley selects Connor Casey over Freddy.
ESPN Zoned
* At this point, the mixed messages toward soccer from ESPN just make me smile.
Thanks to reader Erik C. Kriebel for sending me this audio link from Chris McKendry.
Hey, Chris, get down from your high horse and instead of chastising us "Soccer Snobs" for using the term stoppage time, why not get your fellow anchors to actually pronounce players names correctly when reading the highlights. Or actually getting through a soccer highlights without a backhanded or snide comment? Or hell, even show MLS highlights.
So what is it ESPN, do you want to take soccer seriously or not? Please God, let Setanta come up with the money so the WWL doesn't snare the Premier League rights. Please.
But hey, ESPN is giving Nelson Mandela an ESPY, so at least that deserves a boo-yah!
(Live blog/chat at AOL, so stop by.)
Labels: bob bradley, Brasil, Freddy Adu, Landon Donovan, Soccer, USMNT
