The only bad thing to say about last night’s eleven goal barn-burner between FC Dallas and the Los Angeles Galaxy in Frisco, Texas was that it would have been better had this been a Major League Soccer (MLS) team facing a Mexican club. After that, it’s all pretty happy....well, unless you tally up the injuries large and small picked up by FC Dallas players. Or if you’re a fan of competent defending.
Speaking of, if you haven’t seen the highlights, they’re well worth the gander. Though people made anxious by loose marking and nearly-free headers would be wise to skip ‘em.
Naturally, any game that cranked out goals in patches produces a slew of talking points, not least because, as Dan Loney wrote, this one had "everything but defense." But nothing is getting attention like Landon Donovan’s “throat-slashing” celebration after scoring the Los Angeles Galaxy’s fifth goal. One doesn’t have to travel too widely to find a range of opinion, from Buzz Carrick’s shocked and appalled, through Sideline Views’ toleration, to MLS Underground’s salute to controversy (and there’s more chatter still in the comments field).
As for me, put me in the "half-Carrick" camp: shocked, but not appalled. My wife can attest to the fact I was shocked; my jaw, literally, dropped when I saw it, not least because I remember the hub-bub this, um, practice created in the NFL. I suspect Donovan will get fined and I’m OK with that too; the league ought to support correct behavior, at least to a point (one that shouldn’t, as I see it, extend to calling the refs idiots when warranted). In the end, though, I’m also not all that bothered; I don’t care about the little publicity it generates, questions of class, etc. Fine him and any other player who does the throat-slash thing (and, while you’re at it, ditch the fine for taking off the shirt) and move on.
Turning to the game, though, several points of interest abound, not a few of them dealing with the long-term implications of either team surrendering five or six goals. Potent as Dallas’ offense may be - especially with Carlos Ruiz looking like he’s getting warm over the past few games - but an LA revival won’t take place with a back four playing that loose. To use Arturo Alvarez’ two goals as examples: the first, a free and clear header, speaks for itself, but the second, which went past a defensive bunker with no less than three baffled defenders as a forward guard, well, that was just pathetic. Seeing as the other three were only marginally better, and seeing as LA allowed 25 shots on goal on the night, let's just say the Road to Success runs in the opposite direction.
Going the other way, last night seemed like Dallas’ answer to the vote of confidence in their defense offered in yesterday’s post on which teams will make the playoffs. Clearly, Dallas is where faith goes to be utterly destroyed, if not defiled.
On a more positive, and LA-centric, note, one has to wonder if this win won’t be the kind of catalyst for LA that the Columbus Crew’s dramatic 3-3 tie versus the New England Revolution turned out to be for the Ohio team (I mean, look at what followed). That’s a big question at this point and, unlike early this season, we should have our answer shortly. Turning to Dallas, this only looks like the same script amplified; this team can score and win, but can they stop being their own worst enemies? That’s no small question either. In fact, there could be an MLS Cup riding on it.
Showing posts with label Landon Donovan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Landon Donovan. Show all posts
Houston's Loss, LA's Loss: The Meaning of Top-Flight
While most the attention seems to be going to the LA Galaxy crashing out by the head of the Richmond Kickers’ David Bulow, Houston’s loss to the Charleston Battery strikes me as the bigger news. Maybe it’s, as Fox Soccer put it (in a great headline), Richmond’s “third-tier” status versus the Galaxy’s oxygen-sucking hype - but, against that, you have things like LA’s loss to a ten-man Columbus to make sense of these things. Houston could point to their second-string line-up, but that’s kind of a bullshit excuse...your either top-flight or you’re not. So, Tuesday, July 10 was a pretty good night for America’s lower division clubs - they almost got New England as well. And pretty good for the Open Cup But it points to the familiar problem of MLS trying to maintain top-flight league’s status and schedule on second-tier budgets.
In that context, LA’s loss to Richmond plays a little against type. For starters, I think LA actually did want to win this one: I can’t see why else they’d risk starters, for even half the game, if they wanted to throw it away - and that applies, even if half the team might be quietly smiling about a couple days off down the road. But Landon Donovan called out his team using words he didn’t have to - go get ‘em, you thinning wonder - which either suggests disappoint or it merely reinforces the sense that LA needs positives badly enough that they’ll take anything. It’s been said plenty of times that LA is working their players with all the tenderness of a pimp and last night’s game only served as the latest example; a half a game here or there isn’t going to save their top players much with exhibitions filling in every possible gap left in an already-stuffed schedule.
Turning now to Houston, I had a hell of a time finding the starting line-ups - at least while I was looking - but everyone makes clear that Houston’s best got a breather in this one. The game still sounded like a good one - especially for both ‘keepers - and the hundreds of Charleston fans went home happy; good stuff, all. But the team Houston fielded, more than LA’s line-up choices at least, resurrected the old case about Major League Soccer (MLS) clubs failing to take the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup seriously.
The question is, which of these teams made the right call: Houston for resting key players, or LA for killing theirs? More to the point, where do the following factors break: the number of quality soccer players in the U.S. versus the number of quality players an MLS club can afford to carry on their roster? With the number of games MLS clubs play, and given how condensed the schedule can be, it’s inevitable they have to do a little prioritizing of the games and look for players down the bench for games that seem less pressing. In other words, I side with Houston.
That’s where the question of the overall, U.S. player pool comes into play. If there are simply a limited number of top-quality players in the U.S. - e.g. in numbers that would match the Portland Timbers’ Tom Poltl’s figure of four to six per MLS roster - then it’s not so surprising that USL-1 and USL-2 teams, comprised of players with talent comparable to the outer reaches of MLS benches, would win Open Cup games with pretty regularly; after all, between two teams of roughly equal players, the guys that play together competitively most often should have an advantage.
But if the American player pool is deep enough to build 13 (soon to be 16?) top-flight teams, MLS really needs to consider either paying the depth-pool well enough to keep them in MLS, or to expand the rosters to help make the often grueling MLS schedule (just add exhibitions!) more manageable. Sure, other alternatives are out there - e.g. moving the Open Cup outside the regular season to allow teams to prioritize it - but, assuming the schedule stays the same, or even if it changes to accommodate international tournaments (to which, face it, the Open Cup will take a back seat), rejiggering MLS rosters to help them cope with the Open Cup remains the only remedy I can think.
Why, you might ask, should the powers-that-be be interested in helping MLS? Because top-flight should mean just that: MLS teams should be the best teams and winning against them should look a lot more like Richmond’s win over LA than Charleston’s win over half-Houston.
(##########)
In that context, LA’s loss to Richmond plays a little against type. For starters, I think LA actually did want to win this one: I can’t see why else they’d risk starters, for even half the game, if they wanted to throw it away - and that applies, even if half the team might be quietly smiling about a couple days off down the road. But Landon Donovan called out his team using words he didn’t have to - go get ‘em, you thinning wonder - which either suggests disappoint or it merely reinforces the sense that LA needs positives badly enough that they’ll take anything. It’s been said plenty of times that LA is working their players with all the tenderness of a pimp and last night’s game only served as the latest example; a half a game here or there isn’t going to save their top players much with exhibitions filling in every possible gap left in an already-stuffed schedule.
Turning now to Houston, I had a hell of a time finding the starting line-ups - at least while I was looking - but everyone makes clear that Houston’s best got a breather in this one. The game still sounded like a good one - especially for both ‘keepers - and the hundreds of Charleston fans went home happy; good stuff, all. But the team Houston fielded, more than LA’s line-up choices at least, resurrected the old case about Major League Soccer (MLS) clubs failing to take the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup seriously.
The question is, which of these teams made the right call: Houston for resting key players, or LA for killing theirs? More to the point, where do the following factors break: the number of quality soccer players in the U.S. versus the number of quality players an MLS club can afford to carry on their roster? With the number of games MLS clubs play, and given how condensed the schedule can be, it’s inevitable they have to do a little prioritizing of the games and look for players down the bench for games that seem less pressing. In other words, I side with Houston.
That’s where the question of the overall, U.S. player pool comes into play. If there are simply a limited number of top-quality players in the U.S. - e.g. in numbers that would match the Portland Timbers’ Tom Poltl’s figure of four to six per MLS roster - then it’s not so surprising that USL-1 and USL-2 teams, comprised of players with talent comparable to the outer reaches of MLS benches, would win Open Cup games with pretty regularly; after all, between two teams of roughly equal players, the guys that play together competitively most often should have an advantage.
But if the American player pool is deep enough to build 13 (soon to be 16?) top-flight teams, MLS really needs to consider either paying the depth-pool well enough to keep them in MLS, or to expand the rosters to help make the often grueling MLS schedule (just add exhibitions!) more manageable. Sure, other alternatives are out there - e.g. moving the Open Cup outside the regular season to allow teams to prioritize it - but, assuming the schedule stays the same, or even if it changes to accommodate international tournaments (to which, face it, the Open Cup will take a back seat), rejiggering MLS rosters to help them cope with the Open Cup remains the only remedy I can think.
Why, you might ask, should the powers-that-be be interested in helping MLS? Because top-flight should mean just that: MLS teams should be the best teams and winning against them should look a lot more like Richmond’s win over LA than Charleston’s win over half-Houston.
(##########)
Gold Cup Porn: Last, Giddy Glimpse
As the cliche goes, it's all over but for the shouting - though there's still some of that going on. I finally did the grand tour of Gold Cup porn (e.g. all the stuff - some glowing, some more sober) on the Gold Cup final and found some interesting nuggets in a variety of places. I thought I'd post those as a kind of farewell to a happy 2007 tournament.
To begin with a personal note, how friggin' awesome was it to see a shirtless Frankie Hejduk walking onto the stage to give Sepp Blatter and other FIFA luminaries a naked, sweaty hug? He looked like a thinner David Lee Roth up there...and with hair; it was so quintessentially American.
To start with the best review I read, I'd have to give the honors to Mark Ziegler's report for the San Diego Union-Tribune. It didn't have the bits I'm lifting from the items below, but I thought he got to all the good stuff and in style. It's a personal thing...
