U.S. Advances; Canada Grows 10 Feet

Against my usual practice, I read a thing or two about the game before sitting down to type this short post (what can I say? Didn’t feel like turning this over Saturday or Sunday). But one paragraph in the conclusion to Ives Galarcep’s analysis of the game provides the basic, crucial take-away:

“From the shaky moments on defense, to the wasted chances offensively, Saturday's win against Panama provided the U.S. team with plenty of the type of adversity Bob Bradley wants his team to deal with.”

In all honesty, you could do worse than to skip what follows and simply read Galarcep’s summary. It pretty reliably captures where things appear to be...though I’m thinking the title - “U.S. passes first real test with flying colors” - overdoes it, even disconnects from the article, a bit.

To add my two cents:

- I’ll start with our next opponents: by what voodoo do the Canadians suddenly seem like the 1998 edition of France. Don’t get me wrong: this isn’t a straight comparison, but a perceptual thing. Normally, when I see Canada on the schedule, I add the three points to our standing total and start scouting the next opponent. Not this time.
- It probably has something to do with them beating Guatemala 3-0 (walking away, no less); the same Guatemalan side over whom we gutted out a 1-0 win.
- Then there are the myriad seams and gaps we’ve all seen in the U.S. defense over the past couple weeks.
- Strange thing about that, though: the holes have been there, but the goals haven’t followed. And if one looks at the one goal we did concede, it took a lucky bounce combined with some panicked defending for Blas Perez - a plenty good striker - to find space for that goal.
- The operational theory, however, must rely on the assumption that Canada’s players have sufficient talent to exploit the kind of opening Perez did - and several others before him almost did.

- Turning, now, to happy talk: are we creating chances or who?
- Sadly, too many of those chances go begging - and we’re all looking at you Taylor Twellman...and don’t you try to hide back there Landycakes (that’s Landon Donovan for people with normal lives/interests). In all honesty, though, Twellman has been the worst culprit, missing a number of opportunities of the bread-and-butter variety; worse, his passes haven't been the best in terms of advisability and accuracy. Is it possible, as Galarcep suggests, that Twellman is the best player available in that position? I don’t know. What I do know is that his misses so far warrant a benching.

- Returning to happy thoughts, does anyone else think Donovan should consider ceding free-kick duty to DaMarcus Beasley? (OK, our Justin Mapp; I won’t pretend I didn’t name Mapp over Beasley in my proposed starting line-up...something “demarcus beasley” didn’t like.) His service on the Bocanegra’s goal was pretty sharp and, if memory serves, he didn’t balloon his crosses as often Donovan does.
- Speaking of Donovan, is anyone else uneasy with the quality of his PKs? Had the Panamanian ‘keeper guessed right, he would have been lying on the ground several days before Donovan’s feeble shot rolled into his arms. Fortunately, it didn’t play out thattaway.
- In a related note, did anyone anywhere seriously doubt the PK was the correct call? That was a great ball in by (was it?) Bradley, good run by Donovan; we deserved something.
- The Oguchi Onyewu/Carlos Bocanegra central pairing looked good enough. I’ve mentioned this before, but I’d also be perfectly comfortable trying Jay DeMerit over Onyewu; Bocanegra, on the other hand, is nearly automatic right now. Speaking of changes, in spite of his considerable, useful industry on the right, I’d also try Frank Simek over Hejduk.
- On the other hand, I’m willing to raise my hand and admit that, yes, Jonathan Bornstein looks like the best option at left back...even if he did get burned once or twice.
- I’m not sold on the Michael Bradley/Pablo Mastroeni central midfield combo, but will gladly sign on to the Bradley/Mastroeni/Benny Feilhaber triangle Galarcep mentions in his analysis.
- Anyone know why Ching is gimpy?
- And, yes, I’m still neutral with regard to the left side of our midfield; but if you play Mapp out there, that dictates the kind of player the Yanquis field at left back. Is it fair to ask whether that’s more trouble than just starting DaMarcus and being done with it? Absolutely.

