Welcome to the first post in this here slice of the Inter-nets of 2010 yapping about the U.S. National Team. This post was going to be titled, "State by State" but that was already taken by a 1990s sketch comedy troupe, which had a show on MTV that took forever to release its DVD box set and when it did, it couldn't get all the music cleared.
Before digging into the D & D boys, Bradley the Elder (and Younger) and the rest of the wacky old Gulati Gang, an aside, which I half-promise will make sense when it's over. Maybe.
* * *
One of the weird pet peeves I've always had about sports media is the reliance on the past. Sure, the past is a pretty good indicator in certain areas. When a guy is batting over .500 against a certain pitcher, yeah, it means he owns him. Or if a guy like Shane Battier can consistently hold Kobe Bryant to under his average, lightbulb! it might mean something.
On the other hand, should we care what the lifetime record the Cincinnati Reds have playing against the Cubs in nearly 100 years of Wrigley Field means? Is Brandon Phillips walking into the batter's box wondering how Ernie Lombardi or Johnny Bench fared in the "Friendly Confines"?
It's sort of like an old algebra equation. If X = A does Y = A? In theory, shouldn't they be independent of each other?
Where this gets tricky is the World Cup, which as we know, only happens every four years.
Should the consistent track records accrued by Das Germans mean something? Or how about the tempermentally inconsistent play of nations like England and the Netherlands? Do African nations -- collectively seeking a World Cup breakthrough -- get a home continent boost even though the African land mass is enormous and disparate?
And what of the U.S.?
If you're a fan of weighting track records, we only really have three World Cups to go by. Throw anything pre-1990 completely out of the equation, though be ready to hear about the famous 1950 match against England in Brazil plenty in the build up to the match in Rustenberg on June 12. (In fact, this proves the theory. The U.S. is 1-0 all time vs. England in the World Cup, which means absolutely next to nothing in actuality. If Frank Lampard is lining up a free kick outside the box on June 12, I severely doubt that the names "Joey Gaetjens" and "Stan Mortensen" are cursing through his mind.)
Does, or should, it mean anything that the U.S. reached the semifinals of the first World Cup in 1930? It's like comparing an old Thomas Edison crafted phonograph that played music recorded on beeswax cylinders to an 80 gig iPod touch. We can probably extend that comparison all the way to the 1990 Cup, too, which is a lot like Sony Walkman again compared against the almighty iPod. It's different animals. Same thing with 1994, where the U.S. made it as hosts. (If there's a comparable from that 1994 Cup team it might be the current South African team hosting the upcoming tournament.)
So all we really have to stand on are three Cups. Two disasters and one an almost still hard to believe success. What we need to examine, or at least learn from these three Cups is what was the pre-tournament gameplan.
Take 1998 in France. Steve Sampson had a plan, at least on paper. Except his ill-fated 3-6-1 formation coupled with jettisoning John Harkes on the eve of the tournament led to a last-place finish. Suffice to say, trying a formation that has never been used or proven successful in a century of the modern game isn't exactly the savviest idea of all time. Call it the "attacking the Russian front during winter" of soccer tactics.
Would the U.S. have finished better than 32nd if Sampson went a more conventional route? Impossible to figure out, but perhaps the embarrassing lose to Iran would have been avoided. Either way, getting past Germany and Yugoslavia in its then-still-united swan song would have been tricky whatever Sampson cooked up. (Fun fact, Yugoslavia featured a then 19-year-old Dejan Stanković, or about 45,000 packs of cigarettes earlier Dejan Stanković.)
So let's look at 2002, where the U.S. made it to the quarterfinals in South Korea before being undone by Ze Germans and Torsten Frings hand. How you want to look at this depends on perspective. It can't be discounted the U.S. got some very fortunate breaks and got through its group with just a 1-1-1 mark. On top of that, they drew Mexico in the knockout round, a team it knew it could beat.
If you want to take it another step further, the U.S. got a one-in-a-lifetime two week performance from John O'Brien, before he faded away to help Axl Rose put the finishing touches on 'Chinese Democracy.'
Yet that does dismiss a little of the pre-tournament planning by Bruce Arena, who most importantly unleashed two players from the then still nascent MLS -- Landon Donovan and DaMarcus Beasley. Arena used players the world didn't know and certainly caught a Portuguese team overflowing with hubris in the tournament opener.