And, speaking of good stuff, Pitchinvasion.net posted some great photos from the occasion...good to know they'll catch just about anything out of Chicago on that site.
Getting back to Hejduk, though, he threw out a good quote in the Houston Chronicle's drama-drenched write-up:
Good to know beer motivates him as well...
Speaking of player quotes, it's been fun seeing multiple examples of how seriously our players take this rivalry. When asked about missing the sitter Landon Donovan provided him to ice the game, DaMarcus Beasley provided the following to the Washington Post's Steve Goff:
Another noteworthy thing to have come out of this game may (or may not) be the growing respect for the U.S. team among Mexico's players. For instance, ine can find word that Carlos Salcido swapped jerseys with Donovan - or that he shook his hand at the very least; I read somewhere (can't recall where) that Mexican 'keeper, Oswaldo Sanchez, had good things to say after the game. With the sometimes ugly commenst that followed some of our wins I looked pretty hard for any disparaging words out of the Mexican camp and, happily, the worst I found appeared in the report behind the link in this paragraph in the form of a quote from Mexico's coach, Hugo Sanchesz. Here's that:
That sounds pretty sniveling - and maybe it is - but a fuller version of the same quote (from the Boston Globe's report) makes the whole thing read better:
On a number of levels, then, it's a little tempting to hope a corner has been turned.
On the personal level, a couple people walk away from this tournament with a bit of shine on their reputations. For instance, Bob Bradley's decision to replace Pablo Mastroeni with Ricardo Clark has drawn wide praise, up to a straight statement that this proved him most qualified for the job. Whatever you think of that particular asssertion, it's safe to say Bradley didn't hurt himsefl in the Gold Cup. And, to file under "numbers don't lie," who'd a thought Landon Donovan would tie two records in the 2007 Gold Cup? We all knew about his tying Eric Wynalda's all-time scoring record, on the way, no doubt, to setting a tough-to-top mark down the road. But how many out there knew Donovan also tied the record for Gold Cup goals? When he scored yesterday, he netted his 12th in Gold Cup play, tying Mexico's Luis Roberto "Zague" Alves.
While that's all to the good, I'll close here with some sobering points. Keeping with "the personal," it seems that a few people see this year's Gold Cup as the end of the road for Pablo Mastroeni - or at least that applies to a few people who responded to questions left by Luis Arroyanve on his Red Card blog. Writing as just about the only Mastroeni fan left on the planet, it pains me a little to acknowledge this is correct: the reality is, he's slowing down, or, no less accurately, he's being overtaken by younger players who have the incalcuable upside of being a lot younger when 2010 rolls around. He deserves a send-off, but, unquestionably, it's time to groom new people.
Finally, turning to another part of the team, as Ives Galarcep pointed out today, a basically improved performance yesterday aside, the reality is our defense still needs to improve. That can happen by improved cohesion and coordination or changes in personnel, but there's no question it needs to happen.
Ah well. It has been a fun couple weeks. It has had some very real highs and some bruising lows, but, given the happy ending, it would be churlish to call the 2007 Gold Cup anything but a good time for U.S. Soccer.
To begin with a personal note, how friggin' awesome was it to see a shirtless Frankie Hejduk walking onto the stage to give Sepp Blatter and other FIFA luminaries a naked, sweaty hug? He looked like a thinner David Lee Roth up there...and with hair; it was so quintessentially American.
To start with the best review I read, I'd have to give the honors to Mark Ziegler's report for the San Diego Union-Tribune. It didn't have the bits I'm lifting from the items below, but I thought he got to all the good stuff and in style. It's a personal thing...
And, speaking of good stuff, Pitchinvasion.net posted some great photos from the occasion...good to know they'll catch just about anything out of Chicago on that site.
Getting back to Hejduk, though, he threw out a good quote in the Houston Chronicle's drama-drenched write-up:
""We had 23 players standing around the cup in a circle. And everyone who wanted to see us lose were outside. We had all those thousands of people trying to get into there, doing everything they could to take the cup away from us in our own country. And we defended them all. We held them all off. The beer always tastes a little better when you do that."
Good to know beer motivates him as well...
Speaking of player quotes, it's been fun seeing multiple examples of how seriously our players take this rivalry. When asked about missing the sitter Landon Donovan provided him to ice the game, DaMarcus Beasley provided the following to the Washington Post's Steve Goff:
"If [Tim Howard] hadn't made that save, it would've been on me and I would've cried."
Another noteworthy thing to have come out of this game may (or may not) be the growing respect for the U.S. team among Mexico's players. For instance, ine can find word that Carlos Salcido swapped jerseys with Donovan - or that he shook his hand at the very least; I read somewhere (can't recall where) that Mexican 'keeper, Oswaldo Sanchez, had good things to say after the game. With the sometimes ugly commenst that followed some of our wins I looked pretty hard for any disparaging words out of the Mexican camp and, happily, the worst I found appeared in the report behind the link in this paragraph in the form of a quote from Mexico's coach, Hugo Sanchesz. Here's that:
" "I want the team that played the best to win," Mexican manager Hugo Sanchez said. "I don't want a team to win on the ref's call."
That sounds pretty sniveling - and maybe it is - but a fuller version of the same quote (from the Boston Globe's report) makes the whole thing read better:
"We were hoping the US would score on a brilliant play, plus there was one [penalty] on Omar Bravo. I would prefer that whoever wins is the better team and not the team that wins on a referee's call. Sometimes the best team doesn't win. But the US was maybe more practical and they deserved it."
On a number of levels, then, it's a little tempting to hope a corner has been turned.
On the personal level, a couple people walk away from this tournament with a bit of shine on their reputations. For instance, Bob Bradley's decision to replace Pablo Mastroeni with Ricardo Clark has drawn wide praise, up to a straight statement that this proved him most qualified for the job. Whatever you think of that particular asssertion, it's safe to say Bradley didn't hurt himsefl in the Gold Cup. And, to file under "numbers don't lie," who'd a thought Landon Donovan would tie two records in the 2007 Gold Cup? We all knew about his tying Eric Wynalda's all-time scoring record, on the way, no doubt, to setting a tough-to-top mark down the road. But how many out there knew Donovan also tied the record for Gold Cup goals? When he scored yesterday, he netted his 12th in Gold Cup play, tying Mexico's Luis Roberto "Zague" Alves.
While that's all to the good, I'll close here with some sobering points. Keeping with "the personal," it seems that a few people see this year's Gold Cup as the end of the road for Pablo Mastroeni - or at least that applies to a few people who responded to questions left by Luis Arroyanve on his Red Card blog. Writing as just about the only Mastroeni fan left on the planet, it pains me a little to acknowledge this is correct: the reality is, he's slowing down, or, no less accurately, he's being overtaken by younger players who have the incalcuable upside of being a lot younger when 2010 rolls around. He deserves a send-off, but, unquestionably, it's time to groom new people.
Finally, turning to another part of the team, as Ives Galarcep pointed out today, a basically improved performance yesterday aside, the reality is our defense still needs to improve. That can happen by improved cohesion and coordination or changes in personnel, but there's no question it needs to happen.
Ah well. It has been a fun couple weeks. It has had some very real highs and some bruising lows, but, given the happy ending, it would be churlish to call the 2007 Gold Cup anything but a good time for U.S. Soccer.
Gold Cup Campeones: Can We Play Mexico Every Day?
Knowing this is just one more stick of kindling on a bonfire of reports, commentary, rants, and celebration, I’ll (try to) keep this short - and bulleted.
- Dude, can we play Mexico every single day? They’re like the mechanical rabbit to our greyhound. Maybe it’s the green shirts; maybe we should ask all visiting teams to wear green. I don’t know. What I do know is we actually looked like the best team in the region yesterday.
- That quality went down to the micro-level: our guys played faster, smarter, and more crisply than we had in any game to this point. Whether it was a quick lateral pass by our players to get the ball out of danger and ready to head upfield at the half line, or that delightful string of quick passes at the top of the Mexican area that ended with, an admittedly feeble, shot on goal by Landon Donovan. We looked good in nearly every phase of the game to the extent that the exceptions showed as the merest of blemishes.
- Don’t get me wrong, though: winning was the important thing and I would have taken the crookedest of wins so long as things broke our way.
- Turning again to Donovan, c’mon and admit it: when he stepped up to take that PK, all y’all were waiting for a soft shot up the middle and an Oswaldo Sanchez save/shit-eating grin. So, here’s to Landon: way to step up, son.
- My man/men of the match (I have to go with two): Brian Ching and Carlos Bocanegra. The former left Mexican defenders in fits on two occasions with that spin while the latter contributed more timely interventions than any player on the field.
- And, yes, Benny Feilhaber’s goal was simply gorgeous...all the more so seeing as he missed his share of similar/easier shots in previous games.
- A special note to Jonathan Bornstein: all is forgiven; you had me at that shot on goal.
- Both 'keepers had sensational games. Sanchez kept the Mexicans alive more than once in the first half, while Tim Howard's late save on Bofo Bautista just settled onto the memory shelf of great U.S. Men's moments; it's right next to the winner Tab Ramos scored against Costa Rica way back when.
- All in all, we did remarkably well on both sides of the ball: Mexico had their chances, but we kept them down to a few (and Tim Howard mopped up the ones we let in); I’m still recovering from the shock of seeing us take the game to the Mexicans with a combination of grit, athleticism, and intelligence...it’s that last one that’s both big and not a little unusual.
- I haven’t read anything about how the Mexicans viewed the game, but can’t think of any grounds they have to complain. We done good and just beat ‘em.
Apart from noting my nearly-delirious happiness with the win, I’ll close with a couple questions (and, please, do weigh in):
1) Should the team we fielded stand as the U.S. starting eleven for the foreseeable future (allowing an exception here or there)?
2) Anyone think Hugo Sanchez might be looking for work any time soon? If not now, what would it take to lose him the job?
