Top 5, 06.27: Teaching the Youth; Chicago Changes

In the order in which I wrote 'em....

- It turns out us Yanks aren't the only ones worrying about turning our youth into the soccer superstars of tomorrow; the Canadians have wrung hands of their own. But I couldn't help trip over one section in a Toronto Star article on the subject:

"The hope is that a handful will one day graduate to the senior side – "the [Ajax of Amsterdam] first team" – that has won four European championships. Until that day, the on-field scoreboards will not be lit up. No goal tally is kept during their games."

"European youth soccer focuses on skills development and little else. Winning is not important. Learning the skills needed to win is."

I don't know the state of this debate so well, but I seem to recall an argument that our kids need to be put in competitive games to sharpen their game. I'm wondering if that's the case - and I've certainly read compelling pieces (can't find them now) about the corrossive effect the win-at-all-costs mentality can have on how we teach the game. And who's going to argue with Ajax in any case? (Actually, it could be fair to ask why Dutch players tend to implode on the largest of occasions; maybe they need to light up that scoreboard a little before the first team?)

- I feel compelled to note Mexico's 2-0 win over Brazil. I can't say I pull for Mexico often, but if there's one thing I always pull for, it's a Brazil loss. Can't wait to see what we do tonight (and I'm not going to let the doom bring me down, either - or a loss by fewer than, oh, four goals for that matter).

- In happier tournament news, the U-20 FIFA Cup starts this weekend (wow!). And guess what? We go first! I don't know that anyone's carrying this (doesn't look like it), so you'll have to follow this where you can. Turning again to our northern neighbors, they seem pretty stoked to be hosting the U-20s; the more interesting question - especially when future World Cup qualifying is concerned - is are they loaded with talent?

- The Chicago Fire cleared some money/international space today by shit-canning Pascal Bedrossian; they got even more help with Ivan Guerrero picking up his green card. The real question, though, is whether they've got time to help themselves before July 1? (Isn't that when rosters have to be fixed?)

- Finally - and this really pisses me off - why is it that ESPN will carry (it's in there; trust me) a dog-n-pony show like goddamn World Series of Soccer, but they won't pony up for the U.S. games for the Copa America?

(##########)

U-23/Olympics: Bradley's Moxie

While it's nice to finally know when qualifying for CONCACAF's Olympic slots takes place - March of 2008 - and swell as it is that the U-23s beat an MLS club (Chivas USA), the most interesting item in the Los Angeles Times' report on the Olympic team "taking shape" involves head coach Bob Bradley's state of mind.

What to make of this:

"Assisting Bradley in this week's camp were Thomas Rongen, who has coached the U.S. under-20 national team into this summer's Under-20 World Cup in Canada, and John Hackworth, coach of the U.S. under-17 national team, which in May will try to qualify for the Under-17 World Cup in South Korea."

"It is probable that Bradley will eventually draw players from Rongen's team and, possibly, even from Hackworth's side, by 2008."

"'It's important that we share ideas,' he said of working alongside the two coaches. 'It's important that those programs understand how important they are and that they … are the building blocks. Any time we're all together and we can look at our players and discuss the things we see, discuss the things that need to be better, it helps.'"

Whatever one thinks of Bradley - love him, hate him, think he's the future of the U.S. Soccer program, or someone the USSF is chasing down blind alley - it's hard not to admire the way he continues to behave as if he's already got the top job. I could be alone in reading that into his comments, but I don't think I am.

Bradley may not work out in the end, but it won't be for lack of trying.

(########)

Copa Draw: Sore Backsides or 4-6 Points?

As everyone's seen by now, the draw for this summer's Copa America was completed last night and the three groups set. And here is what the United States Men's National Team (USMNT) and everyone else in the tournament is looking at starting in late June:

Group A
Venezeula (host)
Uruguay
Bolivia
Peru

Group B
Brazil
Chile
Ecuador
Mexico

Group C
Argentina
United States (gulp!)
Paraguay
Colombia

As An American's View usefully points out (or that's where I saw it first, at least), qualifying for the second round of the Copa America is a little like reaching the MLS playoffs (not his phrasing, by the way, but mine): 8 of the the twelve teams will make that cut - the top two from each group, plus the top two third placed teams.