Granted four years later in Germany, using many of the same players that were heroes in Asia led to the U.S. crashing and burning and scoring just two goals -- one by an American in three games. Yes, a miserable draw that included the eventual winners -- Italy -- crushed the U.S. spirits, but it did seem like Arena figured what worked in 2002 would work again in 2006 and got burned by it.
If there was a game plan for 2006, it was probably that the U.S. players have evolved to the point where they could stand toe-to-toe with the world's best. Didn't quite work out. As they say, hindsight is 20/20.
All that leads us to 2010, where the U.S. in theory should be flying high thanks to a manageable draw and recent success in South Africa during last summer's Confederations Cup. You'd think this tournament draw more parallels to the 2002 version, if only since it's not being held in a traditional FIFA hotbed. Logic would dictate, too, that with another four years of seasoning, American players are inching toward a threshold of the world's elite.
The million dollar question for the U.S. and its fans is this, can coach Bob Bradley pull off a Hannibal Smith and draw off a plan that comes together? Or at least gets the U.S. into the knockout rounds?
And what is that game plan?
Before theorizing on that, how would a opposing coaches' cursory scouting report about the U.S. read?
* Landon Donovan is the offensive force.
* Adept on the counter attack.
* Strong physically, especially in the defense.
* Erratic and prone to reckless cautions and red cards.
* In Tim Howard, a first-rate shot-stopper.
* Play up or down to the level of the opponent.
This isn't trying to be mean or critical. We've seen enough of the U.S. to draw these conclusions, so I'm sure the staff of Fabio Capello has done the same. You'd think. He does wear stylish glasses which science has proven makes anyone look about 33 percent more intelligent.
And to that point, using a 2002 strategy of un-earthing a couple undiscovered gems from MLS or guys plying their trade in the far reaches of Scandinavia might not exactly work either. Again, maybe it's the glasses thing, but I'd guess Capello is dispatching a scout of some form to Saturday night's U.S. friendly against Honduras at the Home Depot Center (9 p.m. Eastern, FSC) to watch some of these players and take notes -- hey, free California vacation, right?
This isn't a problem only for the U.S. Aside from the cryptically secretive North Korean team, every team should have a pretty thick scouting report written on at least it's three group-stage opponents. Other than Portsmouth defender Nadir Belhadj and Rangers' Madjid Bougherra most of Algeria's team is about as anonymous as a typical Division-III college basketball team. But I'm sure Bradley and his staff are getting as many looks at the Desert Foxes as possible.
In short, the world isn't as big as it was in 2002. Just think of all the streaming of live games and tube sites available to us fans. Think what coaches have at their disposal.
For all his warts, Bradley the Elder does take on a Princetonian, academic approach to the game. I'd hope he has the soccer acumen to figure out a way to break down and expose the three U.S. group stage opponents, especially since the book written on the U.S. is fairly simple and straight forward.
It's a shame that the two biggest X-factors, two players opposing defense would have to account for at almost all times besides Donovan -- Davies and Dempsey -- have their status in major doubt ahead of June. Dempsey, we are relieved will probably play, but counting on a guy with a knee injury is risky. (The news on Dempsey's knee earlier this week was good, but also very vague.)
And we've seen with those injuries, coupled with the loss of Oguchi Onyewu that for all the strides taken by the U.S., quality depth remains a major issue.
What's left is a strange roster, to say the least, saying nothing of the group of semi-unknowns Bradley called into came earlier this month ahead of Saturday's friendly. Of course, many other second-tier nations at the Cup find similar dilemmas with players split between a fledgling domestic leagues and disparate clubs across Europe. The whole MLS equation seems to raise the hackles more than it should, doesn't it?
In short, the U.S. has one truly dynamic player -- Donovan. A plethora of central midfield crunchers and a decent stable in central defense. At the other end, all the wide positions from midfield to back are inconsistent with a couple round pegs for square holes. See Exhibit A, Bornstein, Jonathan.
This leads to just another question. Should the U.S. simply toss out the best XI it can onto the field and shoehorn some player into positions that they aren't naturally adapted for? OR does Bradley figure out a system and find the best players for it? Remember, this second option could lead to the likes of Conor Casey starting a World Cup match.
With those two options, why not take Plan C and simply scout the hell out of England, Algeria and Slovakia. Use the resources at the disposal of the USSF to amass massive data on the players and tenancies. Figure out a way to boil it down and distill it to the players.