3) To make a bold statement: Clint Dempsey is our best field player. Anyone agree or disagree?
OK, that’s all I’ve got on this one. Can’t wait to read the gloating, moaning, general impressions that everyone else had.
(#########)
- Dude, can we play Mexico every single day? They’re like the mechanical rabbit to our greyhound. Maybe it’s the green shirts; maybe we should ask all visiting teams to wear green. I don’t know. What I do know is we actually looked like the best team in the region yesterday.
- That quality went down to the micro-level: our guys played faster, smarter, and more crisply than we had in any game to this point. Whether it was a quick lateral pass by our players to get the ball out of danger and ready to head upfield at the half line, or that delightful string of quick passes at the top of the Mexican area that ended with, an admittedly feeble, shot on goal by Landon Donovan. We looked good in nearly every phase of the game to the extent that the exceptions showed as the merest of blemishes.
- Don’t get me wrong, though: winning was the important thing and I would have taken the crookedest of wins so long as things broke our way.
- Turning again to Donovan, c’mon and admit it: when he stepped up to take that PK, all y’all were waiting for a soft shot up the middle and an Oswaldo Sanchez save/shit-eating grin. So, here’s to Landon: way to step up, son.
- My man/men of the match (I have to go with two): Brian Ching and Carlos Bocanegra. The former left Mexican defenders in fits on two occasions with that spin while the latter contributed more timely interventions than any player on the field.
- And, yes, Benny Feilhaber’s goal was simply gorgeous...all the more so seeing as he missed his share of similar/easier shots in previous games.
- A special note to Jonathan Bornstein: all is forgiven; you had me at that shot on goal.
- Both 'keepers had sensational games. Sanchez kept the Mexicans alive more than once in the first half, while Tim Howard's late save on Bofo Bautista just settled onto the memory shelf of great U.S. Men's moments; it's right next to the winner Tab Ramos scored against Costa Rica way back when.
- All in all, we did remarkably well on both sides of the ball: Mexico had their chances, but we kept them down to a few (and Tim Howard mopped up the ones we let in); I’m still recovering from the shock of seeing us take the game to the Mexicans with a combination of grit, athleticism, and intelligence...it’s that last one that’s both big and not a little unusual.
- I haven’t read anything about how the Mexicans viewed the game, but can’t think of any grounds they have to complain. We done good and just beat ‘em.
Apart from noting my nearly-delirious happiness with the win, I’ll close with a couple questions (and, please, do weigh in):
1) Should the team we fielded stand as the U.S. starting eleven for the foreseeable future (allowing an exception here or there)?
2) Anyone think Hugo Sanchez might be looking for work any time soon? If not now, what would it take to lose him the job?
3) To make a bold statement: Clint Dempsey is our best field player. Anyone agree or disagree?
OK, that’s all I’ve got on this one. Can’t wait to read the gloating, moaning, general impressions that everyone else had.
(#########)
Gold Cup: In the Name of Balance...
Since I've already had my post-dicey-win freakout, I'm now able to do the deep breath thing and add some points that don't rip the Americans for failing to make me happy. In no particular order...
- While the Canadians did get robbed on the offside call, it's not like all the officiating went against them. As pointed out on du Nord (somewhere in there), four minutes extra time was pretty generous - and the ref went over to boot. Also, nicely as Iain Hume rounded out his evening, it started with several reckless, uncautioned fouls (whoops....thanks to Throughball.com on that - and it's a great post besides).
- Pitchinvasion.net posted a depressing photo gallery of the crowd - or palpable lack thereof - for the first, "Mexico-less" half - of last night's double-header. He gives props to the passionate, but small Sam's Army contingent...but it's hard to get around the fact that it was small...
- On the happy side of things, I feel like I should draw more attention to something I noted in response to a comment on my freakout post: the subtle, if as not yet entirely unfulfilled, improvement to the U.S. attack. Between DaMarcus Beasley, Landon Donovan, and Clint Dempsey, the U.S. brings a more complete, complex attack than we ever have. Sure, we're missing reliable, even periodically useful, forwards, but it's worth noting improvement where it comes. The best news about this: Beasley and Donovan are 25 and Dempsey, only 24.
All for now...on this anyway...
(#########)
- While the Canadians did get robbed on the offside call, it's not like all the officiating went against them. As pointed out on du Nord (somewhere in there), four minutes extra time was pretty generous - and the ref went over to boot. Also, nicely as Iain Hume rounded out his evening, it started with several reckless, uncautioned fouls (whoops....thanks to Throughball.com on that - and it's a great post besides).
- Pitchinvasion.net posted a depressing photo gallery of the crowd - or palpable lack thereof - for the first, "Mexico-less" half - of last night's double-header. He gives props to the passionate, but small Sam's Army contingent...but it's hard to get around the fact that it was small...
- On the happy side of things, I feel like I should draw more attention to something I noted in response to a comment on my freakout post: the subtle, if as not yet entirely unfulfilled, improvement to the U.S. attack. Between DaMarcus Beasley, Landon Donovan, and Clint Dempsey, the U.S. brings a more complete, complex attack than we ever have. Sure, we're missing reliable, even periodically useful, forwards, but it's worth noting improvement where it comes. The best news about this: Beasley and Donovan are 25 and Dempsey, only 24.
All for now...on this anyway...
(#########)
Gold Cup: Progress,a Correction (+ Donovan)
By the end of the night, we'll all know who meets whom in the quarterfinals of the CONCACAF Gold Cup...which takes me to the correction - or, rather, the clarification. At the end of last night's post, I figured we'd get Guadeloupe in the quarters. But several items I've come across today tell me we're more likely to pick up the third-place team from Group C. It's not a huge deal, but this is what happens when a body doesn't pay enough attention to the details in the formula for placement (e.g. with "3A" appearing twice and "3B" and "3C" appearing only once, it's "3A" that gets moved around).
Then again, this kind of is a big deal if it means we get Mexico in the quarters. And that's certainly not outside the realm of possibility. The Associated Press' think-piece aside, Mexico would have to screw up royal - or Panama would have to channel Argentina - for the Tricolores to fall behind El Salvador for the relevant spot.
Don't get me wrong: I certainly think we're good enough to beat Mexico. But can anyone say with a straight face that they'd rather face them than Guadeloupe?
In other Gold Cup-related news, I came across a couple interesting passages on Landon Donovan today. The first came out of Greg Lalas' review of last night's game for Sports Illustrated - and you'll find it waayyyy down the page (or right here):
I think Lalas is on to something there. Did Landon demand the "heart and soul" job or was it thrust upon him? A few things, not least the decision to bail on Europe, suggests to me it fell in his lap due to his record scoring numbers. But maybe he should simply be a really, really good player for us and we'll get someone else to look after the leadership side (I'll take Jimmy Conrad).
Finally, another bit on Donovan came from something Marc Connolly wrote (can't link to it), but I think there's some truth to this as well:
OK, I'm done. Happy viewing tonight, for those who can see it. And, again, Forza Panama! Forza to the tune of five goals!
(########)
Then again, this kind of is a big deal if it means we get Mexico in the quarters. And that's certainly not outside the realm of possibility. The Associated Press' think-piece aside, Mexico would have to screw up royal - or Panama would have to channel Argentina - for the Tricolores to fall behind El Salvador for the relevant spot.
Don't get me wrong: I certainly think we're good enough to beat Mexico. But can anyone say with a straight face that they'd rather face them than Guadeloupe?
In other Gold Cup-related news, I came across a couple interesting passages on Landon Donovan today. The first came out of Greg Lalas' review of last night's game for Sports Illustrated - and you'll find it waayyyy down the page (or right here):
"It was nice to see Landon being Landon. He's not the heart and soul of the U.S. national team. He never was and he never will be, no matter how much the media and the fans wish it to be true. He's a scientist, almost, a clinical striker with the cold creativity and precision of an assassin. Maybe that's why he crosses himself so often. Asking for forgiveness as much as for luck."
I think Lalas is on to something there. Did Landon demand the "heart and soul" job or was it thrust upon him? A few things, not least the decision to bail on Europe, suggests to me it fell in his lap due to his record scoring numbers. But maybe he should simply be a really, really good player for us and we'll get someone else to look after the leadership side (I'll take Jimmy Conrad).
Finally, another bit on Donovan came from something Marc Connolly wrote (can't link to it), but I think there's some truth to this as well:
"I don’t believe the FSC cameras caught this, but it was interesting to see Donovan shaking his head in frustration even after scoring on his second penalty kick try during that odd sequence of events at the end of the half. That, right there, is a quick snapshot of what makes him a good player."
OK, I'm done. Happy viewing tonight, for those who can see it. And, again, Forza Panama! Forza to the tune of five goals!
(########)
LA, Donovan Are Right
It wasn't till I read Paul Oberjuerge's article for the Daily Breeze that I gave much thought to the tiffle over whether Landon "Golden Boy" Donovan should play in both of this summer's tournaments, the Gold Cup and the Copa America. Oberjuerge makes his case more from the Galaxy's point of view than anywhere - and he extends this to a case that this would be "better for American soccer" which I don't quite buy, though I get his thinking.
But my recently-claimed choice of sides on this comes from something simpler: there's no compelling reason for Donovan to play in the Copa. At best, he'll lead a squad of inexperienced sheep to the slaughter; at worst, he'll dilute the biggest upside the Copa offers U.S. Soccer. As such, he kind of defaults back to playing for LA...and, on that, I don't really care much, probably 'cause I don't like LA....
Here's the thing: playing in the Copa appeals to so many fans on the theory that it will pit American players against better teams than what CONCACAF has to offer and in hostile environments. But the reason I wouldn't mind Donovan not going grows from the composition of the team we're likely to send: by general consensus, it won't be the U.S. "A-team" - and the argument for sending our best was lost months ago. As such, this won't be a case of working out the kinks with a likely first team - e.g. building a better team in the crucible of a tougher tournament - but in carrying the U.S. team (much like he's doing, to a sometimes disturbing degree in the Gold Cup) as far as his small frame can take them in Venezuela.
