To begin with full disclosure, I didn’t see a second of the U.S. loss to Paraguay; I haven’t even seen highlights. I have, by now, read three items on the game and, by my reckoning, the several consistent themes on which they agree tell me enough of what I need to know. Before getting into this whole spiel, here are the links:
Maryland Tolik (a reader’s comment, so go to the bottom of the post)
Jen Chang (on ESPN)
Jeff Carlisle (on ESPN)
And, now, to business: I come not to praise the U.S. Men’s National Team (Yanquis), but to bury them...and I mean that in precisely the same way Marc Antony did.
We all know we lost, with much of the blame for that going to the limitations of the American forward. To quote a favorite line (Bull Durham again - sorry) forwards Taylor Twellman and Eddie Johnson sometimes give them impression that they couldn’t hit water if they fell out of a fucking boat. Against opposition higher in quality than a Norwegian B-team, our current first-choice forwards have played with the vision and sharpness of near-sighted klutzes on multiple occasions.
On defense, a former strength when coupled with a “gritty” (read “thuggishly disruptive”) central midfield, we’re still fiddling with the dial in search of the right combination. For example, the consensus view seems to hold that Bradley needs to call off his love affair with Jonathan Bornstein; Oguchi Onyewu no longer looks the savior; judging by the Kansas City’s Wizards’ defensive record, Jimmy Conrad is slipping against Major League Soccer (MLS) forwards; the reality is, recently-fielded combinations of Yanqui defenses labored to contain teams like Guatemala, Panama, and Canada - never mind Argentina.
In midfield, we have mastered work-rate and fundamental technical skills - think competent passing and trapping...you may laugh, but I remember the days when this vital piece was lacking. Once in a blue moon, Benny Feilhaber or Clint Dempsey manages the killer pass, or Justin Mapp darts through seams in the opposing defense, but with nothing like the consistency the international game demands. Moments of inspiration aside, however, we still haven’t grasped tactical fundamentals like possession play and managing the game - and that conceptual failing only returns us to relying on energy and those odd moments where our players’ feet kiss the ball just so.
But for all that, reports from the last two games generally agree that, 1) we played world-power Argentina tolerably well for 60 minutes, and, 2) we essentially went toe-to-toe with Paraguay on every level but finishing and the more refined aspects of the game. On top of that, we not only won the Gold Cup, but now enter our regional tournament - not to mention World Cup qualifying - as an automatic favorite.
If you told me that the above would pertain after France 1998 - hell, after the 1990s, period - I would have wept with joy. And how long ago is 1998? Nine years, people.
Heading into - and out of - the 2006 World Cup so much was written about the elevated expectations under which Yanqui teams now operate. There’s so much talk still about how labored our steps toward world-power status have been, along with prescriptions for what can ease that climb; crowning a rising player as The Anointed One who will provide the vital leg-up comes up all too often...with the advisability - no, the necessity - of sending said player to Europe’s proving grounds rarely far behind. The reality, though, is that it’s going to take more than one player to lift us to the top of the heap - a team of such players is needed - and no matter how many go to Europe and how soon.
The real question is why so many fans expect so much - and so soon. For every advantage we enjoy - a population of 300 million, for instance, against relevant rivals who have only 80 million - a commensurate downside exists: those 80 million live in a country where soccer is the most popular sport, whereas we have at least three sports competing for, and still winning, the scramble for athletes. The hard reality is, we’re in, at best, late adolescence as a soccer-playing country. We are developing - quickly even - but expecting any American squad to beat a big alpha-male team like Argentina at this stage in our development leaps from enthusiasm to delusion. Reasonable as it is to point out that we have beat Argentina further down that developmental curve, that confuses a great day with a great life; it’s not so different, really, from assuming that finding a $100 bill lying on the ground one morning means you’ll find one everyday.
A comment just came in (on that same post as Maryland Tolik’s) by Gareth Sleger, who hopes Bob Bradley won’t use sending a b-squad as an excuse for our Copa performance. While I think he’s correct on that, I also don’t believe we have anything to excuse. We sent the team we sent, they’ve lost, but proudly. More important, we learned a thing or two (e.g. axe Bornstein; send our forwards to the Wizard of Oz, Johnson for some courage and Twellman for that tool he hawks on TV, plus an allotment of several thousand hours to practice with it) and deepened our player pool in the process. That poor finishing looks something like the final hurdle constitutes a hell of a step up in my mind: having 1/3 the way to go beats the hell out of having more.
The key component to improving the Yanqui soccer program is, and always has been the same: time. And trends here are good: we’ve got players entering the national team pool at a younger age and further along in their personal/technical development. Again, tell me we’d be here nine years ago and I would French kiss the nearest available human being regardless of age, gender, and physical beauty (though one can hope the stars line up). Assuming the developmental infrastructure doesn’t collapse and that the numbers generally grow - as they seem to be doing - we’ll get there...even at forward.