And since we figure your opponents are doing the same thing, run as much misdirection as possible between now and June 12. Or at least development some stuff to unleash at the Cup.
If we want to consider this the fourth real, modern World Cup for the U.S. program it'll probably need to draw on the experiences dating back from 1998. There's a lot to learn from.
The U.S. needs to study up and show that its learned from the sins of the past. The path to success has never been as simple or straightforward. There clearly isn't a magic bullet formula to propel the U.S. from the pretty-good teams to the greats, either.
Again, the two-fold question remains. Can the U.S. cook up a plan that will yield positive results in South Africa? And does the U.S. have the proverbial horses to pull it off?
If you say you know either answer, please call Bradley the Elder as soon as possible. Thanks.
About this actual game:
* Me? I'm not putting too much stock in the result. I'd have to wager that Bradley the Elder wants to try a few things the squad has worked on over the last month, more than going out and grinding a result.
* Revoke my blogging "credentials" if you want, but honestly until about three days ago I'd never heard of Alejandro Bedoya. Don't taze me, bro.
* Four keepers on the roster -- Kevin Hartman, Nick Rimando, Troy Perkins and Zach Thornton. If we're basing it on the last MLS season, Rimando probably gets tabbed to start, no?
* Glad to see that Jimmy Conrad is back in the mix. If he doesn't make it to South Africa, a network ought to hire him for some off-beat commentary. Oh wait, MLS is playing through the Cup.
* If Heath Pearce doesn't get serious minutes in this match, his chances don't look very good going forward.
* If you can figure out the midfield mix for the match, you're clairvoyant. From what I've seen of him in MLS, Brad Davis looks like he can bring something to the table. It'd be good, too, to give Benny Feilhaber the keys to the offense and see if he can carry the team, albeit against a second-string Honduras team.
* This last U.S. camp probably meant the most to Sacha Kljestan. Nobody in the U.S. fold saw their stock drop as rapidly and precipitously as the Chivas USA-man. At least he'll always have the cover of 'FIFA 10.'
* Does anyone out there have faith in Kyle Beckerman, Robbie Rogers and Eddie Gaven. They all show flashes, but do you really want to take them to battle in South Africa?
* Too bad Marcus Tracy had to leave the camp with an ankle injury. I saw him play many times in high school and was the best scholastic athlete I've ever seen.
* Curious to see if Robbie Findley might be able to fill the speedy forward role with Davies on the shelf? And can we judge a player like Jeff Cunningham on a game like Saturday's? Aren't he and Casey two guys that form is the key for?
* Maybe we'll see some nice work from set pieces. Those are the key in international tournaments.
* Nobody other than Bradley the Elder can tell us if he's putting more stock in the previous three weeks of training or the 90 minute match. At this point, I've given up trying to figure out what Bradley is looking for in the first place. (Hence, there is not even an attempt by me to guess the lineup.)
Miscellany:
* Dear ESPN, please bury the term "Team USA" in regard to the U.S. national team.
* If and it's a big if considering the vagueness from Fulham's official medical statement, but if Dempsey is near 100 percent fit the best U.S. lineup probably is some variation of a 4-5-1. Slot Bradley the Younger and likely Rico Clark in the defensive spots with Donovan, Dempsey and Stuart Holden (who looks to officially have signed with Bolton Friday) -- if he's settled at a club -- in the attacking spots. This formation would work wonders if the U.S. had a world class caliber central forward that could both win the ball, hold it up and also provide an attacking threat. On speed alone Davies could have filled this role. Can Altidore do it? With his playing time looking to get more inconsistent with the addition of Amr Zaki at Hull City it seems unlikely to bank the U.S. fortunes on the 20-year-old. Then again, the other side of the argument is that he'll have fresh legs. We'll see. The other pool of candidates -- Conor Casey, Eddie Johnson, Jeff Cunningham, Kenny Cooper, Brian Ching -- are just too one-dimensional and or inconsistent. Of course, if we could ever get enough of a grassroots campaign to coax Brian McBride to pull a Henrik Larsson, it just might work. (Assuming McBride hasn't totally calcified over the last two years.)
* What are the Vegas money-line odds that a) two out three (Dempsey, Davies or Onyewu) play a roll at the World Cup or b) a wild card player (Adu, E. Johnson, Twellman, etc.) emerge with the team?