Given the above, I'm not seeing what either Landon, or U.S. Soccer, gains by having him go to Venezuela. With two World Cups to his credit, it's pretty easy to argue Donovan already knows from high-pressure situations against better teams; he shined on one occasion and shrank on the other, so let's call the experiment so far a draw. But the expectation that one South American tournament will substantively change this is hard to credit.
With the decision to send a weaker squad to Venezuela already made, I see greater value in building the experience of other field players - i.e. training the U.S. team to win/get results/score without Donovan. Why not work on unearthing successors and alternates to the Golden Boy in the best possible environment? As I see it, Donovan being there will just get in the way of figuring that out.
(########)
But my recently-claimed choice of sides on this comes from something simpler: there's no compelling reason for Donovan to play in the Copa. At best, he'll lead a squad of inexperienced sheep to the slaughter; at worst, he'll dilute the biggest upside the Copa offers U.S. Soccer. As such, he kind of defaults back to playing for LA...and, on that, I don't really care much, probably 'cause I don't like LA....
Here's the thing: playing in the Copa appeals to so many fans on the theory that it will pit American players against better teams than what CONCACAF has to offer and in hostile environments. But the reason I wouldn't mind Donovan not going grows from the composition of the team we're likely to send: by general consensus, it won't be the U.S. "A-team" - and the argument for sending our best was lost months ago. As such, this won't be a case of working out the kinks with a likely first team - e.g. building a better team in the crucible of a tougher tournament - but in carrying the U.S. team (much like he's doing, to a sometimes disturbing degree in the Gold Cup) as far as his small frame can take them in Venezuela.
Given the above, I'm not seeing what either Landon, or U.S. Soccer, gains by having him go to Venezuela. With two World Cups to his credit, it's pretty easy to argue Donovan already knows from high-pressure situations against better teams; he shined on one occasion and shrank on the other, so let's call the experiment so far a draw. But the expectation that one South American tournament will substantively change this is hard to credit.
With the decision to send a weaker squad to Venezuela already made, I see greater value in building the experience of other field players - i.e. training the U.S. team to win/get results/score without Donovan. Why not work on unearthing successors and alternates to the Golden Boy in the best possible environment? As I see it, Donovan being there will just get in the way of figuring that out.
(########)
U.S. v. Guatemala: That Was What...Exactly?
In keeping with usual practice, what appears below comes before reading a single line of anyone else’s scribblings (the theory* behind this is explained below, in case you’re curious).
United States 1 - 0 Guatemala
Big Picture
Sloppy. Sloppy and ugly. Wait. Sloppy, anxious, and ugly. A few more adjectives probably apply, but those get at the meat of things. The CONCACAF rankings peg the U.S. Men (Yanquis) at #2 in the region and Guatemala at #10, but the proverbial Man from Mars wouldn’t have thought as much - at least not in the second half. We started strongly enough - and a few Yanquis had strong nights throughout - but we had surrendered the upper hand in this game well before Oguchi Onyewu received his marching orders. All in all, the players on the field looked nervous as I felt watching them.
Bottom line, though, we won. We played well enough, had just enough moments of brilliance, as well as the proper mix of share of timely interventions and lucky bounces, to win this important, opening game. The down side: at this point, we don’t look like a team that’s going to win this tournament.
Moving on to details:
- I friggin’ HATE watching the Yanquis play Guatemala. Just drives me nuts. They are U.S. Men’s Bolton Wanderers. Since it’s possible I’m not current on my EPL bogey-men, let me rephrase that: they are the team your guys really should beat, but against whom they always, always struggle. While the Guatemalans’ use of gamesmanship is both expert and maddening, the real rub is their prodigious ability to keep their shape combined with having just enough talent on hand to catch out a good team.
- That said, our defense pulled off the impressive trick of blocking my throat with my heart; they achieved the feat with a generally harried appearance. On a couple occasions, my heart even tried to make an escape - think the near-own goal by Carlos Bocanegra and the joint flubbing of a series of Guatemalan long-balls over the top early in the second half. Apparently, my heart had the good sense to try to leave the room rather than sit through those 25 minutes of torture.
- Speaking of, nearly everyone noted Onyewu’s unsettled performance. There was, of course, the red card, but that only slapped a big, red exclamation mark on a rocky evening. Regarding the card, it’s possible that Onyewu shouldn’t have picked up that first yellow, but, on the second, the ref simply had no choice. And it’s not like the man didn’t know he had the card...a detail that should have made that hip-check the last course of action.
- The subject of the officiating does, however, bear noting. I can’t dredge up the man’s name right now, in spite of hissing it to my wife late in the second half. While he didn’t have much choice with Onyewu, the ref did seem a little card-happy when it came to the Yanquis. This only grew upsetting after seeing U.S. players carded for the first offense, while DaMarcus Beasley endured three consecutive fouls without a single Guatemalan player getting so much as whistled.
- The officiating does, however, open a pathway to some praise for the commentary - I know...weird, right? Late in the game, Christopher “You’re From Where Now?” Sullivan offered an insight that might have made the officiating seem less bizarre. He noted that the ref seemed to be letting certain kinds of contact go unpunished; if memory serves, it involved using one’s arms a certain way and then getting the legs involved. I wasn’t watching the officiating on the same level so I can’t say whether he was on to something, but I appreciated commentary that spoke on that level of detail.
- For a spell in the first half and until the Guatemalans got hold of the game from the start of the second half till about the 80th minute, players started bypassing the midfield and sending high, hopeful balls over the top, or long, semi-desperate leading passes down the wings. Not surprisingly, we lost a good deal of possession through these tactics. Bad idea.
- We did look good for a couple stretches. For instance, we started strong (either that or the Guatemalans ceded too much of the ball) and closed the first half so strongly that the start of the second half felt a lot like a let-down.
- But the part of the game that most impressed me came with the end, when, perhaps, the Guatemalan side wore out. Still, we pushed into their half for much of the closing ten minutes and kept possession better than we had at any point during the rest of the second half...
U.S. Player Ratings
...y’know, in order to keep this from sprawling indefinitely, I’m just going to rate the U.S. field players and call it good (suddenly, I understand why people do this). By way of scale, it’s a 1-to-10 affair, with 5.0 signifying entirely adequate play that involved doing no harm, but also doing little in the way of noticeable good.
Tim Howard, 6.0: Didn’t have a lot to do, but did it well enough. I like that he’s a yeller. All ‘keepers should be yellers as far as I’m concerned (I’m looking at you, Troy Perkins).
Frankie Hejduk, 4.5: Nice headlock tackle, Frankie. Columbus is rubbing off on you. In all seriousness, his defending was tolerable (and would have yielded a “good enough” 5.0), but his passing and forays forward had me yelling, “NO!” at the screen.
Carlos Bocanegra, 4.5: Just too nervous, as evidenced by nearly slicing in an own-goal, and passed too long, too often.
Oguchi Onyewu, 3.5: Frankly, “Gooch” played unsteady, uncertain, barely controlled soccer. And going in for obstruction so clearly that he may as well waved the linesman's flag for him and while carrying a yellow, that was just a dumb play.
Jonathan Bornstein, 5.5: My comparative bright spot in the back line.
Benny Feilhaber, 5.0: Apart from a flash here or a decent, defense-upsetting pass there (few and far between), Benny seemed relatively anonymous out there. Came on stronger during the second half, but a pretty unremarkable outing.
Michael Bradley, 5.5: Roughly the same applied here as to Feilhaber, but I caught more of Bradley disrupting.
DaMarcus Beasley, 6.0: Take a good first half and add some useful things in the second on both sides of the ball and Beasley did pretty well for himself.
Landon Donovan, 6.5: He was the Yanqui’s man of the match for me. Yeah, a few free-kicks really sucked, but he did more than most to keep the Guatemalans honest in the back. Oh, and does anyone know what happened between him and Ruiz?
Clint Dempsey, 6.0: Great awareness on the goal in terms of separating from his marker; he did it so well he had one of the Guatemalan defenders jumping in frustration. Deuce had a decent day in general, though he held the ball too much on a few occasions.
Taylor Twellman, 5.5: Good day on the whole, not least on the assist to Dempsey’s goal (incredibly, he outran someone from behind to play that in). He would have ranked higher - by quite a bit - if it weren’t for boning that header on goal...after calling off Dempsey. But his worse habit was trying to pass with his head too often; it was great when it worked, but he also killed a lot of plays when he didn’t hit these little passes just right.
Eddie Johnson, 5.0: While he didn’t do much in terms of breaking down the Guatemalans, he made some smart plays in keeping possession toward the end.
Jay DeMerit, 6.0: I think he did very well in stabilizing the back-line when the U.S. went a man down; the overall picture felt more composed. He should start against Trinidad and, if he performs well there, he should get the start till he loses it.
Did we have another sub? We must have, right? Can’t recall who right now, which probably means they did OK. All for now. Looking forward to Saturday - enough so that I’ll probably post over the weekend.
- Crap. Credit to Jeff Carlisle for reminding me that Steve Ralston came on as a sub. Moreover, he did fairly well - call it a 5.0. But he gains at 0.1 on that ranking for corralling Bocanegra late in the game.
(* OK, here’s the theory behind the commenting before reading. If I write down what I think I saw, it teaches me something about what I’m seeing and not seeing when I watch a game. That way when I do go back and read everyone else’s stuff, I get a stronger sense of what I’m not catching in games.)
United States 1 - 0 Guatemala
Big Picture
Sloppy. Sloppy and ugly. Wait. Sloppy, anxious, and ugly. A few more adjectives probably apply, but those get at the meat of things. The CONCACAF rankings peg the U.S. Men (Yanquis) at #2 in the region and Guatemala at #10, but the proverbial Man from Mars wouldn’t have thought as much - at least not in the second half. We started strongly enough - and a few Yanquis had strong nights throughout - but we had surrendered the upper hand in this game well before Oguchi Onyewu received his marching orders. All in all, the players on the field looked nervous as I felt watching them.