- Overall, I was actually pleased the Yanqui’s play on Saturday- just not to the extent of using “flying colors” to describe it like ESPN’s headline writer. In all honesty, though, it wasn’t till Perez scored that anything other than a respectable, even comfortable, win even occurred to me. That speaks pretty well of our day, I suppose. (And, it’s worth noting, we didn’t need the ref to drag our asses into the semis.)

- Looking very much forward to Thursday semifinal versus Canada. Expect a lot more obsessive geekiness between here and there.

US v. Panama: (Damn) TV and Line-Ups

Some blogger out there discovered that his satellite package picked up Telefutura; sadly, I can't say the same thing, which is why I'm only able to speak to the U.S. v. Panama quarterfinal. I figure that's enough given where I'm writing...though I'm a bit cross about having nothing intelligent to say about the Panamanians...

There are a few preview pieces out there, though the Panama-specific commentary reads a bit thin. For instance, I first got wind of Panama being a couple players short courtesy of red-card suspensions in Jeff Carlisle's (pretty solid) recap of where the U.S. squad has been and where it's headed: he names midfielder Rolando Escobar and defender Ramon Torres as the unwilling absentees. Ridge Mahoney adds a third player in his preview - Gabriel Gomez - but having not seen the current Panama squad play, I'm having trouble judging what the Panamanians will be missing. Another Soccer America article, this one by Paul Kennedy, adds some other players to watch - Felipe Baloy, Ricardo Phillips (at least for shooting off the post against Mexico), "and their forwards, Jose Luis Garces and Blas Perez" (who looks usefully menacing in the picture at the top of the piece) - but, again, I'm really wishing I had caught a Panama game. Put another way, I'm hoping those names mean something to someone, 'cause they're not saying anything to me that I can understand.

What I do understand, however, is this: Panama did pretty well in the group stage, beating eventual first-place squad Honduras in their opener, tying (and, reportedly, almost beating) Cuba, before making Mexico sweat in the final game. So, like everyone else, I'm expecting our hardest game yet...and that's a good thing...

All that's left now is talking about the team I know well: the Yanquis. And the rest of the online world has gotten off to a good start on this. Ives Galarcep turned in a nice study of our progress for ESPN, as well as playing the "roster game" on his blog. And my urge to join in the fun tells me I'm excited about this game.

If I was Yanqui coach Bob Bradley, here's the line-up I'd field:

------------------ Howard ----------------
-- Simek - DeMerit - Onyewu - Bocanegra --

-- Donovan - Feilhaber - Mastroeni - Mapp -

------- Dempsey --------- Ching ------

Basically, screw all the Christmas-business. Also, that's not my typical first-choice central defensive set-up, but I'm going with it because Galarcep tells me we need big bodies to contain Panama's forwards, whom he describes as "great in the air and very dangerous." That detail and my near-total ignorance of the Panamanian team keeps me from going with Michael Parkhurst...and I'm still tempted. Starting Bocanegra at left back over Bornstein is another weird call, but that goes back to the size issue; the notion of having Boca stay at home often as not is what leaves me feeling comfortable about playing Mapp on the right. The central idea in all this is playing a little conservative in the back - to begin at least - and counting on five-to-six-to-if-things-break-well-early-seven players to carry the attack. But it's that foundation of five players - the four defenders plus Mastroeni - that I'd have us lean on to give the offense time and space to get rolling.

As such, I view Mastroeni as the only "must-start." The Feilhaber/Bradely combo is probably smarter, but, if we're in a dogfight, I want a true terrier in there scrapping - hence Pablo. And I'm going with Feilhaber over Bradley because we've got to have some offense. With Donovan, the weight of the commentary I'm seeing has me thinking I'm the only one who has liked him on the right, but I think that has worked well enough. And I bought into the Dempsey as a forward thing before the tournament started (see?) and I think his play in that role has supported that call.

Finally, the Revs fan in me is feeling a little guilt about favoring Ching over Twellman. But even before nodding along with Galarcep's point that Ching is a better passer than both Twellman or Johnson (that's in his "study" piece, by the way), the fact is I couldn't erase Twellman's several wretched give-aways against El Salvador, one of which was almost comically bad. Johnson, who I'm nearly certain will start for some damn reason, doesn't get his head up enough in general for me to pick him; as a sub, however, give the man a half-hour at least.