An American's View also happens to be the most optimistic about our chances, stating toward the bottom of his post that he "likes the USA's chances of advancing" and doesn't see any reason why we shouldn't get four or six points. The best answer to that optimism appears in Luis Arroyave's Red Card, specifically, this line:

"July 4, the U.S. plays Paraguay in its final group stage game. Doesn't sound very intimidating, does it? Then again, that's what people said about Ghana and we all know how that went."

To get a little tangential, I'm consistently fascinated at how soccer fans (or even political observers for that matter) reach the conclusions they do about which teams will do what. I'm closer to Arroyave's thinking, but holding up Ghana as a cautionary example hardly makes the case for anything more than caution. Put another way, what do I know about the current form of Paraguay, never mind Colombia, who didn't even compete in the 2006 World Cup (right? yep.) On the other hand, why not look at Argentina and wonder whether they won't wilt on the occasion, as they nearly did against Mexico?

At any rate, that seems a fair caveat to insert before posting a roundup of the rest of the prognostications I encountered in today's wanderings: "Totally hosed" reads the headline at du Nord, though that could be a commentary on how lucky Venezuela appears to have been with their group; while the content of his post focuses on his frustration that we passed on the Copa America for so many years, Luis Bueno also doesn't seem to like our chances; and a headline like, "Group of Death Redux" says enough about where Sports Illustrated is with this draw.

UPDATE: I missed a blogger in my roundup: Mike H from My Soccer Blog. He took a unique approach to figuring our chances in Group C: he looked at our past records against the teams in question. Novel idea.

With all this read and acknowledged, where am I?

Think of the Copa as a plate of unbuttered brussel sprouts; this isn't about pleasure or happiness, but health. And long-term health at that. So put me down on the sore backside half of the ledger. Argentina will want to open strong and, with the personnel at their disposal, I'm not sure we can stop them - though I'd still place a call to Francois Oman Biyik in Cameroon for some pointers; my chief, possibly-outdated impression of Paraguay is that they're hard to score against, which should match nicely with our, um, difficulties on offense;

And, no, butter don't mask the fact that brussel sprouts taste like shit.

U.S. v. Mexico: TV Goodness

Some of you have no doubt read about how (comparatively) well the U.S. v. Mexico game did in terms of television. But it's worth noting compared with what:

"3. When the U.S. plays Mexico, people pay attention. A sellout crowd of 62,462 was in Glendale, Ariz., for the match, and ESPN2 got its highest rating ever for a soccer match that was not a World Cup match or World Cup qualifier. An audience of 1.1 million tuned in Wednesday on ESPN2, and another six million saw the Spanish broadcast on Univision. In Los Angeles, the game drew higher ratings than American Idol and Lost.

That goes to show, I suppose, that if one inserts enough conditions, any broadcast can reach "highest rating ever" status. I'm being facetious, of course, but there is some satisfaction in whooping American Idol's ass in one market at least. And the Univision numbers are looking pretty swell too.

(#######)

What the U.S. Win Tells Us About MLS

In truth, I spent my morning kick around the idea that last night's win against Mexico showed a lot of what Major League Soccer (MLS) does in terms of developing players

For long time fans and observers, I don't think there's much that's new in there; the main thesis is that MLS produces players better suited to playing not to lose as opposed to winning. In other words, we can play and play well enough, but there's a thin margin aspect to our game that's keeping us out of the world elite. I think I got closest to putting this idea correctly in the conclusion (yeah, quoting yourself is tacky, but...):

"This is the subtle difference between scoring a goal and making one; they both count the same, but your team better controls their fate when they can make them without relying on the opposition to screw up."

I do think there's a solution to that problem, but it's based on a learning curve and is therefore somewhat evolutionary; hence it's also a bit unsatisfying. We try to accelerate this trend by encouraging American players to go to Europe, but I still question the extent to which this can bring the U.S. program to some kind of promised land. In basic terms, it's just going to take time. The good news is, we're moving closer these days, something that couldn't really be said till MLS came along.

There's a lot of other stuff in there about individual performances - and I think the MLS-based players genuinely did us proud last night. But, no, they ain't world-beaters.

Anyway, read the whole thing if you like.

