Fun fact.
If you add the "Benny Hill music", it makes anything fun.
Getting home, feeling like actual "white dog crap" and turning on the DVR recording of the USMNT playing El Salvador in rainy Tampa, Fla. I would have loved a little Benny Hill antics spliced in at opportune times.
Maybe it was the grating voice of John Harkes and the production meeting topic of the night -- "this is Player X's last chance." ... "Will they book a ticket to South Africa?"
Or how about how these players had so much "pressure" on them to perform. (If a guy is too nervous to play El Salvador in a half-empty stadium, how can he handle the pressure of the World Cup, where, lo and behold the stadiums just might end up being half-empty. I'd want a guy that says, "Eff it, I'm going balls out." Not the guy that's nervous and plays not to lose. But that's me.)
When Rob Stone broke out the NCAA "bubble" watch terminology in the 80th minute my head near exploded.
Yeah, you've got to talk about something during the course of a 90-minute game, but still. The more I heard this, the more that idea seemed like a fallacy.
A couple things to consider in this game, if you try to analyze it:
1) Is one 90-minute game vs. El Salvador going to make it or break it for a player? It's nice pre-game talking point, but Bob Bradley -- for all his confounding decisions -- isn't that simple minded. He has a squad in mind and what pieces he wants to bring over. Like it or not, he's got an idea of what the U.S. will look like. Judging that process via a meaningless friendly vs. training sessions and the overall makeup of the squad is just silly and simplistic.
2) All the guys in Tampa are likely spare parts. They're fitting into a lineup that's keyed by Landon Donovan, plain and simple. Sacha Kljestan might be forced into pulling the midfield strings against El Salvador, but the offense isn't going through him in South Africa. (And if he's starting in a key role in June, well, the U.S. is royally boned. Cue the Hetfield voice -- Don't yoooo know it's Sad but troooo.)
2a) The only real things to evaluate are tangible, like cross delivery, field awareness or set pieces. Otherwise, when the curtain goes up in South Africa, the XI on the field in Tampa might have some familiar faces, but their roles will be much different.
That's why, it's harsh, but Brad Evans -- you are the weakest link, goodbye. (My 1999 novelty t-shirt goldmine.)
Heading the ball to the center of the field in your own box with a player rushing on? It's a mistake, but was made nonethless. You can shrug it off against El Salvador, but not when it counts. Mental mistakes are the ban of a winning team.
To point No. 1, is a stoppage time goal vs. El Salvador really what's going to separate Kljestan getting on the plane to South Africa or not? While it must have felt like a walk-off home run, to him at least, did scoring that goal true the equation into a true-false scenario?
As meaningless in the grand scheme of things this match was, you really can't fall behind 1-0 at home to El Salvador. It's not good for business. (Really, El Salvador could have borrowed Homer Simpson's boxing robe, which read "Opponent.")
Until the U.S. finally broke through via the noggin of Brain Ching in the 75th-ish minute, all this game turned out to be was a never-ending string of missed chances and false hopes. The poor crowd in Tampa, on top of being rained upon, they had to put up with more cock-teases, err, goal-teases than the nearby Mons Venus.
On the one hand, it's good to create all these chances against an opponent that looks as motivated as a seventh grade in algebra class.
But aren't we beyond glimpses of hope, or juuuuuust misses on a set piece? It's getting pretty late in the game.
If you've watched everything to do with the U.S. and live-and-die with the team day-in, day-out, this game almost went entirely to script.
Except the soundtrack needs work.
Miscellany:
* Robbie Rogers = Ethan Rom? Maybe. Rogers the player? Handwave.
* Brad Davis, a soup kitchen Eddie Lewis? Actually, he'd be a good addition to the final squad of the other similar candidates. He's got a nice foot from dead balls and crosses. Also factor in he's been a consistent winner at Houston, he wouldn't take away from the game, if he ever saw the field.
* Rob Stone, why did we need to hear the name "Chad Deering"? Isn't there a PBA Event around?