* Since I didn't feel like writing an entire depth chart, which are the biggest position battles going forward to June? Jonathan Spector vs. Steve Cherundolo at right back? Bornstein vs. the field at left back? As it stands the forward spot is a total merry-go-round. Riding the hot hand might not be the craziest idea, unless Altidore emerges in the final third of the Premier League season.
* First U.S. game on FSC post-Max Bretos. He'll be missed, but if it's Christian Miles taking over, that's not the worst thing in the world. He seems affable enough. (I realize some people do loathe him.)
Final thought:
Will Saturday's game be much of an indicator for what's in store for the U.S. fortunes this year? Absolutely not.
If anything, let's hope that since he was hired in 2007 Bradley has finally found an identity, or some sort of ethos for the U.S. team.
Before digging into the D & D boys, Bradley the Elder (and Younger) and the rest of the wacky old Gulati Gang, an aside, which I half-promise will make sense when it's over. Maybe.
One of the weird pet peeves I've always had about sports media is the reliance on the past. Sure, the past is a pretty good indicator in certain areas. When a guy is batting over .500 against a certain pitcher, yeah, it means he owns him. Or if a guy like Shane Battier can consistently hold Kobe Bryant to under his average, lightbulb! it might mean something.
On the other hand, should we care what the lifetime record the Cincinnati Reds have playing against the Cubs in nearly 100 years of Wrigley Field means? Is Brandon Phillips walking into the batter's box wondering how Ernie Lombardi or Johnny Bench fared in the "Friendly Confines"?
It's sort of like an old algebra equation. If X = A does Y = A? In theory, shouldn't they be independent of each other?
Where this gets tricky is the World Cup, which as we know, only happens every four years.
Should the consistent track records accrued by Das Germans mean something? Or how about the tempermentally inconsistent play of nations like England and the Netherlands? Do African nations -- collectively seeking a World Cup breakthrough -- get a home continent boost even though the African land mass is enormous and disparate?
And what of the U.S.?
If you're a fan of weighting track records, we only really have three World Cups to go by. Throw anything pre-1990 completely out of the equation, though be ready to hear about the famous 1950 match against England in Brazil plenty in the build up to the match in Rustenberg on June 12. (In fact, this proves the theory. The U.S. is 1-0 all time vs. England in the World Cup, which means absolutely next to nothing in actuality. If Frank Lampard is lining up a free kick outside the box on June 12, I severely doubt that the names "Joey Gaetjens" and "Stan Mortensen" are cursing through his mind.)
Does, or should, it mean anything that the U.S. reached the semifinals of the first World Cup in 1930? It's like comparing an old Thomas Edison crafted phonograph that played music recorded on beeswax cylinders to an 80 gig iPod touch. We can probably extend that comparison all the way to the 1990 Cup, too, which is a lot like Sony Walkman again compared against the almighty iPod. It's different animals. Same thing with 1994, where the U.S. made it as hosts. (If there's a comparable from that 1994 Cup team it might be the current South African team hosting the upcoming tournament.)
So all we really have to stand on are three Cups. Two disasters and one an almost still hard to believe success. What we need to examine, or at least learn from these three Cups is what was the pre-tournament gameplan.
Take 1998 in France. Steve Sampson had a plan, at least on paper. Except his ill-fated 3-6-1 formation coupled with jettisoning John Harkes on the eve of the tournament led to a last-place finish. Suffice to say, trying a formation that has never been used or proven successful in a century of the modern game isn't exactly the savviest idea of all time. Call it the "attacking the Russian front during winter" of soccer tactics.
Would the U.S. have finished better than 32nd if Sampson went a more conventional route? Impossible to figure out, but perhaps the embarrassing lose to Iran would have been avoided. Either way, getting past Germany and Yugoslavia in its then-still-united swan song would have been tricky whatever Sampson cooked up. (Fun fact, Yugoslavia featured a then 19-year-old Dejan Stanković, or about 45,000 packs of cigarettes earlier Dejan Stanković.)
So let's look at 2002, where the U.S. made it to the quarterfinals in South Korea before being undone by Ze Germans and Torsten Frings hand. How you want to look at this depends on perspective. It can't be discounted the U.S. got some very fortunate breaks and got through its group with just a 1-1-1 mark. On top of that, they drew Mexico in the knockout round, a team it knew it could beat.