US 2 - 0 Mexico: Basking, Commentary Round-Up

Given a late yesterday night, today was always going to be hard enough. Then my kid came in the room at 3:30 a.m. coughing her head off, so I moved to the couch, etc. Let's just say concentrating is so hard today, I'm lucky I didn't miss the toilet when I sat down to business this morning.

But my semi-vegetative state did allow my the strength to read what everyone else had to say about last night's 2-0 U.S. win. So, I'll just post those, note the good stuff and crawl back in my hole. Starting with the pros:

Because I made Soccer Blogs my first stop, I started my day with Soccer by Ives, who noted a lack of sportsmanship out of the Mexican team. Between walking off the field without shaking hands and Oswaldo Sanchez's swipe at Eddie Johnson, yeah (all of which I missed...good one), it was pretty bad, bad enough to creep up in article after article as well as producing a stand-alone piece or two.

Andrea Canales actually improved on this general concept with a piece on Mexico's state of denial; they've got this weird gripe that we don't play the game "correctly," though it never seems to dawn on them that we probably don't see any reason to with Plan A working so well. Canales' partner as LA Soccer News, Luis Bueno, explored this team from the Mexican side on Sports Illustrated.

Turning to the U.S. performance now, there's a fair breadth of thinking as to how we did. On the "we won, but" side of the scales are pieces like Ken Pendleton's offering on USSoccerplayers.com, who raised some concerns about how much we rely on set plays and flukes to win. But the prize for dubious ardor as Jamie Trecker's mysterious assertion that "unlike England, who fielded a below full-strength side"...um...yeah, there's nothing to say about that really. Another person moderately underwhelmed by the U.S. performance was ESPN's Jeff Carlisle, who took the psychological route to explain the win: we're just that far inside Mexico's head that they don't know how to beat us anymore. Against that, the "nice guys" of American soccer punditry - Grant Wahl and Marc Connolly - did their silver lining thing; for the record, I admire the hell out of both of them, but, dang, seems they could find the sunshine in Tartarus.

Moreover, what right do I have to quibble after the "6 Good, 2 Bad" post I banged out last night?

Moving on, I liked Grahame Jones' write-up for the LA Times. I think it's fair to say no one went as easy on Chris Rolfe as Luis Arroyave over on the Red Card; that's not to say he thinks Rolfe had a great game, but he's more generous than the flock, the majority of whom figured Rolfe looked pretty aimless out there. Also, there's plenty of other good stuff in his post. Another pro, the Washington Post's Steve Goff, did a fine wrap of his own; I think he was fairer on the players than Carlisle, but also noted that he was the only observer I've so far seen who kind of liked ESPN2's coverage last night.

Well, that ought to be enough...for now.

US v. Mexico, First Impressions

Holy shit.

If you've visited this blog in the past two, three days, you've read the thoughts of a man miles down on the U.S. Men's chances. And maybe it's the Pabst, maybe it's a fever borne of low expectation, but, damn, am I optimistic about the future. What comes below should get at why:

The Good
Conrad/Bocanegra: While I don't think this pairing is the future of the American defense, they played well enough together to tell me we've got some depth. Conrad's was the more high-profile performance - a winning goal will do that - but he was also rock-solid at the back. So was Bocanegra. It's undeniable there were a pair of gaffes in there - the two of them contesting the same ball, a move that momentarily hobbled Bocanegra and that big, soft whiff Conrad put on an early cross - but, overall, they held up well against decent competition.

Jonathan Bornstein: I was just blown away by the kid's performance. He looked ragged here and there, but there wasn't enough of it to concern me. He looked good going forward, he looked good defending...I'm not sure what else there is.

Ricardo Clark: Possibly the most encouraging performance of the bunch. It wasn't so much that he was perfect - he wasn't - but, on the few occasions he got beat, he busted ass to get the ball back and, often as not, he did. He looked composed, he looked confident - more to the point, he looked like he belonged out there.

Ball Movement: Until we got to the offensive third, we did pretty well. Yes, there tons of balls out of the back that landed at Mexican feet, especially during the rough patch that followed Conrad's goal. But when we calmed down and played possession, we did all right.