Seriously Rob, why even bother asking Bob Bradley after the match who's going to be included in Amsterdam next week. You know that Channing Tatum is winning an Oscar before he reveals something like that on live television. Granted, sideline reporter isn't the greatest media gig in the world, but pulling a straight, outright answer from Bradley in that spot is about unlikely as a single man creating one of those old-fashioned rope bridges.
* Fun comparable. Let's say Brian Ching is the Emile Heskey mold of forwards. Call him the Wal-Mart version. Ching will never be a player that fan gravitate toward. He game doesn't cater to YouTube mash-up reels, no offense. Yet he doggedly does try to bring stuff to the table.
I'd be stunned if Ching didn't make the World Cup roster. Can he bring it at a high-level against a top international team for more than 45 minutes? Ching is an effort/physical player, once he starts to dip he loses nearly all effectiveness.
It was still good to see him finally cash in on a goal, because the classic Ching play is from the 2007 Gold Cup final, the U.S. up 2-1 after the Feilhaber goalazo and he hits the post with an open net which could have sealed the game.
* From as much as I can gather, the U.S. central defense wasn't pressed into much service. Odd that Jonathan Bornstein was slotted into the center of defense next to Clarence Goodson. It did give Heath Pearce an opportunity at left back and say this of the ex-Hansa Rostock defender, he does have a decent cross of the ball. His defense? Not great. Basically Pearce has better ball delivery, but Bornstein has a bigger motor.
The real indictment is on Chad Marshall, who didn't get off the bench. Putting him thoroughly off any World Cup radar.
* In probably the least compelling roster battle of all time -- third goalie -- Nick Rimando didn't really do anything. With Tim Howard and Brad Guzan locked in, whomever Bradley picks likely comes down to personal choice. I'd definitely go with Marcus Hahnemnann since a) he's a good dude b) you could pick his brain about the England team.
In the end...
In a way, this game wasn't all that hard to figure out.
The U.S. players created chances by the boatload and certainly looked good in spurts. Hell, a couple of inches here-or-there and it could have been in the 4-0 range.
But you know what, the balls didn't go in. They were short wide, or the keeper made a nice save, or what have you. There's a reason these players were on the field Wednesday night in soggy Tampa and not across the pond waiting to book a flight to Amsterdam for next Wednesday.
And hell, they're on that field whilst I'm grumpily hammering these thoughts into my keyboard. There's all making a living as a soccer player, and even in MLS that is pretty darned cool. There's nothing wrong with somebody peaking in their respective career as simply a good MLSer.
They're all good players, but not good enough.
And that won't hack in the World Cup. The U.S. only has year games guaranteed in a tournament that happens once every four years.
All those misses? You don't get a do-ever in South Africa.
If you add the "Benny Hill music", it makes anything fun.
Getting home, feeling like actual "white dog crap" and turning on the DVR recording of the USMNT playing El Salvador in rainy Tampa, Fla. I would have loved a little Benny Hill antics spliced in at opportune times.
Maybe it was the grating voice of John Harkes and the production meeting topic of the night -- "this is Player X's last chance." ... "Will they book a ticket to South Africa?"
Or how about how these players had so much "pressure" on them to perform. (If a guy is too nervous to play El Salvador in a half-empty stadium, how can he handle the pressure of the World Cup, where, lo and behold the stadiums just might end up being half-empty. I'd want a guy that says, "Eff it, I'm going balls out." Not the guy that's nervous and plays not to lose. But that's me.)
When Rob Stone broke out the NCAA "bubble" watch terminology in the 80th minute my head near exploded.
Yeah, you've got to talk about something during the course of a 90-minute game, but still. The more I heard this, the more that idea seemed like a fallacy.
A couple things to consider in this game, if you try to analyze it:
1) Is one 90-minute game vs. El Salvador going to make it or break it for a player? It's nice pre-game talking point, but Bob Bradley -- for all his confounding decisions -- isn't that simple minded. He has a squad in mind and what pieces he wants to bring over. Like it or not, he's got an idea of what the U.S. will look like. Judging that process via a meaningless friendly vs. training sessions and the overall makeup of the squad is just silly and simplistic.