Showing posts with label U.S. Men's National Team. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U.S. Men's National Team. Show all posts
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.
Copa Roster: The Children's Crusade
Just as I was shutting down my brain for the weekend (yes, kids, the mystery of my match reports is answered!), I see Bob Bradley finally named the roster he'll send down to Venezuela for the Copa America. And mind you, this is the team that will face what's sounding an awful lot like an Argentine A-Team (can't say I know what kind of teams Paraguay and Colombia will field (and I know I could find them), but expect they'll be as good as they can)...and here they are (OK, you got me; taken from here):
General comments:
- Holy shit! Will this thing be chaperoned?! Are Conrad and Olsen the chaperones? Damn that's a young bunch...and to think how many of them will enjoy alcohol for the first time....
- I like that Bradely, basically, switched out the defenses (though I'm a bit down on the choice of Bornstein given my frustrations with him against Canada...ah...I'm over it. Good luck, Johnny!) The Gold Cup is showing the need for more auditions.
- I'll be shocked - and drunkenly delighted - if this bunch doesn't share the fate of the actual Children's Crusade (it didn't end well)
- Getting back to the chaperone jab, it's an interesting mix, even if the set up is a little "Greek" - e.g. manly mentors and, um, impressionable youths. Looks like Bradley is counting on Conrad, Olsen, and Twellman(?) to show a very green squad the ropes. Should be interesting...
Specific comments...where they come to me:
- I'm pretty interested in the Marvell experiment.
- I like the calls for Bobby Boswell, Dan Califf, and Jimmy Conrad.
- Heath Pearce is probably OK, too.
- I can't say I understand the call for Drew Moor.
- Where the hell is Michael Parkhurst?
- Anyone think Beckerman got on the phone with Mastroeni immediately upon getting word? I like that call as well.
- Will the sun ever shine again in Chicago (and isn't Mapp gimpy)?
- Ah! Bradley stole the entire Rapids' offense!! (Get it...that's Herculez...ah, never mind).
- It seems the Eddie Johnson experiment will not end.
Whatever happens, I hope it's a good experience for these guys.
(########)
"Goalkeepers (2) - Brad Guzan, Kasey Keller
Defenders (8) - Jonathan Bornstein, Bobby Boswell, Dan Califf, Jimmy Conrad, Jay DeMerit, Drew Moor, Heath Pearce, Marvell Wynne
Midfielders (8) - Kyle Beckerman, Ricardo Clark, Benny Feilhaber, Eddie Gaven, Sacha Kljestan, Justin Mapp, Lee Nguyen, Ben Olsen
Forwards (4) - Charlie Davies, Hercules Gomez, Eddie Johnson, Taylor Twellman
General comments:
- Holy shit! Will this thing be chaperoned?! Are Conrad and Olsen the chaperones? Damn that's a young bunch...and to think how many of them will enjoy alcohol for the first time....
- I like that Bradely, basically, switched out the defenses (though I'm a bit down on the choice of Bornstein given my frustrations with him against Canada...ah...I'm over it. Good luck, Johnny!) The Gold Cup is showing the need for more auditions.
- I'll be shocked - and drunkenly delighted - if this bunch doesn't share the fate of the actual Children's Crusade (it didn't end well)
- Getting back to the chaperone jab, it's an interesting mix, even if the set up is a little "Greek" - e.g. manly mentors and, um, impressionable youths. Looks like Bradley is counting on Conrad, Olsen, and Twellman(?) to show a very green squad the ropes. Should be interesting...
Specific comments...where they come to me:
- I'm pretty interested in the Marvell experiment.
- I like the calls for Bobby Boswell, Dan Califf, and Jimmy Conrad.
- Heath Pearce is probably OK, too.
- I can't say I understand the call for Drew Moor.
- Where the hell is Michael Parkhurst?
- Anyone think Beckerman got on the phone with Mastroeni immediately upon getting word? I like that call as well.
- Will the sun ever shine again in Chicago (and isn't Mapp gimpy)?
- Ah! Bradley stole the entire Rapids' offense!! (Get it...that's Herculez...ah, never mind).
- It seems the Eddie Johnson experiment will not end.
Whatever happens, I hope it's a good experience for these guys.
(########)
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 Hiccup
Just a thing or two to throw out ahead of the Gold Cup.
On the practical level, Jeff Carlisle turned in his usual good work with his previews of tomorrow's games for ESPN.
But the one item that really caught my eye appeared at the bottom of a San Diego Union-Tribune article previewing the Gold Cup semis:
Someone call Twellman's mother. We need someone to seize his ear and yank him to the kitchen table for a stern talking to.
Who cares? WHO CARES?!