Bob Bradley: The highest compliment we can pay to Bob is that, 10-15 painful minutes aside - those decisive minutes after Conrad's goal - we never looked flustered. That's enough for me for now. He's also got some young players believing they can play at this level; one of them is named Bornstein.

Landon Donovan: He goes here not because he scored a goal, but because he tried the same move that opened up the space for the goal at least one other time. Good to see the former Golden Boy of American Soccer fight to regain the crown.

The Bad
The Offensive Third: The weirdest thing: when Eddie Johnson came on, Clint Dempsey suddenly seemed to pick up his game; while it's true that only wayward passes followed, those were some of our best, general moments on offense. Apart from those flashes, we looked damn near clueless. A total lack of size, of physical muscle may have been the problem; who knows what Taylor Twellman could have brought to the game? But we got seriously dizzy as we approached the Mexican defensive third.

Those Ten, Fifteen Minutes: It seems the Mexicans simply can't score against us - and that's the key thing that salvaged this game. Those several minutes - plus a few plays against the run of play besides - opened up some clear chances for the Mexicans; that they failed to capitalize doesn't excuse the fact that those chances were there and, on occasion, glaring.

Anyway, that's all I've got for now. Overall, I'm just giddy. We exceeded my expectations by country miles. The main thing was the basic organization, how hard we were to break down. Yeah, the Mexicans got their chances, but they were rarely wide-open. Good night, good game...good rum.

(#########)

What If the USMNT Fails?

"The evidence of leadership that needs to be seen against Mexico cannot be distilled into as simple a formula as a win. If the U.S. squad appears directionless and tentative (as it did against Denmark at times), but scores due to a lucky penalty call (arguably, this also happened with the Danes) and hangs on desperately for the win against a dominant Mexican team that just can't quite find the equalizer, that might not aid Bradley's cause much."
-Andrea Canales, ESPN (LINK), 02.05.07

I don't know how U.S. fans can help but kick around the thought of what tonight's result will mean. I don't know if I'm where Canales is - to state my quibble clearly, I think, with our squad early in a flag-flying transition, any kind of win against this Mexican squad should impress anyone. But I also take her point well enough to accept she could very well be right.

But the bigger question is what happens if we get shellacked. What if the U.S. squad looks "directionless and tentative" and we get our heads handed to us with an ass chaser? I certainly view a 3-0, even a 4-0 U.S. loss, as well within the realm of possibilities, especially with the Mexican squad and coach amped as they appear to be. Then there's that wonder-quote from Cuauhtemoc Blanco making the rounds (here, for example):

"I don't have friendly matches. Much less against them."

I guess there's nothing to do but offer this as a question and see who bites: would an aimless, 3-0 loss be enough, from your perspective, to turn Bradley's "interim" title to "caretaker"?

Just to play fair, here's my answer: No. This will be only his second game in charge and, with so many familiar faces giving way to new ones, it's asking a lot of Bradley and the team that they go out and beat a very good Mexican team. Returning to Canales' earlier point, though, about helping Bradley's cause: a loss, particularly a bad one, absolutely should go in his permanent file and weigh heavily in discussions about his future with the team; in simple terms, it would take great performances in the Gold Cup and the Copa America to erase a bad loss - and that assumes Bradely even gets the chance. A respectable loss, not so much; good performances in the March friendlies should buy Bradley a shot at hosting the summer tournaments at the very least; whatever he gets for results, I'd argue Bradley is doing well enough getting rebuilding underway.

If we do manage a win tonight, two things should happen: 1) I strongly suspect I'll stay up way too late and drink far too much; 2) Bradley should be awarded stewardship over the summer tournaments, no questions asked. A win here tells me we should see what the man can really do.

(########)

OK, Bob. Here's What You Do

Now, I know U.S. Men’s National Team (USMNT) Head Coach Bob Bradley won’t read this post (but I would squeal like a teenager at a Duran Duran concert if he commented; NOTE: anonymous commenters should feel free to post posing as Bradley), but I can’t resist one last stab at the “roster games” that have been so popular over on Ives (that’s EYE-vis, apparently; didn’t know that) Galarcep’s blog.
And, yes, I do visit other sites.

Anyway, Galarcep posted his most recent stab at who he thinks will take the field for the USMNT and where they’ll play; he has since added some details in a more recent post, but I’ll leave it to interested parties to check out his thoughts.