If you want to take it another step further, the U.S. got a one-in-a-lifetime two week performance from John O'Brien, before he faded away to help Axl Rose put the finishing touches on 'Chinese Democracy.'
Yet that does dismiss a little of the pre-tournament planning by Bruce Arena, who most importantly unleashed two players from the then still nascent MLS -- Landon Donovan and DaMarcus Beasley. Arena used players the world didn't know and certainly caught a Portuguese team overflowing with hubris in the tournament opener.
Granted four years later in Germany, using many of the same players that were heroes in Asia led to the U.S. crashing and burning and scoring just two goals -- one by an American in three games. Yes, a miserable draw that included the eventual winners -- Italy -- crushed the U.S. spirits, but it did seem like Arena figured what worked in 2002 would work again in 2006 and got burned by it.
If there was a game plan for 2006, it was probably that the U.S. players have evolved to the point where they could stand toe-to-toe with the world's best. Didn't quite work out. As they say, hindsight is 20/20.
All that leads us to 2010, where the U.S. in theory should be flying high thanks to a manageable draw and recent success in South Africa during last summer's Confederations Cup. You'd think this tournament draw more parallels to the 2002 version, if only since it's not being held in a traditional FIFA hotbed. Logic would dictate, too, that with another four years of seasoning, American players are inching toward a threshold of the world's elite.
The million dollar question for the U.S. and its fans is this, can coach Bob Bradley pull off a Hannibal Smith and draw off a plan that comes together? Or at least gets the U.S. into the knockout rounds?
And what is that game plan?
Before theorizing on that, how would a opposing coaches' cursory scouting report about the U.S. read?
* Landon Donovan is the offensive force.
* Adept on the counter attack.
* Strong physically, especially in the defense.
* Erratic and prone to reckless cautions and red cards.
* In Tim Howard, a first-rate shot-stopper.
* Play up or down to the level of the opponent.
This isn't trying to be mean or critical. We've seen enough of the U.S. to draw these conclusions, so I'm sure the staff of Fabio Capello has done the same. You'd think. He does wear stylish glasses which science has proven makes anyone look about 33 percent more intelligent.
And to that point, using a 2002 strategy of un-earthing a couple undiscovered gems from MLS or guys plying their trade in the far reaches of Scandinavia might not exactly work either. Again, maybe it's the glasses thing, but I'd guess Capello is dispatching a scout of some form to Saturday night's U.S. friendly against Honduras at the Home Depot Center (9 p.m. Eastern, FSC) to watch some of these players and take notes -- hey, free California vacation, right?
This isn't a problem only for the U.S. Aside from the cryptically secretive North Korean team, every team should have a pretty thick scouting report written on at least it's three group-stage opponents. Other than Portsmouth defender Nadir Belhadj and Rangers' Madjid Bougherra most of Algeria's team is about as anonymous as a typical Division-III college basketball team. But I'm sure Bradley and his staff are getting as many looks at the Desert Foxes as possible.
In short, the world isn't as big as it was in 2002. Just think of all the streaming of live games and tube sites available to us fans. Think what coaches have at their disposal.
For all his warts, Bradley the Elder does take on a Princetonian, academic approach to the game. I'd hope he has the soccer acumen to figure out a way to break down and expose the three U.S. group stage opponents, especially since the book written on the U.S. is fairly simple and straight forward.
It's a shame that the two biggest X-factors, two players opposing defense would have to account for at almost all times besides Donovan -- Davies and Dempsey -- have their status in major doubt ahead of June. Dempsey, we are relieved will probably play, but counting on a guy with a knee injury is risky. (The news on Dempsey's knee earlier this week was good, but also very vague.)
And we've seen with those injuries, coupled with the loss of Oguchi Onyewu that for all the strides taken by the U.S., quality depth remains a major issue.
What's left is a strange roster, to say the least, saying nothing of the group of semi-unknowns Bradley called into came earlier this month ahead of Saturday's friendly. Of course, many other second-tier nations at the Cup find similar dilemmas with players split between a fledgling domestic leagues and disparate clubs across Europe. The whole MLS equation seems to raise the hackles more than it should, doesn't it?
In short, the U.S. has one truly dynamic player -- Donovan. A plethora of central midfield crunchers and a decent stable in central defense. At the other end, all the wide positions from midfield to back are inconsistent with a couple round pegs for square holes. See Exhibit A, Bornstein, Jonathan.