I'll tell you who cares, young man. About a third of the number of people showing in the Nielsens for U.S. Soccer games, that's who! You're paid to score goals, son. If I had an accountant doing his job as poorly as you did against Panama, he'd lose my business...and I'll warrant the business of many others as well.
Shape up, youngster.
On the practical level, Jeff Carlisle turned in his usual good work with his previews of tomorrow's games for ESPN.
But the one item that really caught my eye appeared at the bottom of a San Diego Union-Tribune article previewing the Gold Cup semis:
“It was just one of those days,” U.S. forward Taylor Twellman said after missing several easy chances in front of the net against Panama. “But we won, so who really cares?”
Someone call Twellman's mother. We need someone to seize his ear and yank him to the kitchen table for a stern talking to.
Who cares? WHO CARES?!
I'll tell you who cares, young man. About a third of the number of people showing in the Nielsens for U.S. Soccer games, that's who! You're paid to score goals, son. If I had an accountant doing his job as poorly as you did against Panama, he'd lose my business...and I'll warrant the business of many others as well.
Shape up, youngster.
Yanqui Milestones: We're .500
The Sacramento Bee noted an interesting milestone reached by the U.S. Men's National Team (Yanquis) last Saturday: we've compiled a .500 all-time record, by going 189-111-189 (W-T-L).
I'm not the first site to note this, so I thought I'd add this (arguably) worthwhile (and wholly obvious) thought: between The Bruce's winning record and Bob Bradley's near-flawless start, we musta been pretty bad for pretty long.
(#########)
I'm not the first site to note this, so I thought I'd add this (arguably) worthwhile (and wholly obvious) thought: between The Bruce's winning record and Bob Bradley's near-flawless start, we musta been pretty bad for pretty long.
(#########)
Gold Cup Goodness: The Looming Semi
Two days and, oh, fifteen minutes from now, I'll be cracking the first of what will likely be several drinks ahead of the Gold Cup semifinal between the United States and Canada. And - boy howdy! - am I excited about this one. Judging by the steady stream of commentary, it seems like a lot of other people are too.
To begin, there's a fair amount of looking forward going on. For instance, Ives Galarcep chucked out his usual pre-game roster speculation/analysis; there's nothing too shocking/offensive in there, though I'd point to interested parties to the comments to this post, where a visitor to the site makes a case for avoiding starting both Pablo Mastroeni and Oguchi Onyewu. Other forward-looking stuff deals specifically with scouting the Canadians, though a lot of what I'm reading there just chucks out names and positions.
It also bears noting that the Canadians are watching us...
One of the revelations of my day came with learning that only three teams (!) have lifted the (remarkably hideous) CONCACAF Gold Cup. I found this so hard to believe that I bounced over to Wikipedia to check it out (yeah, yeah, I know): sure enough, that's accurate...provided you chuck the results from the CONCACAF Championship. Put another way, so long as you're talking about the event named the Gold Cup, only three teams have won it. Two of these are thoroughly obvious - the United States and Mexico - but the surprise comes with the third team: Canada. Who knew? (Not that they won it, mind you. The fact that Canada won the Gold Cup in 2000 comes up plenty; it's just the fact that no one else, say, Costa Rica or Honduras, that's surprising.)
Sitting as we are in the doldrums, now seems the time to take a look back at how the U.S. squad reached this point. One curious, yet persistent talking point grows from a sneaking sense insecurity among U.S. fans that our team has, now and again, dropped their guard and what they could mean against the sharper teams we're now facing. U.S. coach Bob Bradley has certainly noticed it (and that's to his credit). Turning to others, Ken Pendleton, writing for USSoccerplayers.com, threw this thought into the mixer:
I think Pendleton is on to something with that. More to the point, that's one of those things that you read and absorb with the realization that it's something you've been thinking all along, but without that specific thought forming cleanly in your head. Another addition in that regard came from Greg Lalas' Sports Illustrated analysis - though what he said here had more to do with why I found it so hard to write about the U.S. v. Panama quarterfinal after it had happened:
The overall performance versus Panama produced feelings not so much of anxiety as something similar to boredom. Once we went up 2-0 - and possibly before then - I never had the feeling the Canaleros were going to get back into it. Sure, they scored their goal, but...I dunno. The game just kind of plugged along. Had they equalized, the experience would have been something like waking from a boring dream to a house on fire, but, as things turned out, the boring dream was reality. There was, perhaps even is, this sense that we're marching toward the final with Mexico and everything else in between is just a rehearsal for that...
...which leaves me fully expecting a horrible, stressful game against Canada. Again, Canada has won it all before, if only once, but that was back when we were "good." The question is whether I actually want that kind of stimulation.