Like many of you, I’ve continued to fret over the line-up (can’t say “obsess” ‘cause I’m still eating and showering) since the game-day roster came out. I posted a fairly safe first stab of my own, but a new-game day lineup came out of all that fretting and it includes one shift I haven’t seen elsewhere. So, given the roster we’ve got, here’s how I’d line them up (4-3-1-2):

------------------- Howard -------------------------

-- Albright -- Conrad -- Bocanegra -- Bornstein --

-- Mapp --------- Mastroeni -------- Convey ------

------------------- Donovan ------------------------

----- Dempsey ------------ Twellman/Johnson ---------

Now, here’s the thinking behind it - which really only amounted to figuring a way to get Dempsey in at forward. Since that was the priority, may as well start with that.

A modest, yet healthy collection of diving, headed goals demonstrates Dempsey’s willingness to put his head where he shouldn’t; he’s definitely willing to mix it up. But what makes me view him as a good candidate at forward are those dribbling moves for which so many American fans admire him. The trick is making that little bit of space in the box, just that little half-step opening that lets you get off a clean shot. That’s something I believe Dempsey does as well as any American player, which combines with the absence of suitable alternatives to make him a good choice up top in my mind.

The Twellman/Johnson split continues to serve as the big question mark: is Twellman fit enough to go 60 minutes? If so, he should be a nearly automatic first choice. As much as I’ve griped about Johnson, I still think I’d tip him over Rolfe, mainly to have a more physical presence available.

No matter who comes on as forwards, however, Donovan is the key player in my little set-up. His focus will be on supporting the forwards, just buzzing around and making sure they’ve got an option, while also keeping a sharp eye for openings of his own. Not to put to fine a point on it, this is Donovan’s time to shine - or he might discover that “interim” tag applies to more bodies than Bradley.

All in all, I’m comfortable with “the top” of this formation - e.g. the attacking options - but feel a little queasy about everything else. And, on the day, I’d have this set-up play very conservatively, which makes sense in light of who Mexico is bringing. The top three would have near-total freedom to probe for openings, but, unless we’re playing from behind, Mapp and Convey would take turns pushing up their side - e.g. one would hang back a bit, while the other pushes into the attack. The defense, including Mastroeni, would play to contain; the back four would, more or less, stay at home, while Mastroeni’s role would be “killing” and distributing quickly.

Some final considerations:

- I flirted with a left-side set-up of Bobby Convey behind Justin Mapp, mainly to mellow concerns about Bornstein getting burned, but couldn’t sell myself on Mapp’s defensive work-rate. If we’re lucky, Mapp will one day push Donovan for that starting “playmaker’s” role.

- I paired Bocanegra and Conrad in the middle on experience alone with the idea being that’s the part of the field you’re most eager to protect. Like a fair number of people, I’m pretty anxious about the Albright/Bornstein outside-back situation. But because I also don’t (quite) trust Boswell (I’m relenting, given the options), Robinson (worry about fouls), I’m not seeing much for alternatives. Maybe some DC fans can make me better understand the merits of Namoff or Carroll - to give an example, I’d have Namoff replace Albright without batting an eye - but I’m not sufficiently familiar with these players to play them with confidence.

- I’d start Mastroeni solely to have a veteran head in the middle and in spite of earlier opinions. If/When the game settles down, I’d give Clark as much time on the field as I can.

Whew. That’s all I’ve got. Have fun ripping it apart.

USMNT: Making Sense of that Roster (+ anxiety)

I think I'll lead with the anxiety:

""It's critical in this game that the veterans step up and make sure they put a stamp on the game."
- Pablo Mastroeni, on the Mexico game, Houston Chronicle (LINK), 02.04.07

Last time I checked, Mastroeni knows only one way to "put a stamp" on a game and it usually involves his cleats and some other guy's leg. So, how long do folks think Pablo'll last out there? If this is where his head is, I'm thinking we'll be playing with 10 men by the end of the first half.