Bottom line, though, we won. We played well enough, had just enough moments of brilliance, as well as the proper mix of share of timely interventions and lucky bounces, to win this important, opening game. The down side: at this point, we don’t look like a team that’s going to win this tournament.
Moving on to details:
- I friggin’ HATE watching the Yanquis play Guatemala. Just drives me nuts. They are U.S. Men’s Bolton Wanderers. Since it’s possible I’m not current on my EPL bogey-men, let me rephrase that: they are the team your guys really should beat, but against whom they always, always struggle. While the Guatemalans’ use of gamesmanship is both expert and maddening, the real rub is their prodigious ability to keep their shape combined with having just enough talent on hand to catch out a good team.
- That said, our defense pulled off the impressive trick of blocking my throat with my heart; they achieved the feat with a generally harried appearance. On a couple occasions, my heart even tried to make an escape - think the near-own goal by Carlos Bocanegra and the joint flubbing of a series of Guatemalan long-balls over the top early in the second half. Apparently, my heart had the good sense to try to leave the room rather than sit through those 25 minutes of torture.
- Speaking of, nearly everyone noted Onyewu’s unsettled performance. There was, of course, the red card, but that only slapped a big, red exclamation mark on a rocky evening. Regarding the card, it’s possible that Onyewu shouldn’t have picked up that first yellow, but, on the second, the ref simply had no choice. And it’s not like the man didn’t know he had the card...a detail that should have made that hip-check the last course of action.
- The subject of the officiating does, however, bear noting. I can’t dredge up the man’s name right now, in spite of hissing it to my wife late in the second half. While he didn’t have much choice with Onyewu, the ref did seem a little card-happy when it came to the Yanquis. This only grew upsetting after seeing U.S. players carded for the first offense, while DaMarcus Beasley endured three consecutive fouls without a single Guatemalan player getting so much as whistled.
- The officiating does, however, open a pathway to some praise for the commentary - I know...weird, right? Late in the game, Christopher “You’re From Where Now?” Sullivan offered an insight that might have made the officiating seem less bizarre. He noted that the ref seemed to be letting certain kinds of contact go unpunished; if memory serves, it involved using one’s arms a certain way and then getting the legs involved. I wasn’t watching the officiating on the same level so I can’t say whether he was on to something, but I appreciated commentary that spoke on that level of detail.
- For a spell in the first half and until the Guatemalans got hold of the game from the start of the second half till about the 80th minute, players started bypassing the midfield and sending high, hopeful balls over the top, or long, semi-desperate leading passes down the wings. Not surprisingly, we lost a good deal of possession through these tactics. Bad idea.
- We did look good for a couple stretches. For instance, we started strong (either that or the Guatemalans ceded too much of the ball) and closed the first half so strongly that the start of the second half felt a lot like a let-down.
- But the part of the game that most impressed me came with the end, when, perhaps, the Guatemalan side wore out. Still, we pushed into their half for much of the closing ten minutes and kept possession better than we had at any point during the rest of the second half...
U.S. Player Ratings
...y’know, in order to keep this from sprawling indefinitely, I’m just going to rate the U.S. field players and call it good (suddenly, I understand why people do this). By way of scale, it’s a 1-to-10 affair, with 5.0 signifying entirely adequate play that involved doing no harm, but also doing little in the way of noticeable good.
Tim Howard, 6.0: Didn’t have a lot to do, but did it well enough. I like that he’s a yeller. All ‘keepers should be yellers as far as I’m concerned (I’m looking at you, Troy Perkins).
Frankie Hejduk, 4.5: Nice headlock tackle, Frankie. Columbus is rubbing off on you. In all seriousness, his defending was tolerable (and would have yielded a “good enough” 5.0), but his passing and forays forward had me yelling, “NO!” at the screen.
Carlos Bocanegra, 4.5: Just too nervous, as evidenced by nearly slicing in an own-goal, and passed too long, too often.
Oguchi Onyewu, 3.5: Frankly, “Gooch” played unsteady, uncertain, barely controlled soccer. And going in for obstruction so clearly that he may as well waved the linesman's flag for him and while carrying a yellow, that was just a dumb play.
Jonathan Bornstein, 5.5: My comparative bright spot in the back line.
Benny Feilhaber, 5.0: Apart from a flash here or a decent, defense-upsetting pass there (few and far between), Benny seemed relatively anonymous out there. Came on stronger during the second half, but a pretty unremarkable outing.
Michael Bradley, 5.5: Roughly the same applied here as to Feilhaber, but I caught more of Bradley disrupting.
DaMarcus Beasley, 6.0: Take a good first half and add some useful things in the second on both sides of the ball and Beasley did pretty well for himself.
Landon Donovan, 6.5: He was the Yanqui’s man of the match for me. Yeah, a few free-kicks really sucked, but he did more than most to keep the Guatemalans honest in the back. Oh, and does anyone know what happened between him and Ruiz?
Clint Dempsey, 6.0: Great awareness on the goal in terms of separating from his marker; he did it so well he had one of the Guatemalan defenders jumping in frustration. Deuce had a decent day in general, though he held the ball too much on a few occasions.
Taylor Twellman, 5.5: Good day on the whole, not least on the assist to Dempsey’s goal (incredibly, he outran someone from behind to play that in). He would have ranked higher - by quite a bit - if it weren’t for boning that header on goal...after calling off Dempsey. But his worse habit was trying to pass with his head too often; it was great when it worked, but he also killed a lot of plays when he didn’t hit these little passes just right.
Eddie Johnson, 5.0: While he didn’t do much in terms of breaking down the Guatemalans, he made some smart plays in keeping possession toward the end.
Jay DeMerit, 6.0: I think he did very well in stabilizing the back-line when the U.S. went a man down; the overall picture felt more composed. He should start against Trinidad and, if he performs well there, he should get the start till he loses it.
Did we have another sub? We must have, right? Can’t recall who right now, which probably means they did OK. All for now. Looking forward to Saturday - enough so that I’ll probably post over the weekend.
- Crap. Credit to Jeff Carlisle for reminding me that Steve Ralston came on as a sub. Moreover, he did fairly well - call it a 5.0. But he gains at 0.1 on that ranking for corralling Bocanegra late in the game.
(* OK, here’s the theory behind the commenting before reading. If I write down what I think I saw, it teaches me something about what I’m seeing and not seeing when I watch a game. That way when I do go back and read everyone else’s stuff, I get a stronger sense of what I’m not catching in games.)
Donovan: Heart, Brain, Legs, or All Three?
I'm mainly throwing this out there because a couple people already have, specifically, Nick Green (regularly of Daily Breeze fame) for USSoccerplayers.com and Blue Blooded Journo. I'll let Green frame the argument...
...and, from Blue Blood's preview to this weekend's Galaxy v. Revs matchup, the charge appears in bold:
So, how much truth is there to that statement? Before answering, check out what former U.S. Men's coach Bruce Arena adds to the conversation:
Any thoughts on this? While I think Blue Blood is having a little fun with the opposition, Green's piece lays out a pretty clear case that the Galaxy wins or loses by Landon's play. Is it so bad as all that?
My answer: it certainly bears watching this year. And the June/July nexus will provide an excellent time for assessment.
(#########)
"On Tuesday, L.A. fans had the opportunity to see how a Galaxy team sans Donovan plays, and it wasn’t pretty."
"Until Donovan arrived an hour or so into the US Open Cup qualifier against the New York Red Bulls, the Galaxy appeared rudderless. They could barely get out of their half of the field, especially during the first 45 minutes."
...and, from Blue Blood's preview to this weekend's Galaxy v. Revs matchup, the charge appears in bold:
"However, Steve Nicol's boys won't have Clint Dempsey to tip the scales this year as they take on Landycakes and some other superfluous players going through the motions until Beckham arrives in a few months."
So, how much truth is there to that statement? Before answering, check out what former U.S. Men's coach Bruce Arena adds to the conversation:
"'The National Team isn’t that good without Landon Donovan (either),' was Red Bulls coach Bruce Arena’s curt observation on the matter."
Any thoughts on this? While I think Blue Blood is having a little fun with the opposition, Green's piece lays out a pretty clear case that the Galaxy wins or loses by Landon's play. Is it so bad as all that?
My answer: it certainly bears watching this year. And the June/July nexus will provide an excellent time for assessment.
(#########)
U.S. v. Guatemala: After Sleeping on It...
My relative silence on the subject of last night’s game between the U.S. and Guatemala has less to do with wanting to forget the whole thing as in trying to put it in some kind of useful context. My attempt to do that should appear shortly on Write On Sports - and I’ll link to it when it shows - but there’s a lot of detailed thinking bubbling underneath all that; that’s what I’d like to look at here.
Since the Write On effort drained me of all ability to think fluidly (it was so...damned...difficult...why?) I think I’ll rock the following, random player comments bullet-style:
- The Feilhaber Man-Crush: Here’s to hoping that last night cooled that a bit. And this has nothing to do with a personal belief he had a bad game; the point, though, is that he didn’t have a good one. Seeing as no one else did, that hardly makes him unique. That Michael Bradley, as I see it, outplayed him on the night gets me wondering whether Bradley wasn’t the decisive person against Ecuador as well. None of this is to say that Feilhaber doesn’t deserve more chances; he does, and many of them. But I’d like to see the Bradley/Feilhaber duo broken up so as to experiment with say, Feilhaber/Ricardo Clark or Bradley/Mastroeni. In other words, team the more-polished passer with an ankle-breaking bulldog and see what happens. The experiment I’m most eager to see is Clark/Feilhaber...so, yeah, it’s not that I don’t like the guy. It’s the hype that gets me.