This leads to just another question. Should the U.S. simply toss out the best XI it can onto the field and shoehorn some player into positions that they aren't naturally adapted for? OR does Bradley figure out a system and find the best players for it? Remember, this second option could lead to the likes of Conor Casey starting a World Cup match.
With those two options, why not take Plan C and simply scout the hell out of England, Algeria and Slovakia. Use the resources at the disposal of the USSF to amass massive data on the players and tenancies. Figure out a way to boil it down and distill it to the players.
And since we figure your opponents are doing the same thing, run as much misdirection as possible between now and June 12. Or at least development some stuff to unleash at the Cup.
If we want to consider this the fourth real, modern World Cup for the U.S. program it'll probably need to draw on the experiences dating back from 1998. There's a lot to learn from.
The U.S. needs to study up and show that its learned from the sins of the past. The path to success has never been as simple or straightforward. There clearly isn't a magic bullet formula to propel the U.S. from the pretty-good teams to the greats, either.
Again, the two-fold question remains. Can the U.S. cook up a plan that will yield positive results in South Africa? And does the U.S. have the proverbial horses to pull it off?
If you say you know either answer, please call Bradley the Elder as soon as possible. Thanks.
About this actual game:
* Me? I'm not putting too much stock in the result. I'd have to wager that Bradley the Elder wants to try a few things the squad has worked on over the last month, more than going out and grinding a result.
* Revoke my blogging "credentials" if you want, but honestly until about three days ago I'd never heard of Alejandro Bedoya. Don't taze me, bro.
* Four keepers on the roster -- Kevin Hartman, Nick Rimando, Troy Perkins and Zach Thornton. If we're basing it on the last MLS season, Rimando probably gets tabbed to start, no?
* Glad to see that Jimmy Conrad is back in the mix. If he doesn't make it to South Africa, a network ought to hire him for some off-beat commentary. Oh wait, MLS is playing through the Cup.
* If Heath Pearce doesn't get serious minutes in this match, his chances don't look very good going forward.
* If you can figure out the midfield mix for the match, you're clairvoyant. From what I've seen of him in MLS, Brad Davis looks like he can bring something to the table. It'd be good, too, to give Benny Feilhaber the keys to the offense and see if he can carry the team, albeit against a second-string Honduras team.
* This last U.S. camp probably meant the most to Sacha Kljestan. Nobody in the U.S. fold saw their stock drop as rapidly and precipitously as the Chivas USA-man. At least he'll always have the cover of 'FIFA 10.'
* Does anyone out there have faith in Kyle Beckerman, Robbie Rogers and Eddie Gaven. They all show flashes, but do you really want to take them to battle in South Africa?
* Too bad Marcus Tracy had to leave the camp with an ankle injury. I saw him play many times in high school and was the best scholastic athlete I've ever seen.
* Curious to see if Robbie Findley might be able to fill the speedy forward role with Davies on the shelf? And can we judge a player like Jeff Cunningham on a game like Saturday's? Aren't he and Casey two guys that form is the key for?
* Maybe we'll see some nice work from set pieces. Those are the key in international tournaments.
* Nobody other than Bradley the Elder can tell us if he's putting more stock in the previous three weeks of training or the 90 minute match. At this point, I've given up trying to figure out what Bradley is looking for in the first place. (Hence, there is not even an attempt by me to guess the lineup.)
Miscellany:
* Dear ESPN, please bury the term "Team USA" in regard to the U.S. national team.
* If and it's a big if considering the vagueness from Fulham's official medical statement, but if Dempsey is near 100 percent fit the best U.S. lineup probably is some variation of a 4-5-1. Slot Bradley the Younger and likely Rico Clark in the defensive spots with Donovan, Dempsey and Stuart Holden (who looks to officially have signed with Bolton Friday) -- if he's settled at a club -- in the attacking spots. This formation would work wonders if the U.S. had a world class caliber central forward that could both win the ball, hold it up and also provide an attacking threat. On speed alone Davies could have filled this role. Can Altidore do it? With his playing time looking to get more inconsistent with the addition of Amr Zaki at Hull City it seems unlikely to bank the U.S. fortunes on the 20-year-old. Then again, the other side of the argument is that he'll have fresh legs. We'll see. The other pool of candidates -- Conor Casey, Eddie Johnson, Jeff Cunningham, Kenny Cooper, Brian Ching -- are just too one-dimensional and or inconsistent. Of course, if we could ever get enough of a grassroots campaign to coax Brian McBride to pull a Henrik Larsson, it just might work. (Assuming McBride hasn't totally calcified over the last two years.)