To begin, there's a fair amount of looking forward going on. For instance, Ives Galarcep chucked out his usual pre-game roster speculation/analysis; there's nothing too shocking/offensive in there, though I'd point to interested parties to the comments to this post, where a visitor to the site makes a case for avoiding starting both Pablo Mastroeni and Oguchi Onyewu. Other forward-looking stuff deals specifically with scouting the Canadians, though a lot of what I'm reading there just chucks out names and positions.
It also bears noting that the Canadians are watching us...
One of the revelations of my day came with learning that only three teams (!) have lifted the (remarkably hideous) CONCACAF Gold Cup. I found this so hard to believe that I bounced over to Wikipedia to check it out (yeah, yeah, I know): sure enough, that's accurate...provided you chuck the results from the CONCACAF Championship. Put another way, so long as you're talking about the event named the Gold Cup, only three teams have won it. Two of these are thoroughly obvious - the United States and Mexico - but the surprise comes with the third team: Canada. Who knew? (Not that they won it, mind you. The fact that Canada won the Gold Cup in 2000 comes up plenty; it's just the fact that no one else, say, Costa Rica or Honduras, that's surprising.)
Sitting as we are in the doldrums, now seems the time to take a look back at how the U.S. squad reached this point. One curious, yet persistent talking point grows from a sneaking sense insecurity among U.S. fans that our team has, now and again, dropped their guard and what they could mean against the sharper teams we're now facing. U.S. coach Bob Bradley has certainly noticed it (and that's to his credit). Turning to others, Ken Pendleton, writing for USSoccerplayers.com, threw this thought into the mixer:
"The dominance of good individual performances to the detriment of group play might just be the story of this tournament for the United States, and one of the major reasons has been the lineup shuffling."
I think Pendleton is on to something with that. More to the point, that's one of those things that you read and absorb with the realization that it's something you've been thinking all along, but without that specific thought forming cleanly in your head. Another addition in that regard came from Greg Lalas' Sports Illustrated analysis - though what he said here had more to do with why I found it so hard to write about the U.S. v. Panama quarterfinal after it had happened:
"Well, here I am writing about it, but I'm feeling anything but rocked. The Americans got a 2-1 win, the result they needed to advance to the semifinals -- where they'll meet Canada, who cruised past Guatemala 3-0 -- but they didn't exactly fill me with confidence."
The overall performance versus Panama produced feelings not so much of anxiety as something similar to boredom. Once we went up 2-0 - and possibly before then - I never had the feeling the Canaleros were going to get back into it. Sure, they scored their goal, but...I dunno. The game just kind of plugged along. Had they equalized, the experience would have been something like waking from a boring dream to a house on fire, but, as things turned out, the boring dream was reality. There was, perhaps even is, this sense that we're marching toward the final with Mexico and everything else in between is just a rehearsal for that...
...which leaves me fully expecting a horrible, stressful game against Canada. Again, Canada has won it all before, if only once, but that was back when we were "good." The question is whether I actually want that kind of stimulation.
Junk-Drawer, 06.18: Kick 'Em While They're Hurtin'
I'm trying, for what must be the sixth time, to post a daily/weekly/periodic round-up of all the good, good things I find in my online travels; my total failure in managing a weekly round-up tells me it's time to give daily a shot again.
At any rate, it's primarily giving the nod to the work of others, though I'll sneak in my share of comments. Here goes:
- To lead with what I led with, fans of some Major League Soccer (MLS) teams that endured tough weekends laid into their clubs. Two personal favorites:
+ The Real Salt Lake Offside blog writes:
+ My favorite hit, however, appeared on FC Rocky under the title "Plenty of Goats to Go Around":
In other news, commentary, and drama....
- Ian Plenderleith posted something (that I can't link to; c'mon USSoccerplayers.com, let's get that permalink situation squared away) on Toronto FC (by way of commenting on Chicago) that I thought worth noting:
Yeah, I think he's implying that they're thugs...
- Speaking of Toronto FC - or rather FC Dallas - The Offside blogger for that team (that's Toronto, not Dallas) noted something in his match report of the Texas team's blowout loss to TFC that has puzzled me quite a bit this year: Dallas' mysteriously condensed schedule - e.g. they've played 14 games, while no other team has played more than 12; naturally, they're griping about fatigue, arguably with justification. The thing is, I checked out Dallas' schedule and I'm not seeing many gaps in there outside of August. Between Superliga, exhibitions, and (presumably) Open Cup play, these cats are nearly as busy as LA. So, if the current roster can't handle the workload, I'd expect this team to stay close to .500.
- Down the Byline's offered a good perspective of the PK that allowed Red Bull to equalize:
- As explained in a taunting post by Ives Galarcep, New England could have signed Guillermo Barros Schelotto. These are the days Steve Nicol frustrates me.
- It sounds like the LA Galaxy's signing of Honduran forward Carlos Pavon is as close to official as one can get without actually being official. That should be interesting....