- Landon Let-Down: I’ll be damned, but those Guatemalans had him figured. I think the only time I saw Landon was when he was picking himself up. He’s still our Landy-cakes and his numbers prove he’s the best offensive player this country has yet produced, but he’s also clearly stoppable. Kids/wife/dinner meant that I couldn’t answer this for sure, but did the Guatemalans just stick a player to Donovan? If I were only looking to kill his game, that’s certainly what I’d do. Whatever they did, though, it worked.
- Mapp’s "Almost" Day: There’s no question in my mind that Mapp posed the most persistent threat to the Guatemalan bunker. Though he never managed the final ball, his runs at least made the Guatemalans chase and lose shape from time to time; damn shame he never managed to crank in that final ball, or totally turn the corner. Still, call this an moderately encouraging outing to place on top of his earlier promising one against Denmark. I’d bump him up to a solid option behind Beasley; on those days you’re feeling cocky enough to play for a win from the outset, you could make him first choice by combining him with a stay-at-home left-back. But, yeah, I like him. He needs to improve to take some attention from Donovan.
- Frank Simek - Best of the new guys. Someone, somewhere detected a habit of Simek hoofing the ball upfield, but I didn’t catch it. What I did catch, was him playing himself smartly out of trouble once or twice, and a late-game surge down the right that looked threatening enough at the time. Credit to him for mixing it up.
- End EJ: For the love of God, can we end this fucking experiment? By my judgment, he didn’t even fight for half the balls lofted his way, which made him nothing as an aerial threat, and he didn’t offer much with the ball at his feet either. Let this guy focus on club ball and see if he can get “it” back - and I wish him luck with it.
- Dempsey: He showed he can play, but only here and there. By the end of the game, though, he was about the only U.S. player still chasing for a goal. Overall, though, he's not winning hearts and minds.
- DeMerit: I’m, frankly, pissed that we still don’t have much to work with around this guy. There simply wasn’t enough for him to do for us to figure.
- Conrad: This may or may not be a lonely position, but I thought he was our best defender on the day. Good at cleaning up and not giving anything away (though that was him on Ruiz’s best shot at the U.S. goal, wasn’t it?).
And finally....
- The Guatemalans: They suck for playing it, but, damn, was that game plan effective. And that leads to...
- The Fundamental Issue: Tedious as last night was, it’s not entirely fair to say the Yanquis don’t know how to break-down an opponent. That “almost-score” - the play that ended with Mapp picking up a smart feed from Dempsey only to send it wide - tells me we do know how. The question is how to do more of it, to train our guys to switch up tactics more comfortably and frequently during the game. Sure, there’s the game plan and there’s the way a player likes to receive the ball, but these cant’ be etched in stone if we’re going to improve as a team and as players. The play described above, which came a bit after the 60th minute, was a good example of that - and we almost caught ‘em out.
All in all, though, we looked awfully confused. And, the reality is, we simply do better against teams who come to play.
All for now...time to shift gears anyway.
Since the Write On effort drained me of all ability to think fluidly (it was so...damned...difficult...why?) I think I’ll rock the following, random player comments bullet-style:
- The Feilhaber Man-Crush: Here’s to hoping that last night cooled that a bit. And this has nothing to do with a personal belief he had a bad game; the point, though, is that he didn’t have a good one. Seeing as no one else did, that hardly makes him unique. That Michael Bradley, as I see it, outplayed him on the night gets me wondering whether Bradley wasn’t the decisive person against Ecuador as well. None of this is to say that Feilhaber doesn’t deserve more chances; he does, and many of them. But I’d like to see the Bradley/Feilhaber duo broken up so as to experiment with say, Feilhaber/Ricardo Clark or Bradley/Mastroeni. In other words, team the more-polished passer with an ankle-breaking bulldog and see what happens. The experiment I’m most eager to see is Clark/Feilhaber...so, yeah, it’s not that I don’t like the guy. It’s the hype that gets me.
- Landon Let-Down: I’ll be damned, but those Guatemalans had him figured. I think the only time I saw Landon was when he was picking himself up. He’s still our Landy-cakes and his numbers prove he’s the best offensive player this country has yet produced, but he’s also clearly stoppable. Kids/wife/dinner meant that I couldn’t answer this for sure, but did the Guatemalans just stick a player to Donovan? If I were only looking to kill his game, that’s certainly what I’d do. Whatever they did, though, it worked.
- Mapp’s "Almost" Day: There’s no question in my mind that Mapp posed the most persistent threat to the Guatemalan bunker. Though he never managed the final ball, his runs at least made the Guatemalans chase and lose shape from time to time; damn shame he never managed to crank in that final ball, or totally turn the corner. Still, call this an moderately encouraging outing to place on top of his earlier promising one against Denmark. I’d bump him up to a solid option behind Beasley; on those days you’re feeling cocky enough to play for a win from the outset, you could make him first choice by combining him with a stay-at-home left-back. But, yeah, I like him. He needs to improve to take some attention from Donovan.
- Frank Simek - Best of the new guys. Someone, somewhere detected a habit of Simek hoofing the ball upfield, but I didn’t catch it. What I did catch, was him playing himself smartly out of trouble once or twice, and a late-game surge down the right that looked threatening enough at the time. Credit to him for mixing it up.
- End EJ: For the love of God, can we end this fucking experiment? By my judgment, he didn’t even fight for half the balls lofted his way, which made him nothing as an aerial threat, and he didn’t offer much with the ball at his feet either. Let this guy focus on club ball and see if he can get “it” back - and I wish him luck with it.
- Dempsey: He showed he can play, but only here and there. By the end of the game, though, he was about the only U.S. player still chasing for a goal. Overall, though, he's not winning hearts and minds.
- DeMerit: I’m, frankly, pissed that we still don’t have much to work with around this guy. There simply wasn’t enough for him to do for us to figure.
- Conrad: This may or may not be a lonely position, but I thought he was our best defender on the day. Good at cleaning up and not giving anything away (though that was him on Ruiz’s best shot at the U.S. goal, wasn’t it?).
And finally....
- The Guatemalans: They suck for playing it, but, damn, was that game plan effective. And that leads to...
- The Fundamental Issue: Tedious as last night was, it’s not entirely fair to say the Yanquis don’t know how to break-down an opponent. That “almost-score” - the play that ended with Mapp picking up a smart feed from Dempsey only to send it wide - tells me we do know how. The question is how to do more of it, to train our guys to switch up tactics more comfortably and frequently during the game. Sure, there’s the game plan and there’s the way a player likes to receive the ball, but these cant’ be etched in stone if we’re going to improve as a team and as players. The play described above, which came a bit after the 60th minute, was a good example of that - and we almost caught ‘em out.
All in all, though, we looked awfully confused. And, the reality is, we simply do better against teams who come to play.
All for now...time to shift gears anyway.
Los Angeles Galaxy: 2007 Season Preview
Past
MLSnet.com: 2006 Season Wrap
MLSnet.com: Big Questions after '06
My Thoughts on the Galaxy’s '06 (Know my biases)
Present
2006-07 Off-Season Changes
Soccer New England’s Ins & Outs - (NOTE: this is the first and last time I’ll write the name “Beckham”; he’s already doing plenty off the field, but I’m not sold on what he’s going to do on it do on it until, oh, the playoffs; by that time, he’ll have found his feet and we should have a better idea of how he’ll adjust.)
Los Angeles Galaxy roster from MLSnet.com
And now, the Future...
Key Men
Landon Donovan - This one’s a little automatic - and Galaxy fans almost certainly have to be getting excited about what Donovan’s doing on the national team. In any case, odds are that if you’re reading this you know plenty about Donovan; on his day, he’s the league’s top player - and certainly the best American player - who can score, assist, run at defenders, pass intelligently and well, etc.
Joe Cannon - The odds of Cannon failing to perform are pretty low. But it will be a black eye to the Galaxy front office if the defense stumbles; after all, you don’t ditch a solid ‘keeper like Hartman only to slip. This one will bear watching.
Tyrone Marshall - I’ve always liked Tyrone and have long counted him among the league’s best central defenders (though he is, mysteriously, listed as a forward on the roster page). But as he creeps further into the wrong side of 30, one has to wonder whether he’ll lose a step or two. With Ugo Ihemelu gone, though, Marshall bears responsibility for continuity in the Galaxy defense and integrating the new guys.
Nate Jaqua/Santino Quaranta - One of these two needs to be that clichéd sports animal, “the difference-maker,” for this year’s Galaxy. A big-man/target-man (see: Ching, Brian 2nd half v. Ecuador) would probably bring more to the overall offensive equation, especially when He-who-must-not-be-named joins the team, which is why I view Jaqua as the likelier candidate. Hell, it could be Alan Gordon for all Galaxy fans care. Somebody needs to make this team more complicated in the attack.
Additional Assets
“Joe-Mentum” - This can be double-edged, to be sure, but no team has the same excitement around them this year as LA. I put it here because I think they’re up for the pressure; for all I know, it may give them an edge.
One-Step Away - I’m only emphasizing something here: if this team can find a second banana to complement Donovan in the offense, they’ll be very good. The defense is already there (they finished second in goals-against in ’06 and carried a wicked shutout streak through the middle of the summer), so they’re closer than one might think.
Liabilities
Depth - Like Houston and DC, the Galaxy not only has a busy year with SuperLiga and the U.S. Open Cup (which they’ll no doubt ditch), they keep adding silly shit to it, whether it’s the “World Series of Soccer” or what one suspects will be other exhibitions. Once you get away from the starters, the players get greener pretty quick - and that’s when the “Joe-mentum” upside may became a wearying spotlight. Another factor plays into this...
Call-Ups - The good news is that Trinidad & Tobago’s return to international play means that Tyrone Marshall and, possibly, Shavar Thomas won’t get called up to the Jamaican national team for the CONCACAF Gold Cup. But they’ll lose left-back Ante Jazic to Canada’s team (I think) for the Gold Cup and, between that tournament and the Copa America, they’ll certainly lose Donovan for one month and Chris Albright and, likely, Cannon for a month as well - though it might not be the same month.