Turning now to roster talk, it's fair to say the squad Bradley named wasn't uncontroversial, leaving some frustrated, and others confused and - even if he didn't admit it - a bit uneasy. In what reads like something of a response to the confusion, Allen Hopkins wrote a piece for ESPN that addresses some of the surprises:

"In camp, a group has emerged over the last month as the preferred first team: Jonathan Bornstein, Bobby Boswell, Jimmy Conrad and Chris Albright in defense, Clark, Pablo Mastroeni, Justin Mapp in midfield, with Chris Rolfe and Landon Donovan up top."

"Bradley spent the last couple of days last week training the defense, specifically the back six (as opposed to four) working with Bornstein, Boswell, Conrad, Albright with Clark and Mastroeni in front. The staff emphasized getting out of the back quickly and not playing so deep when Mexico has the ball. The center back pairing of Conrad and Boswell looks as if it is beginning to gel."

I can't say whether this makes anyone feel better, or only confirms their worst fears, but that's an answer anyway.

For further reading, Jeff Carlisle did some line-up prognostication as well, though of a more general sort, while Ives Galarcep chatted a bit about the USMNT in his most recent Q & A with readers. I think Galarcep had some good things to say, like he always does, but was particularly pleased by the bit about Bobby Boswell; like Galarcep, I don't think he's ready for this level.

(########)

USMNT Roster: Hey. Where's "Coop"?*

* When I said I couldn't deal with hashing this stuff out a couple hours back, though that was probably a function of not having a concrete roster available.

But the more immediate inspiration for this post came from reading the rant posted on An American's View by Brian Garrison, who vigorously took issue good-sized chunks of U.S. Coach Bob Bradley's roster. Being the low-temperature type, I'm not as amped as Brian; the fact that this is a friendly - yeah, a friendly against Mexico, but a friendly all the same - also takes the edge off a bit.

Still....there are decisions to answer for on the roster, which, as posted on the USSoccerplayers.com site, looks something like this:

Goalkeepers: Joe Cannon (Los Angeles Galaxy), Tim Howard (Everton FC)

Defenders: Chris Albright (Los Angeles Galaxy), Carlos Bocanegra (Fulham FC), Jonathan Bornstein (Chivas USA), Bobby Boswell (D.C. United), Jimmy Conrad (Kansas City Wizards), Bryan Namoff (D.C. United), Eddie Robinson (Houston Dynamo)

Midfielders: Brian Carroll (D.C. United), Ricardo Clark (Houston Dynamo), Bobby Convey (Reading FC), Clint Dempsey (Fulham FC), Joshua Gros (D.C. United), Justin Mapp (Chicago Fire), Pablo Mastroeni (Colorado Rapids)

Forwards: Landon Donovan (Los Angeles Galaxy), Eddie Johnson (Kansas Cit y Wizards), Chris Rolfe (Chicago Fire), Taylor Twellman (New England Revolution)

By and large, I agree with Brian. There are, however, some minor points of departure; let's list these in order of significance:

The "Gooch Call" or lack thereof: I agree we'd probably be better with Gooch, but this is a friendly. He just joined his club last week, so let the man settle into his new digs. That's his job over there; we're the confection - at least till we're playing in competitive matches.

Mapp over Beasley: While I'm equally baffled at Beasley's absence, call this a chance to see how Mapp does as a two-way player. The argument for Mapp is the same as Cooper; let's see how he does in a competitive setting.

Mastroeni/Clark: I don't mind this central pairing. I also think/hope it's not what we'll see - more on that later.

Twellman's Feet: I think they're mediocre. I've seen TT give away too many layoffs while playing as a target forward. Don't get me wrong - I love the guy as a player and can see him charging like a thick-bottomed top - but he's best as a "poor man's Robbie Fowler, e.g. a pure poacher. He can score with his feet just fine, but passing? Not so much.

I think that's it...well, almost. Brian did something I kind of liked when assessing the roster: he took a stab at what he thinks Bradley will do. I see value in that exercise - it's playing with "the team you have" in a sense; call it the "Rumsfeld Option" - even if I hope he's wrong about the line-up. More to the point, my Evan Williams pickled brain can't handle that level of thought today. Here's the team I think Bradley will field, which, curiously, matches the team I'd field out of these players (now this is probably pointless, but we'll compare notes after Wednesday):

Goal: Tim Howard 1st half; Joe Cannon 2nd half

-- Albright -- Boswell -- Conrad -- Bocanegra --

-- Dempsey ------ Mastroeni ------- Mapp ---

-------------- Donovan -------------------

----- Johnson(1) ----------- Twellman/Rolfe* ----

* I split this one because I think Rolfe will get the nod if Twellman's even feeling moderately off.