- Finally, with a hat-tip to Offside Rules, who checked one of the few political blogs I normally visit, Slate.com ran a cool feature on our lack of tradition where our uniforms are concerned. It's a cool, quick trip through the past and sharply written as well. Well worth the gander.
At any rate, it's primarily giving the nod to the work of others, though I'll sneak in my share of comments. Here goes:
- To lead with what I led with, fans of some Major League Soccer (MLS) teams that endured tough weekends laid into their clubs. Two personal favorites:
+ The Real Salt Lake Offside blog writes:
"We now, officially, have a worst team in the MLS. It was a hard-fought battle for the basement spot, and at times, both sides played like they wanted it, but congratulations to the LA Galaxy … you’re slightly better than the worst team in the MLS."
+ My favorite hit, however, appeared on FC Rocky under the title "Plenty of Goats to Go Around":
"When it comes time to make FIFA 2009, the video game's programmers should create four difficulty settings: easy, medium, hard and Rapids."
In other news, commentary, and drama....
- Ian Plenderleith posted something (that I can't link to; c'mon USSoccerplayers.com, let's get that permalink situation squared away) on Toronto FC (by way of commenting on Chicago) that I thought worth noting:
"Teams above [the Chicago Fire] have more points, and have mostly played less games, while Toronto FC is breathing down its neck (or more likely tugging at its shirt and kicking at its calves), also with a game in hand."
Yeah, I think he's implying that they're thugs...
- Speaking of Toronto FC - or rather FC Dallas - The Offside blogger for that team (that's Toronto, not Dallas) noted something in his match report of the Texas team's blowout loss to TFC that has puzzled me quite a bit this year: Dallas' mysteriously condensed schedule - e.g. they've played 14 games, while no other team has played more than 12; naturally, they're griping about fatigue, arguably with justification. The thing is, I checked out Dallas' schedule and I'm not seeing many gaps in there outside of August. Between Superliga, exhibitions, and (presumably) Open Cup play, these cats are nearly as busy as LA. So, if the current roster can't handle the workload, I'd expect this team to stay close to .500.
- Down the Byline's offered a good perspective of the PK that allowed Red Bull to equalize:
"While the PK was a bad call in my opinion, Jose Burciaga Jr. has to be smarter then that in those situations, the ball looked to be going over John Wolyniec's head, and Burciaga went clumsily into the challenge, even if it was a bad call you can't go into the challenge like that."
- As explained in a taunting post by Ives Galarcep, New England could have signed Guillermo Barros Schelotto. These are the days Steve Nicol frustrates me.
- It sounds like the LA Galaxy's signing of Honduran forward Carlos Pavon is as close to official as one can get without actually being official. That should be interesting....
- Finally, with a hat-tip to Offside Rules, who checked one of the few political blogs I normally visit, Slate.com ran a cool feature on our lack of tradition where our uniforms are concerned. It's a cool, quick trip through the past and sharply written as well. Well worth the gander.
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.
(########)
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: 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!
(########)
U.S.A. 4 - 0 El Salvador: Rounding Into Form?
Or did we just happen to match well with El Salvador?
I'm making the case here for the title. Quite simply, this was the best American performance so far - and that had less to do with the score than the way we played. More to the point, the way we played produced the score. Some quick observations:
- My man of the match: Clint Dempsey. He didn't score - though he almost did late - but he did a million, myriad little, crucial things that kept possession in the Salvadoran half, nearly all his passes connected (not least on the really impressive fourth goal), and he was simply the most troublesome, complicated player on the field.
- Apart from a twenty, twenty-five minute spell, we owned this game. Even when we didn't own it, we had things under control. The MAJOR difference between tonight's game and the two that preceded it: instead of having half a player in the right position defensively, we had a whole player plus support to keep the Salvadorans in front of the defense and away from our goal.
- Better still, through our sustained possession, we didn't just kill this game, we murdered it. No, scratch that: we murthered it.
- Another big shout-out: Michael Parkhurst. Nope, this wasn't Italy (or, more appropriately, the Czech Republic...still stings), but Parkhurst showed what makes him so effective. I swear that guy knows every inch of his body, whether it's how to squeeze it around a forward trying to shield the ball for a timely deflection, or what to do after he has lost the fight for a header. The thing to remember with Parkhurst: he's a young player; his game ought to improve.
- Our worst player tonight - and it feels churlish to even note this - was Michael Bradley. A few errant passes meets some sloppy tackles and, voila, you have some give-aways, some lost possession. Still, nothing fatal came of it.
- Finally, credit the Salvadorans for coming out to pla-ay. Even in the first half, when they played most their team behind ball, they did well enough to keep the game open and half-decent to watch. When they raised their energy level and pushed some players forward in the second, they tested us a bit...thankfully, we passed.
- 4-3-2-1: This is what happens when soccer dorks think too hard. It didn't look remotely like this on the field - and thank God. We generally moved pieces around as needed on top of a back four...and that's a good thing.