2) All the guys in Tampa are likely spare parts. They're fitting into a lineup that's keyed by Landon Donovan, plain and simple. Sacha Kljestan might be forced into pulling the midfield strings against El Salvador, but the offense isn't going through him in South Africa. (And if he's starting in a key role in June, well, the U.S. is royally boned. Cue the Hetfield voice -- Don't yoooo know it's Sad but troooo.)
2a) The only real things to evaluate are tangible, like cross delivery, field awareness or set pieces. Otherwise, when the curtain goes up in South Africa, the XI on the field in Tampa might have some familiar faces, but their roles will be much different.
That's why, it's harsh, but Brad Evans -- you are the weakest link, goodbye. (My 1999 novelty t-shirt goldmine.)
Heading the ball to the center of the field in your own box with a player rushing on? It's a mistake, but was made nonethless. You can shrug it off against El Salvador, but not when it counts. Mental mistakes are the ban of a winning team.
To point No. 1, is a stoppage time goal vs. El Salvador really what's going to separate Kljestan getting on the plane to South Africa or not? While it must have felt like a walk-off home run, to him at least, did scoring that goal true the equation into a true-false scenario?
As meaningless in the grand scheme of things this match was, you really can't fall behind 1-0 at home to El Salvador. It's not good for business. (Really, El Salvador could have borrowed Homer Simpson's boxing robe, which read "Opponent.")
Until the U.S. finally broke through via the noggin of Brain Ching in the 75th-ish minute, all this game turned out to be was a never-ending string of missed chances and false hopes. The poor crowd in Tampa, on top of being rained upon, they had to put up with more cock-teases, err, goal-teases than the nearby Mons Venus.
On the one hand, it's good to create all these chances against an opponent that looks as motivated as a seventh grade in algebra class.
But aren't we beyond glimpses of hope, or juuuuuust misses on a set piece? It's getting pretty late in the game.
If you've watched everything to do with the U.S. and live-and-die with the team day-in, day-out, this game almost went entirely to script.
Except the soundtrack needs work.
Miscellany:
* Robbie Rogers = Ethan Rom? Maybe. Rogers the player? Handwave.
* Brad Davis, a soup kitchen Eddie Lewis? Actually, he'd be a good addition to the final squad of the other similar candidates. He's got a nice foot from dead balls and crosses. Also factor in he's been a consistent winner at Houston, he wouldn't take away from the game, if he ever saw the field.
* Rob Stone, why did we need to hear the name "Chad Deering"? Isn't there a PBA Event around?
Seriously Rob, why even bother asking Bob Bradley after the match who's going to be included in Amsterdam next week. You know that Channing Tatum is winning an Oscar before he reveals something like that on live television. Granted, sideline reporter isn't the greatest media gig in the world, but pulling a straight, outright answer from Bradley in that spot is about unlikely as a single man creating one of those old-fashioned rope bridges.
* Fun comparable. Let's say Brian Ching is the Emile Heskey mold of forwards. Call him the Wal-Mart version. Ching will never be a player that fan gravitate toward. He game doesn't cater to YouTube mash-up reels, no offense. Yet he doggedly does try to bring stuff to the table.
I'd be stunned if Ching didn't make the World Cup roster. Can he bring it at a high-level against a top international team for more than 45 minutes? Ching is an effort/physical player, once he starts to dip he loses nearly all effectiveness.
It was still good to see him finally cash in on a goal, because the classic Ching play is from the 2007 Gold Cup final, the U.S. up 2-1 after the Feilhaber goalazo and he hits the post with an open net which could have sealed the game.
* From as much as I can gather, the U.S. central defense wasn't pressed into much service. Odd that Jonathan Bornstein was slotted into the center of defense next to Clarence Goodson. It did give Heath Pearce an opportunity at left back and say this of the ex-Hansa Rostock defender, he does have a decent cross of the ball. His defense? Not great. Basically Pearce has better ball delivery, but Bornstein has a bigger motor.