That Road-Trip - MLS, in its quest milk He-who-must-not-be-named’s arrival for all it’s worth, will end the Galaxy’s season with a long, long road-trip. In all honesty, this is semi-unconscionable from a competitive stand-point.
Long story short, the multiple obligations, both competitive and commercial, will likely cause the problems the Galaxy has this season.
Unknowns
Balance - Sorry. I’m confusing myself here with the redundancies. In simple terms, this is basically the mystery point where “additional assets” end and “liabilities” begin.
Prospects - Using Gambling Analogies
Back to craps: whenever a shooter gets hot, it’s very easy to get over-extended. Sure, the more bets you have on the table, the more you collect so long as the shooter stays hot, but you’re also only one craps roll away from losing a truckload of cash. The Galaxy will make plenty of cash - even for teams around the league when they visit them; it’s not unlike the barnstorming concept of baseball’s early days. But you’ve got to wonder whether they won’t pay a price on the field for the cash they’re picking up off of it.
For all that, I’d be shocked if they missed the playoffs for a second consecutive year. An Columbus-sized injury bug could do it, but they’ve got a strong enough first eleven to break even where it counts - e.g. reaching the post-season.
Videos! I Did It! (Dang...more Feilhaber)
Oh, wicked cool. Now, I'm posting videos....now, if only I can get ahold of a tight-focus replay on Feilhaber, I can do something about my sense I'm being bum-rushed into singing his praises.
Look, here's the thing. We looked pretty stretched in the first half - e.g. the time Feilhaber was on the pitch solo. I'm thinking this could have been a function of Ecuador playing more down the flanks, which would have largely bypassed Feilhaber. It was that and the give-aways everyone saw that caused me to rate him as marginal.
Still, there's something about that unanimity of opinion on his debut.
Whatever. I suppose I should just sit and hope that Bradley plays/starts him again against Guatemala (and that he's not one of the players leaving early; doesn't appear so; thanks My Soccer Blog).
U.S. v. Ecuador: Round-Up/Apology to Feilhaber
I feel compelled to 1) point out that Throughball posted a video of the goals from the game, and 2) that I still don't know how to post video. Moving on...
After reading more than I ever wanted to about the U.S. Men's National Team's (aka, Yanquis) 3 - 1 win over Ecuador, I'm going to compare what I saw against what everyone else did...and it won't always make for pretty viewing. I'll link to everything I read below - and a lot of it is quite good - but will start with a re-evaluation of my original analysis....
...which starts with an excuse. I was highly distracted during viewing. To begin, the 9 a.m. start wasn't helpful. I was up, down, out of the room, chasing my kid, sitting another, etc. etc.
I mention this only because what everyone has written positively-to-the-point-of-man-crush about Benny Feilhaber. In my original analysis, I pointed to him as the one guy not deserving of "honorable mention," which I now see runs counter to nearly unanimous opinion. Based on that, I can only conclude that I saw more of the stray passes he managed in the first half than I did of what everyone else saw - specifically when Michael Bradley entered the game; a lot of observers viewed that as a turning point in the game. This, to me, recommends talking up Bradley as opposed to Feilhaber, but, given all I missed, I'm not up for strong statements.
And though I was only dimly aware as to when Michael Bradley came on, I certainly noticed that the U.S. took charge of the game by the second half; it wasn't just the score, but the possession and momentum. So, I'll pay closer attention to the Bradley/Feilhaber thing in future - assuming I get a shot at it.
Other areas of (relative) disagreement:
Clint Dempsey: I thought he did pretty well. I can remember a pair of intelligent, effective runs to match the wayward jogs to the corner that everyone else saw; I also remember two solid, successful defensive battles. No, Clint didn't dominate, but he was hardly anonymous - and, yeah, he exposed Cherundolo more than a little - but I basically liked what I saw and wonder about the extent to which Dempsey labors under, shall we say, Donovan-sized expectations.
Jimmy Conrad: If there was a defender who bailed out the rest when things went wrong, it was Conrad. It's undeniable that the defense didn't look good, particularly in the first half, and that's Conrad's responsibility as much as anyone's. But, his problems with foot-speed aside, I still thought he had the best day at the back and still count him the most reliable defender so far in the current World Cup cycle.
DaMarcus Beasley: I can only say I thought he had a good game. Really. But only one other guy saw that: Ives Galarcep (LINK - see the 67th minute).
All in all, I think some of my first impressions held: it's harder to fire Bradley; Donovan had a great game, but it's only the first step to restoring his reputation; Ecuador is a good team, which people ought to remember when they're criticizing our defense - it's not like this was my old indoor team or anything.
Looking forward to Wednesday, now. I'll be shocked if Bob doesn't make it 4-0-0. Speaking of Bob, USSoccerplayers.com's Jay Hutcherson had by far the most novel take on where he sits with regard to the coaching position; it comes very close to stating outright that getting the job is out of Bradley's hands. Finally, I couldn't hear a word of the commentary - between the kids crawling around my ankles (mentioned above) and my wife planning a birthday party, I didn't hear anything more than a stray line.
Now, the rest of the links (and the odd response from me):
Jen Chang: Part of the Landon love-fest, but there's also love for the Bradley/Feilhaber midfield pairing. (Don't we always get over-excited based on these first impressions?)
Jeff Carlisle: The first place I saw mention of Michael Bradley's impact on the game; also digs into the extent to which Sunday's performance vindicates Donovan. Also credits the "Other Bradley" (Bob) for getting things settled for the second half; it seems he's done this in each of the three games he's coached.
Soccer America turned in both an analysis and grade sheet; the analysis praises the way both central pairings (Donovan/Ching; Feilhaber/Bradley) clicked and they gave Feilhaber high marks (all right, all right...I fucking missed it!)
USSoccerplayers.com's Ken Pendleton wins for most apt description of the game's first half:
Moving now to blogs, An American's View highlighted the defensive errors, dissed Deuce, and added to the widespread love for Bradley-Feilhaber. My Soccer Blog weighed in with grades and analysis, most of which matched everyone else's thinking (though he rated Bradley higher than Feilhaber, which, to my distracted eye, makes sense; he pooped on Deuce too).
On the less thorough side of blog reviews are contributions from Quarter Volley (bashes Dave O'Brien), DCenters (who was underwhelmed), and the Real Salt Lake Blog (who shortened a favorite word, "mofugly," to "fugly" in summing up the game).
That's all...and that's enough.
After reading more than I ever wanted to about the U.S. Men's National Team's (aka, Yanquis) 3 - 1 win over Ecuador, I'm going to compare what I saw against what everyone else did...and it won't always make for pretty viewing. I'll link to everything I read below - and a lot of it is quite good - but will start with a re-evaluation of my original analysis....
...which starts with an excuse. I was highly distracted during viewing. To begin, the 9 a.m. start wasn't helpful. I was up, down, out of the room, chasing my kid, sitting another, etc. etc.
I mention this only because what everyone has written positively-to-the-point-of-man-crush about Benny Feilhaber. In my original analysis, I pointed to him as the one guy not deserving of "honorable mention," which I now see runs counter to nearly unanimous opinion. Based on that, I can only conclude that I saw more of the stray passes he managed in the first half than I did of what everyone else saw - specifically when Michael Bradley entered the game; a lot of observers viewed that as a turning point in the game. This, to me, recommends talking up Bradley as opposed to Feilhaber, but, given all I missed, I'm not up for strong statements.
And though I was only dimly aware as to when Michael Bradley came on, I certainly noticed that the U.S. took charge of the game by the second half; it wasn't just the score, but the possession and momentum. So, I'll pay closer attention to the Bradley/Feilhaber thing in future - assuming I get a shot at it.
Other areas of (relative) disagreement:
Clint Dempsey: I thought he did pretty well. I can remember a pair of intelligent, effective runs to match the wayward jogs to the corner that everyone else saw; I also remember two solid, successful defensive battles. No, Clint didn't dominate, but he was hardly anonymous - and, yeah, he exposed Cherundolo more than a little - but I basically liked what I saw and wonder about the extent to which Dempsey labors under, shall we say, Donovan-sized expectations.
Jimmy Conrad: If there was a defender who bailed out the rest when things went wrong, it was Conrad. It's undeniable that the defense didn't look good, particularly in the first half, and that's Conrad's responsibility as much as anyone's. But, his problems with foot-speed aside, I still thought he had the best day at the back and still count him the most reliable defender so far in the current World Cup cycle.
DaMarcus Beasley: I can only say I thought he had a good game. Really. But only one other guy saw that: Ives Galarcep (LINK - see the 67th minute).
All in all, I think some of my first impressions held: it's harder to fire Bradley; Donovan had a great game, but it's only the first step to restoring his reputation; Ecuador is a good team, which people ought to remember when they're criticizing our defense - it's not like this was my old indoor team or anything.
Looking forward to Wednesday, now. I'll be shocked if Bob doesn't make it 4-0-0. Speaking of Bob, USSoccerplayers.com's Jay Hutcherson had by far the most novel take on where he sits with regard to the coaching position; it comes very close to stating outright that getting the job is out of Bradley's hands. Finally, I couldn't hear a word of the commentary - between the kids crawling around my ankles (mentioned above) and my wife planning a birthday party, I didn't hear anything more than a stray line.
Now, the rest of the links (and the odd response from me):
Jen Chang: Part of the Landon love-fest, but there's also love for the Bradley/Feilhaber midfield pairing. (Don't we always get over-excited based on these first impressions?)
Jeff Carlisle: The first place I saw mention of Michael Bradley's impact on the game; also digs into the extent to which Sunday's performance vindicates Donovan. Also credits the "Other Bradley" (Bob) for getting things settled for the second half; it seems he's done this in each of the three games he's coached.
Soccer America turned in both an analysis and grade sheet; the analysis praises the way both central pairings (Donovan/Ching; Feilhaber/Bradley) clicked and they gave Feilhaber high marks (all right, all right...I fucking missed it!)