- Bottom line: we had fun out there. You could see it. And that's why we won like we did.
Well, knowing I could go on all night, let's turn things over to player ratings, with a 5.0 serving as the perfectly neutral score...
Tim Howard, 5.0: Didn't need to do much did he?
Jonathan Spector, 5.5: Some nice runs forward made up for a slip or two on defense.
Oguchi Onyewu, 5.0: I'm mostly pissed about the yellow, but he also did well enough...though not well enough to make him an automatic first-choice starter; his play overall his reopened that question.
Michael Parkhurst, 7.5: I won't lie: I love this kid. So freakin' composed. Only modesty keeps me from rating him higher.
Jonathan Bornstein, 6.5: Got beat badly once, but otherwise contributed a good deal on both sides of the ball.
Landon Donovan, 7.0: The lad done good; he keeps doing good. I still don't know what happened on the PK, but didn't think much of either attempt. And I'd appreciate it if someone could report the whereabouts of his missing left foot. But he had a typically good game.
Pablo Mastroeni, 6.0: Again, dumb, dumb yellow. Mastroeni needs to find the off-switch for these occasions. But I love him as a player, seriously. He brings so much upside that his hard-fouling downside doesn't bother me.
Benny Feilhaber, 6.0: I finally get it. Feilhaber can make some fantastic passes, but he also gave away a fair number through cheek. But I have finally seen his future and it is good.
Michael Bradley, 5.5: Whoops. Pegged Howard's number lower. Call him our worst field player, but that's like coming 50th in Miss USA - e.g. you're still pretty hot. Anyway, I griped about his shortcomings above.
DaMarcus Beasley, 8.0: Two goals - and good ones at that - are plenty swell, but Beasley turned in a great, great game...second only to...
Clint Dempsey, 8.5: Quite simply did almost everything right. If he scored a goal, I'd be forced to give him a flatly ridiculous rating...so count yer blessings.
And the subs....
Taylor Twellman, 6.0: Saved by his goal, which was pretty nice. He gave away his share of passes too - especially that groaner that could very well have resulted in a Salvadoran goal. But he's just so dang industrious that I can't fault him much. In that tough 25 minute stretch, Twellman was our upfield pressure.
Brian Ching, 6.5: My only complaint: Ching should never play wide...just doesn't suit him. Great ball to Twellman for the third goal, though.
Frank Simek, 6.0: Didn't get much of a crack. Still, I want to see more of him...as proven by the fact I almost rated him at 6.5.
OK, all for now. Time to go to bed happy.
Whoops. In other news, Guatemala tied Trinibago (still so angry that I can't use the "and symbol." That should get them to four points and second in Group B...so, hello Canada in the quarterfinals. Meanwhile, that means we should get Guadeloupe (right?).
I'm making the case here for the title. Quite simply, this was the best American performance so far - and that had less to do with the score than the way we played. More to the point, the way we played produced the score. Some quick observations:
- My man of the match: Clint Dempsey. He didn't score - though he almost did late - but he did a million, myriad little, crucial things that kept possession in the Salvadoran half, nearly all his passes connected (not least on the really impressive fourth goal), and he was simply the most troublesome, complicated player on the field.
- Apart from a twenty, twenty-five minute spell, we owned this game. Even when we didn't own it, we had things under control. The MAJOR difference between tonight's game and the two that preceded it: instead of having half a player in the right position defensively, we had a whole player plus support to keep the Salvadorans in front of the defense and away from our goal.
- Better still, through our sustained possession, we didn't just kill this game, we murdered it. No, scratch that: we murthered it.
- Another big shout-out: Michael Parkhurst. Nope, this wasn't Italy (or, more appropriately, the Czech Republic...still stings), but Parkhurst showed what makes him so effective. I swear that guy knows every inch of his body, whether it's how to squeeze it around a forward trying to shield the ball for a timely deflection, or what to do after he has lost the fight for a header. The thing to remember with Parkhurst: he's a young player; his game ought to improve.
- Our worst player tonight - and it feels churlish to even note this - was Michael Bradley. A few errant passes meets some sloppy tackles and, voila, you have some give-aways, some lost possession. Still, nothing fatal came of it.
- Finally, credit the Salvadorans for coming out to pla-ay. Even in the first half, when they played most their team behind ball, they did well enough to keep the game open and half-decent to watch. When they raised their energy level and pushed some players forward in the second, they tested us a bit...thankfully, we passed.
- 4-3-2-1: This is what happens when soccer dorks think too hard. It didn't look remotely like this on the field - and thank God. We generally moved pieces around as needed on top of a back four...and that's a good thing.
- Bottom line: we had fun out there. You could see it. And that's why we won like we did.
Well, knowing I could go on all night, let's turn things over to player ratings, with a 5.0 serving as the perfectly neutral score...