The real indictment is on Chad Marshall, who didn't get off the bench. Putting him thoroughly off any World Cup radar.
* In probably the least compelling roster battle of all time -- third goalie -- Nick Rimando didn't really do anything. With Tim Howard and Brad Guzan locked in, whomever Bradley picks likely comes down to personal choice. I'd definitely go with Marcus Hahnemnann since a) he's a good dude b) you could pick his brain about the England team.
In the end...
In a way, this game wasn't all that hard to figure out.
The U.S. players created chances by the boatload and certainly looked good in spurts. Hell, a couple of inches here-or-there and it could have been in the 4-0 range.
But you know what, the balls didn't go in. They were short wide, or the keeper made a nice save, or what have you. There's a reason these players were on the field Wednesday night in soggy Tampa and not across the pond waiting to book a flight to Amsterdam for next Wednesday.
And hell, they're on that field whilst I'm grumpily hammering these thoughts into my keyboard. There's all making a living as a soccer player, and even in MLS that is pretty darned cool. There's nothing wrong with somebody peaking in their respective career as simply a good MLSer.
They're all good players, but not good enough.
And that won't hack in the World Cup. The U.S. only has year games guaranteed in a tournament that happens once every four years.
All those misses? You don't get a do-ever in South Africa.
Labels: bob bradley, Soccer, USMNT
Excellent summation of the game. I think the angle that ESPN's brain-trust missed last night is that this game was to allow some of these players to demand a look in next week's camp & friendly. Sacha's goal, which my DVR cut off to record the Olympics for my wife, doesn't buy him a ticket to SA, but it'll probably get him to Amsterdam.
Ching's 45 minutes on the other hand leads me to believe Coach Sweatpants takes both he and Casey to the 'Dam and has a good ol' throw down in practice. Ching looked better, but so did the US overall in the second half.
Rogers might have just played his way off the final 23. Sure he brings some interesting elements tot he table but he only showed that he can deliver a dead-ball last night; his decision making in the offensive third was suspect and his passes looked like Jim Carey taking a leak in Me, Myself, and Irene.
As for the 4-0 possible scoreline, that would've been a travashamockery of Shakesperean proportions. The Benny Hill soundtrack comment was spot on as half the passes last night were to no one in particular or backwards. It really looked like a U-13 game out there at times.
I am right there with you on the forced story-lines created by the commentators during the game. I felt like it was an episode of Survivor and Findley was going to get his torch snuffed out at the end of the match. 'Who makes the plane to South Africa' is a great talking point for the pre- or even post-game, but during the match I want to hear about the match. NBC has been doing this like crazy for the Winter Olympics - the narrative they are creating for the athletes (sick mother, struggle to overcome injury, "secret" homosexuality) is treated as being more important than what the athletes are doing in the actual competition.
I am anticipating that, come June, Martin Tyler won't be forced to toe this kind of line and pump up some manufactured story-line to the exclusion of the game we are watching. I'm sure Tyler's preference would be to NOT lock in on the soap opera angles, but let's see what ESPN wants.
If Charlie Davies is healthy enough to play in the World Cup - his return from that car crash SHOULD be the focus of a pre-game segment, but it shouldn't be brought up every time the forward touches the ball or is called offside. Last night's match, however, does not fill me with hope.
As for the game itself - meh. I don't feel like I learned much (did the Elder?) and I'm not sure there was anything there to learn, no matter who played well/poorly. How long has this match been scheduled? I imagine an off-season from MLS (but in-season for Europe) game like this could have been packed with likely USMNT World Cup starters four or eight years ago, but now it is almost meaningless. How times change.
Worth noting that Stuart Holden certainly helped his case for inclusion playing for Bolton last night. While Bolton got trounced (two OG will do that), he appeared useful creating from an advanced central position, particularly impressive for his first run out in England.