I think Bradley's going to start the game conservatively, in defense especially, which is why I'm seeing Bocanegra; Boswell is the big question mark to me. In fact, while I'm at it, here are the player calls I'm not seeing: Eddie Robinson (too thuggish*), Bryan Namoff, Brian Carroll (not high on either player), Joshua Gros (except perhaps at right back...gawd, I don't mean for a DCU bias to come through, but, Lord, it's hard to avoid the impression, isn't it? Let's put Franchino in there....kidding! I'm kidding!), Rolfe (I'm not sold on this guy yet), and, with a big, cross-country "you-are-so-totally-correct-Bob-Bradley-owes-you-an-apology," Eddie Johnson. Brian's thoughts on Eddie Johnson mirror mine; he needs a year of good club ball at a minimum before coming back into the fold.

Finally, here are places we (almost) agree:

Where's Coop? Seriously, unless his grandmother died or something* I don't see any reason to "rest" Cooper. Let's see what this (big) cat can do in a tough game. One last detail: it's undeniable Cooper played very well for Dallas in 2006 and he looked decent against Denmark - but that was only one game and not against the strongest opposition. He had an encouraging outing, but that's not enough to dub him our best option at forward. For the rest, though, hell yes, we should see how he handles the next step. Calling this "bullshit" is exactly right.

Mastroeni v. Clark: As noted below, play Clark. I don't think this will happen and agree Pablo's a risk; I can't, and won't, deny that. But it also only takes a trip back to the 2002 World Cup to suggest Pablo's not a bad starter; I remember him getting so deep under the Mexicans' skins that he had them ripping their hair out on the way to picking up cards. He's a good player for this scenario. But, like Brian, I'd rather see Clark...we need to see how he plays against a team like Mexico, not least because he's a better player - i.e. he's got a better game beyond destroying.

Holy Crap. I've written enough today.

Hat tip to Brian for getting the ball rolling. Have a good weekend, all y'all.

UPDATE (1): As I walked to the train, it occurred to me I've got a bit of a disconnect in this post. That I say Eddie Johnson shouldn't have been invited on one hand, while listing him as a starter on the other doesn't really add up. It's Twellman's status that allows it to do so - though I won't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming this occurred to me when I wrote the original. If Twellman were healthy, I would have gone with a Twellman/Rolfe front line; it's not quite "big/small," but it would be similar in practice. With Twellman recovering from a hernia situation, I would think the Revolution wouldn't be all that keen on him going a full 90. That's where Johnson starting makes sense. It's not that I think, or think that Bradley thinks, he'll light it up against the Tricolores. It's more a matter of, with the chosen roster, what other alternative is left? And don't answer Donovan....

USMNT: Let It Be Clark

(TESTING Again: Yep, if you go to Soccer Blogs and scroll way down the page, you'll see my posts showing as if I posted them at 5:30 a.m. or so EST. Well, I know I only that time on the clock once a day and it sure as hell ain't in the A.M. It's against what religion I have to get up that early. I'll be doing some exploring this weekend about switching services; I've tolerated too many annoyances with Blogger since getting into blogging and this - this switching to an improved format that turns out to be totally ass - might be the killer. Anyway...)

Ives Galarcep had some fun with guessing the roster for next Wednesday's friendly against Mexico; that link will actually take you to the results of his "fun," which took the form of a survey of commenters. You can check Galarcep's post to see the line-up laid out.

Personally, I'm not ready for this yet; I'll be spazzing all over this next week, but, for now, have only one thing to add. There's a mini-debate going on regarding whether the U.S. Men should start Pablo Mastroeni or Ricardo Clark in the "destroyer/holdling midfield" role. As the title reads, I'm plumping for Clark. It's a friendly, right? I want to see what Clark can handle before it matters. More to the point, I think he's up for it.

By next week, I'll be ready to monkey around with the rest of it. But, today, I'm pretty firm in thinking we should start Clark.