Hmmm....can't say I'm making much sense, even to myself. Hope the above reads better than gibberish. I blame the new allergy medication.....

Happy viewing this weekend, y'all.

(########)

Gold Cup Quarters Set + Some Thoughts on 'Em

A week ago Tuesday, I took a stab at predicting the quarterfinals for the Gold Cup. Here's what I came up with:

Costa Rica v. Guatemala
U.S.A. v. Canada
Mexico v. El Salvador
Haiti v. Panama

So, how'd I do? Here's what how things panned out:

Canada v. Guatemala
U.S.A. v. Panama
Honduras v. Guadeloupe
Mexico v. Costa Rica

Obviously, I missed a few, especially when it came to who would face whom. Then again, I got - let's see - six of the eight teams placed...not so hard, I suppose, given only twelve teams in the hat.

Seeing as my first stab at predictions went so swimmingly, I'll just confine myself to some observations. Taking it by bullet points:

- I don't envy Canada the game against Guatemala. Still, I hope our neighbors to the north beat the Central Americans. It's not that I'm nervous about meeting the latter again, so much as I'm not relishing the idea of watching a second U.S. v. Guatemala (which, unless I'm misreading things - again - is what would happen; but semifinal #1 pits the winner of quarterfinals #1 and #2, right?).

- Speaking of, Panama won't be a walk in the park either. But I'm thinking it will be a good game.

- Honduras looks hot, or at least that's one possible reading of the 5-0 drubbing they meted out on Cuba in their final group game. Guadeloupe looked a lot better after the win over Canada than they do after letting a seemingly lackluster Costa Rica into the quarters.

- It's this last detail that makes me think Mexico got the biggest kiss for the quarters.

All right, then. Nothing to do now but peruse some previews and wait for the weekend's action. Good stuff.

(#########)

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):

"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!

(########)

Gold Cup Update: Setting the Bar (and Raising It)

Group A wrapped up last night in the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup with something of a restoration. Costa Rica beat upstart Guadeloupe while Canada knocked off Haiti - and so order and perception returned to the region.

No less consequentially, Guadeloupe's three games in the tournament set the third-place bar at 4 points with a goal-differential of zero. In any case, the tournament's quarterfinal formula leaves Guadeloupe waiting on results from Groups B & C to see whether they'll have the honor of playing the first-place team from Group B (guess who?) or Group C - or none of the above.

Looking at the two remaining groups going forward, the U.S. could do Guadeloupe a big favor tonight by knocking off El Salvador; said loss would stall that team on three points, thereby sending the French protectorate into the quarterfinals with no more questions asked. Then again, a "Trinibago" upset of Guatemala would do the same. For their part, El Salvador might be wise to play for the draw, counting on an competitive assist from an American team looking to avoid injury and stave off fatigue - though there's a question as to whether whiny fans (like me!) will tolerate such cynicism. In fact, a draw for either El Salvador or Guatemala would then depend on goal-differential and, by association (I think), the total number of goals scored. And the totals are interesting here: Guadeloupe managed three goals so far, while El Salvador has two and Guatemala one. With that in mind, I'm thinking the Guatemalans will play hard tonight.

By way of a curious, relevant aside, the lead paragraph to the match report on Canada's win over Guadeloupe reads, "Canada is poised for another CONCACAF Gold Cup title." Assuming Guatemala meets (well, my) expectations, they'd meet Canada in the quarters...that ought to be interesting...more so than that lead would suggest.

Turning to Group C, Panama could certainly either draw or upset an anxious Mexico, though the fact that the latter has three goals to their credit means they'd pass Guadeloupe in anything but a goalless draw; what happens in that event, I don't know on the larger scale. Within Group C, though, that goalless draw would leave Mexico second best to Honduras, who already have four points and four goals scored. assuming the latter gets a result of any kind against Cuba. Taken together, however, Mexico has the tougher road and needs the most help.