* What are the Vegas money-line odds that a) two out three (Dempsey, Davies or Onyewu) play a roll at the World Cup or b) a wild card player (Adu, E. Johnson, Twellman, etc.) emerge with the team?
* Since I didn't feel like writing an entire depth chart, which are the biggest position battles going forward to June? Jonathan Spector vs. Steve Cherundolo at right back? Bornstein vs. the field at left back? As it stands the forward spot is a total merry-go-round. Riding the hot hand might not be the craziest idea, unless Altidore emerges in the final third of the Premier League season.
* First U.S. game on FSC post-Max Bretos. He'll be missed, but if it's Christian Miles taking over, that's not the worst thing in the world. He seems affable enough. (I realize some people do loathe him.)
Final thought:
Will Saturday's game be much of an indicator for what's in store for the U.S. fortunes this year? Absolutely not.
If anything, let's hope that since he was hired in 2007 Bradley has finally found an identity, or some sort of ethos for the U.S. team.
Labels: 2010 world cup, bob bradley, Landon Donovan, Soccer, USMNT
I have no idea what Bradley will do for the World Cup. Unfortunately, it seemed that he had learned his lesson with some terrible lineups involving Ching up front but then Davies got hurt. I like the idea of a revolving 3 man line of Holden, Dempsey and Donovan behind a lone striker but I'm not sure that Jozy is that striker right now. McBride is that type of striker and needs to be contacted by somebody at US Soccer to come back. I'd rather have an over the hill McBride than a never had it Ching up front in that role.
The silver lining to Dempsey's injury might be that he has to prove that he deserves playing time after a long layoff. Hopefully, it will provide the kick in the pants that he seems to need on occasion with the national team.
I hate Christian Miles. He pronounces some things with an attempt at an accent of some sort that just butchers the word he is trying to say.
I kind of think you're making it too complicated. The Confed. Cup (after the first two games) model of cohesive play, workrate, and inspired counterattacking is about the best we're going to do in our current stage of development. Our lack of depth really makes it hard to surprise anyone, and our lack of tactical nous doesn't make that path very promising either.
To use a Premier League analogy, we surely don't have the talent or infrastructure to compete with the Big 4(er, 7) but we want to be Fulham or Brum instead of Hull City or Wolves. I think with this team it's more a psychological problem than a tactical one. They've got to be playing with a chip on their shoulder, and even with a slight bit of arrogance, but also in control. I don't know how you get that consistently, but I know it when I see it, and it's been the common thread of our best performances from 2002 on. If we show up and play against Czech the way we did against Italy, we don't get killed and the Cup isn't an unmitigated disaster. Though I didn't think it was that much of a disaster anyway, as that draw was brutal and I didn't expect us to go through. It was the failure to compete in games 1 and 3 that was the problem, not the failure to advance.
If there's one thing we could and should work on though, it's set pieces, both attacking and defending. With our height and strength, we should be able to steal a goal or two that way, and on the flip side, we absolutely can't afford to give up goals that way in the Cup.
Well time to be the unpopular person on this blog, but with Davies out I'd love to go 4-5-1 with The Hawaiian up front. While he doesn't fit a 4-4-2 cause he never attacks, I think his back-to-the-goal strategy could work wonders feed the ball back to the 18 to let Dempsey, El Landito, etc. take shots. See if we can bounce enough shots off John Terry's legs to put one in the back of the net. Am I the only one that thinks if your back line has Joleon Lescott coming off the bench, the US isn't going to beat them with magic feet?
TwoBuy I'm smoking what you're smoking. With what we have I think Ching alone upfront with Donovan and Dempsy behind him both playing advanced mids could be really effective. Of course then you can't put in the Bob Bradley approved 2 holding mids, still I think you could do a lot worse with what we have left.
we'll never score or win with ching as our lone starting striker.
might as well not even show up if that's how were going to approach the Cup.
and Bedoya shouldn't be a total unknown since he kept BC afloat after Davies left.
Why not have Dempsey as the lone striker? Then you can add whichever midfielder is needed; Torres, Feilhaber, et al.