USSoccerplayers.com's Ken Pendleton wins for most apt description of the game's first half:
"In the first half, the US lacked any semblance of balance. They looked dangerous every time they came forward, but vulnerable every time Ecuador did the same."
Moving now to blogs, An American's View highlighted the defensive errors, dissed Deuce, and added to the widespread love for Bradley-Feilhaber. My Soccer Blog weighed in with grades and analysis, most of which matched everyone else's thinking (though he rated Bradley higher than Feilhaber, which, to my distracted eye, makes sense; he pooped on Deuce too).
On the less thorough side of blog reviews are contributions from Quarter Volley (bashes Dave O'Brien), DCenters (who was underwhelmed), and the Real Salt Lake Blog (who shortened a favorite word, "mofugly," to "fugly" in summing up the game).
That's all...and that's enough.
LA Freelancers Take on Euro-Myth
Like some friends call to coordinate outfits, it seems that the LA Soccer News/Sideline Views crew did some coordinating to take on the debate as to whether Major League Soccer (MLS) somehow stunts a player's development. Luis Bueno's contribution comes in the form of a formal column, while Andrea Canales posted hers on the blog they share, Sideline Views. Bueno's deals more directly with the MLS-to-Europe comparison using U.S. Men's National Team players as example, while Canales assails the faulty logic that Europe is always and automatically better using Landon Donovan.
The point of both pieces, to lump them together a bit unfairly, boils down to a statement that MLS is developing players; perhaps not as quickly as we'd all like, but it's doing a job, if not the job. Having gone a little ways down the opposite road - especially where Donovan is concerned - I have to confess they make a decent case; though where Canales is concerned, I tend to be dubious about applying strict logic to real life equations. Still, I think she finds the essential hole in the argument, much like Bueno's numbers capably make his case.
But the killer line closes Canales post:
One rejoinder comes to me right away - e.g., these are relatively new trends we're discussing and the general inability of Americans not named Brian McBride or Claudio Reyna, and those not playing 'keeper, to become real forces in the European top-flight speaks to a weakness in the U.S. game/system that keeps these players from becoming regulars on European clubs....gasp...sorry out of breath - but that doesn't really take away from the basic point.
MLS isn't doing that badly for a twelve-year-old league. We aren't world-beaters, but we're also no longer pushovers on the world scene. This whole thing will take time no matter where our guys play and, if they're not getting playing time, it's not like Americans are going to improve in Europe just by, say, drinking the water and breathing the air. Even as I see some truth in my long digression above, even that will take time. Long story short, you can't rush these things...seriously, you physically can't, not because it's not wise, but because it simply can't be done. The reality is, we're learning. And MLS isn't a horrible classroom.
(#########)
The point of both pieces, to lump them together a bit unfairly, boils down to a statement that MLS is developing players; perhaps not as quickly as we'd all like, but it's doing a job, if not the job. Having gone a little ways down the opposite road - especially where Donovan is concerned - I have to confess they make a decent case; though where Canales is concerned, I tend to be dubious about applying strict logic to real life equations. Still, I think she finds the essential hole in the argument, much like Bueno's numbers capably make his case.
But the killer line closes Canales post:
"If Europe is so wonderful for developing players, why hasn't a U.S. player in Europe come along better than Donovan?"
One rejoinder comes to me right away - e.g., these are relatively new trends we're discussing and the general inability of Americans not named Brian McBride or Claudio Reyna, and those not playing 'keeper, to become real forces in the European top-flight speaks to a weakness in the U.S. game/system that keeps these players from becoming regulars on European clubs....gasp...sorry out of breath - but that doesn't really take away from the basic point.
MLS isn't doing that badly for a twelve-year-old league. We aren't world-beaters, but we're also no longer pushovers on the world scene. This whole thing will take time no matter where our guys play and, if they're not getting playing time, it's not like Americans are going to improve in Europe just by, say, drinking the water and breathing the air. Even as I see some truth in my long digression above, even that will take time. Long story short, you can't rush these things...seriously, you physically can't, not because it's not wise, but because it simply can't be done. The reality is, we're learning. And MLS isn't a horrible classroom.
(#########)
U.S. v. Ecuador: First Impressions
U.S. 3 - 1 Ecuador
Do you feel the goosebumps? Me too - I think. Here are some questions that come to me as I review what just happened in my head; I'll compare notes with the rest of the world tomorrow.
Good Test? - About midway through the first half, I thought to myself (for the rest of my family doesn't care about such things) this game looked like a very good, very real test for the U.S. Men's National Team (hereafter, the Yanquis). Ecuador, as a team, was big, athletic, and quick; they pressured our players well and, usually, the minute our guys hit the middle third, an Ecuadoran player attached himself to his hip, back, etc. They also showed a capacity for breaking down, or getting around, the U.S. defense. The second half made me wonder a bit, though...
What About Bob? - How hard will it be to fire Yanqui head coach Bob Bradley? He's compiled a 3-0-0 record, with two of those games coming against what the overwhelming majority of observers would dub quality opposition (no offense intended to the Denmark B-Team); by the end of the day Wednesday, he's likely to have a 4-0-0. By my estimation, this should guarantee Bradley the reins for the Gold Cup and Copa America: see how he manages this team through a month-long tournament and you should have some sense (with the hiring of Steve Sampson the exception that proves the rule) of how he'll perform on the biggest stage.
More below....
Who Spike Landon's Wheaties? - This is what U.S. fans want to see from Landon Donovan. He was everywhere, he played aggressive yet loose and and kept his head through three - almost four - top-quality finishes. Even if this is what he can do, there's no reason to expect him to do it every game. Still, it had definitely been a while, so, yeah, this was refreshing, even exhilirating to see Donovan rip the opposition.
Oh, and how many records will this kid hold before his career is over?
How well will this defense gel? - OK, we all got our wish (dammit! we didn't...where was Jay DeMerit? How much longer do I have to endure speculation without hard evidence?): the defense Bradley fielded was basically our best. But they did look pretty haphazard for much of the first half. One of the yo-yos in the booth said something about them still finding their roles - and I think he's right - so I'm thankful they've got three years in which to do it. The only guy who looked totally solid: Jimmy Conrad. I never thought I'd write this - and feel no regret in doing so - but is Conrad the Yanquis' best defender?
And, yeah, Onyewu got cooked on Ecuador's goal...don't blame him too much, though, 'cause it was a slick little move. And seeing him with his shirt off before the game - good Lord, he's massive.
We know the MVP, but who deserves honorable mention? - I liked what I saw from Clint Dempsey; not everything, but he had a pair of good, slashing runs and a pair of effective defensive scraps. Obviously, I thought pretty highly of Conrad. DaMarcus Beasley had a good enough game that I'd like to think he played himself back into everyone's good graces. Ching battled and, if I'm not mistaken, sent Donovan through on the run for the second goal - though he was otherwise a bit marginal.
Who doesn't? - Happily, most people had a good game. If I had to pick somebody, Benny Feilhaber sprayed some bad passes around the middle of the field. But, for all that, he didn't look like he didn't belong.
All for now. Talk more about this tomorrow.
Do you feel the goosebumps? Me too - I think. Here are some questions that come to me as I review what just happened in my head; I'll compare notes with the rest of the world tomorrow.
Good Test? - About midway through the first half, I thought to myself (for the rest of my family doesn't care about such things) this game looked like a very good, very real test for the U.S. Men's National Team (hereafter, the Yanquis). Ecuador, as a team, was big, athletic, and quick; they pressured our players well and, usually, the minute our guys hit the middle third, an Ecuadoran player attached himself to his hip, back, etc. They also showed a capacity for breaking down, or getting around, the U.S. defense. The second half made me wonder a bit, though...
What About Bob? - How hard will it be to fire Yanqui head coach Bob Bradley? He's compiled a 3-0-0 record, with two of those games coming against what the overwhelming majority of observers would dub quality opposition (no offense intended to the Denmark B-Team); by the end of the day Wednesday, he's likely to have a 4-0-0. By my estimation, this should guarantee Bradley the reins for the Gold Cup and Copa America: see how he manages this team through a month-long tournament and you should have some sense (with the hiring of Steve Sampson the exception that proves the rule) of how he'll perform on the biggest stage.
More below....
Who Spike Landon's Wheaties? - This is what U.S. fans want to see from Landon Donovan. He was everywhere, he played aggressive yet loose and and kept his head through three - almost four - top-quality finishes. Even if this is what he can do, there's no reason to expect him to do it every game. Still, it had definitely been a while, so, yeah, this was refreshing, even exhilirating to see Donovan rip the opposition.
Oh, and how many records will this kid hold before his career is over?
How well will this defense gel? - OK, we all got our wish (dammit! we didn't...where was Jay DeMerit? How much longer do I have to endure speculation without hard evidence?): the defense Bradley fielded was basically our best. But they did look pretty haphazard for much of the first half. One of the yo-yos in the booth said something about them still finding their roles - and I think he's right - so I'm thankful they've got three years in which to do it. The only guy who looked totally solid: Jimmy Conrad. I never thought I'd write this - and feel no regret in doing so - but is Conrad the Yanquis' best defender?
And, yeah, Onyewu got cooked on Ecuador's goal...don't blame him too much, though, 'cause it was a slick little move. And seeing him with his shirt off before the game - good Lord, he's massive.
We know the MVP, but who deserves honorable mention? - I liked what I saw from Clint Dempsey; not everything, but he had a pair of good, slashing runs and a pair of effective defensive scraps. Obviously, I thought pretty highly of Conrad. DaMarcus Beasley had a good enough game that I'd like to think he played himself back into everyone's good graces. Ching battled and, if I'm not mistaken, sent Donovan through on the run for the second goal - though he was otherwise a bit marginal.
Who doesn't? - Happily, most people had a good game. If I had to pick somebody, Benny Feilhaber sprayed some bad passes around the middle of the field. But, for all that, he didn't look like he didn't belong.
All for now. Talk more about this tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)