Tim Howard, 5.0: Didn't need to do much did he?
Jonathan Spector, 5.5: Some nice runs forward made up for a slip or two on defense.
Oguchi Onyewu, 5.0: I'm mostly pissed about the yellow, but he also did well enough...though not well enough to make him an automatic first-choice starter; his play overall his reopened that question.
Michael Parkhurst, 7.5: I won't lie: I love this kid. So freakin' composed. Only modesty keeps me from rating him higher.
Jonathan Bornstein, 6.5: Got beat badly once, but otherwise contributed a good deal on both sides of the ball.
Landon Donovan, 7.0: The lad done good; he keeps doing good. I still don't know what happened on the PK, but didn't think much of either attempt. And I'd appreciate it if someone could report the whereabouts of his missing left foot. But he had a typically good game.
Pablo Mastroeni, 6.0: Again, dumb, dumb yellow. Mastroeni needs to find the off-switch for these occasions. But I love him as a player, seriously. He brings so much upside that his hard-fouling downside doesn't bother me.
Benny Feilhaber, 6.0: I finally get it. Feilhaber can make some fantastic passes, but he also gave away a fair number through cheek. But I have finally seen his future and it is good.
Michael Bradley, 5.5: Whoops. Pegged Howard's number lower. Call him our worst field player, but that's like coming 50th in Miss USA - e.g. you're still pretty hot. Anyway, I griped about his shortcomings above.
DaMarcus Beasley, 8.0: Two goals - and good ones at that - are plenty swell, but Beasley turned in a great, great game...second only to...
Clint Dempsey, 8.5: Quite simply did almost everything right. If he scored a goal, I'd be forced to give him a flatly ridiculous rating...so count yer blessings.
And the subs....
Taylor Twellman, 6.0: Saved by his goal, which was pretty nice. He gave away his share of passes too - especially that groaner that could very well have resulted in a Salvadoran goal. But he's just so dang industrious that I can't fault him much. In that tough 25 minute stretch, Twellman was our upfield pressure.
Brian Ching, 6.5: My only complaint: Ching should never play wide...just doesn't suit him. Great ball to Twellman for the third goal, though.
Frank Simek, 6.0: Didn't get much of a crack. Still, I want to see more of him...as proven by the fact I almost rated him at 6.5.
OK, all for now. Time to go to bed happy.
Whoops. In other news, Guatemala tied Trinibago (still so angry that I can't use the "and symbol." That should get them to four points and second in Group B...so, hello Canada in the quarterfinals. Meanwhile, that means we should get Guadeloupe (right?).
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:
Hmmm...discuss...I mean, if you wanna....
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!
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!
Gold Cup Report; The Yanks' "Mexico Dilemma"
Before picking through the past two days’ MLS and U.S. Men’s-related Gold Cup results (I’ve had “things,” none of which should interest the present audience), I wanted to post some brief comments on the tournament in general.
Even though the print coverage has been pretty swell in general, I thought I'd chuck in a one-stop update or those not keeping tabs. The Gold Cup’s first two days turned in the following results:
Canada 2 - 1 Costa Rica (what?! Forza Canada!!)
Haiti 1 - 1 Guadeloupe
El Salvador 2 - 1 Trinidad & Tobago
All I want to say about that is, what a delightfully baffling tournament so far - especially the Canada/Costa Rica result. Costa Rica needing results from the next twoo sets up some lovely intrigue in Group A; I figured Haiti might cause some headaches, but now have to wonder whether 1) Guadeloupe might as well, or, 2) whether Haiti is weaker than I suspected. Good stuff.
The Group B results followed expectations a bit more closely, what with the chaos in the Trinidadian camp. And, without digging too deeply into my thoughts on the U.S.’s performance against Guatemala (more later), let’s just say I’m happy to be getting Trinidad first.
In semi-related materials, something that ran a couple days ago in the Houston Chronicle - something I had intended to pass on yesterday, but couldn’t due to “things” - laid out CONCACAF-only rankings for the participating teams. The rankings themselves aren’t all that shocking - e.g. Mexico is #1, we’re #2, Costa Rica’s #3, etc. - but it’s kinda nice to have rankings within the larger FIFA rankings available.
The 1-2 set-up, however, begs a question that the present tournament may or may not answer: why is Mexico, who the U.S. Men have beaten with meaningful regularity, still ranked #1? For what it’s worth, I don’t think the ranking is wrong so much as it could use some explaining. Here’s a stab at it: while we do beat Mexico, we don’t often look like world-beaters doing it; also, there’s the fact that we’ve never beat them in Mexico...everywhere else, yes, but Mexico, no.