Last but not least, I found a little to like in Jamie Trecker's most recent column on the evovling relationship between the United States' team and its fans. Trecker's basic premise - that U.S. fans not only expect results now, but are increasingly expecting good ones - strikes me as uncontroversial; put another way, I know this applies to me. But one line - and it's one I happen to like - may get a rise out of some readers:

"Some fans have the odd notion that cautions and cards are supposed to be doled out equally among teams. And some fans countenance nary a discouraging word, just as some fans inexplicably worship, say, the Cleveland Browns."

"But where fans of this ilk were once the only people paying attention to the sport, today they're in the minority. The soccer geeks are being overrun by the jocks. This means that news coverage and the reactions to the team's performances are becoming more sophisticated and more nuanced.

Hmmm...discuss...I mean, if you wanna....

Gold Cup Catch-Up: Standings, Mexico Loses (Ha, ha ha!)

With astonishing rapidity, the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup continued yesterday - and how!

Not only did Mexico stumble against Honduras (enjoy Luis Bueno's clinical breakdown), but yesterday featured another shock or two to perceptions: for instance, Guadeloupe beating Canada and Costa Rica's continued fizzle. A look at the standings (which show here, but I'll replicate them for convenience's sake below) only confirms that his been a delightfully unpredictable edition of the regional championship - and, thankfully, a few thousand people are getting out to see it.

At any rate, here are those standings:

Group A
Guadeloupe: 1-1-0 (w-d-l); 4 pts.
Canada: 1-0-1; 3 pts.
Haiti: 0-2-0; 2 pts.
Costa Rica: 0-1-1; 1 pt.

Group B
United States: 2-0-0; 6 pts.
El Salvador: 1-0-1; 3 pts.
Guatemala: 1-0-1; 3 pts.
Trinidad and Tobago: 0-0-2; 0 pts.

Group C
Panama: 1-1-0; 4 pts.
Honduras: 1-1-0; 4 pts.
Mexico: 1-0-1; 3 pts.
Cuba: 0-1-1; 1 pt.

With this tournament now hitting warp-speed, if only apparently, the big story still centers on Mexico's, um...delicate...situation. For reasons of mathematical/competitive incompetence, I thought a U.S. v. Mexico game couldn't possibly arrive in the next round (thanks to the quarterfinal system that has: 1A v. 2b; 1B v. 3A/3C; 1C v. 3A/3B; 2A v. 2C) till Steve Goff suggested otherwise. With that possibility in mind, I tried to work out the math, starting by checking who plays who in their final game; add that to the knowledge that the relevant spot (e.g. the team that the U.S. team plays) goes to the better of the third-place teams in Group A or C (though even that could get tricky, with the 1C v. 3A/3B game in play). So to start with who plays who:

June 11 (e.g. tonight): Costa Rica v. Guadeloupe; Haiti v. Canada
June 12: United States v. El Salvador; Guatemala v. "Trinibago"
June 13: Cuba v. Honduras; Mexico v. Panama

As someone, somewhere pointed out, it hardly begs imagining that Panama could top Mexico (and, if you think they're whining now...whoa nelly), which would strand them on three points; obviously, a draw would leave them stalled at four. Turning our gaze up to Group A, that would pit them against, potentially, any of the teams in Group A (with Costa Rica looking the long-shot). The scarier thing for Mexico (and those Group A teams) is that Honduras has Cuba, the weaker team of Group C so far...though who would be surprised if Cuba dropped Honduras? Then again, a Honduran win makes a Mexican one required, thus upping the stakes (delicious).

At any rate, it's probably possible for Mexico to come third in Group C for the same reasons it's possible for El Salvador to, currently, sit ahead of Guatemala in the Group B standings; goal-differential and the like. But is anyone out there seriously upset that we close with the Salvadorans? Maybe it's possible to nail down the permutations at this point and figure out who is likeliest to go where, but I'm not about to attempt it. Suffice to say, my first choice involves Mexico dropping out. No offense to them and, as proved so far in this Gold Cup, that would hardly level the hills and straighten the road to a U.S. victory...but, when potential enters the equation, things would look simpler without Mexico in the frame.

So, Forza Panama!

In any case, Ives Galarcep went and compiled Gold Cup power rankings post. It's a pretty interesting read and, funny as it seems to all of us who feel anxious about the U.S. performance so far, we are the only "perfect" team in there. Go us!