That last detail is a curious thing, but it’s one that strikes me as especially meaningful. It provides a rejoinder of sorts to a contention in an Ives Galarcep article that the U.S. could “prove something” by beating Mexico in the Gold Cup final. While the contention that we need to prove anything is controversial on its own, it's the home-field angle that leaves me dubious on signing off on Galarcep's specific argument. Here’s the thing, we could deliver a humiliating, tear-provoking ass-pounding in the final, riding the score up to 14-0 and I’m around 90% certain the Mexican players and coaches would unpack the usual comments about American’s “playing like women.”
Given that, I don’t personally believe that the coming Gold Cup final - assuming both the U.S. and Mexico make it - will bring any meaningful changes in the perception of both teams. Even if we win our second consecutive Gold Cup, the changing of the guard will only come if and when Mexico perceives itself as the weaker team - and I can only see that day coming when we beat Mexico in Mexico. That’s when the denials will finally ring hollow and the crown fall from Mexico’s head. After all, we’ve gone 7-1-0 (W-L-T) in the past eight meetings and that hasn’t changed a thing. In other words, so long as any form of comforting excuse remains at hand, Mexicans won't buy into second-place status.
Another way to dry up the excuses would be to play the Gold Cup outside the U.S. (how is it we keep winning this no-bid hosting gig?) I'm less certain of this, but beating Mexico in any other Central venue would do go some distance to drying up excuses as well. But, seeing as that can’t come about for another couple years, seems like we’ll have an earlier crack at winning in Mexico.
Can we do it? Sure. Paraguay did just a couple weeks ago. And I don't even think they've got Mexico's number like we have lately.
Even though the print coverage has been pretty swell in general, I thought I'd chuck in a one-stop update or those not keeping tabs. The Gold Cup’s first two days turned in the following results:
Canada 2 - 1 Costa Rica (what?! Forza Canada!!)
Haiti 1 - 1 Guadeloupe
El Salvador 2 - 1 Trinidad & Tobago
All I want to say about that is, what a delightfully baffling tournament so far - especially the Canada/Costa Rica result. Costa Rica needing results from the next twoo sets up some lovely intrigue in Group A; I figured Haiti might cause some headaches, but now have to wonder whether 1) Guadeloupe might as well, or, 2) whether Haiti is weaker than I suspected. Good stuff.
The Group B results followed expectations a bit more closely, what with the chaos in the Trinidadian camp. And, without digging too deeply into my thoughts on the U.S.’s performance against Guatemala (more later), let’s just say I’m happy to be getting Trinidad first.
In semi-related materials, something that ran a couple days ago in the Houston Chronicle - something I had intended to pass on yesterday, but couldn’t due to “things” - laid out CONCACAF-only rankings for the participating teams. The rankings themselves aren’t all that shocking - e.g. Mexico is #1, we’re #2, Costa Rica’s #3, etc. - but it’s kinda nice to have rankings within the larger FIFA rankings available.
The 1-2 set-up, however, begs a question that the present tournament may or may not answer: why is Mexico, who the U.S. Men have beaten with meaningful regularity, still ranked #1? For what it’s worth, I don’t think the ranking is wrong so much as it could use some explaining. Here’s a stab at it: while we do beat Mexico, we don’t often look like world-beaters doing it; also, there’s the fact that we’ve never beat them in Mexico...everywhere else, yes, but Mexico, no.
That last detail is a curious thing, but it’s one that strikes me as especially meaningful. It provides a rejoinder of sorts to a contention in an Ives Galarcep article that the U.S. could “prove something” by beating Mexico in the Gold Cup final. While the contention that we need to prove anything is controversial on its own, it's the home-field angle that leaves me dubious on signing off on Galarcep's specific argument. Here’s the thing, we could deliver a humiliating, tear-provoking ass-pounding in the final, riding the score up to 14-0 and I’m around 90% certain the Mexican players and coaches would unpack the usual comments about American’s “playing like women.”
Given that, I don’t personally believe that the coming Gold Cup final - assuming both the U.S. and Mexico make it - will bring any meaningful changes in the perception of both teams. Even if we win our second consecutive Gold Cup, the changing of the guard will only come if and when Mexico perceives itself as the weaker team - and I can only see that day coming when we beat Mexico in Mexico. That’s when the denials will finally ring hollow and the crown fall from Mexico’s head. After all, we’ve gone 7-1-0 (W-L-T) in the past eight meetings and that hasn’t changed a thing. In other words, so long as any form of comforting excuse remains at hand, Mexicans won't buy into second-place status.
Another way to dry up the excuses would be to play the Gold Cup outside the U.S. (how is it we keep winning this no-bid hosting gig?) I'm less certain of this, but beating Mexico in any other Central venue would do go some distance to drying up excuses as well. But, seeing as that can’t come about for another couple years, seems like we’ll have an earlier crack at winning in Mexico.
Can we do it? Sure. Paraguay did just a couple weeks ago. And I don't even think they've got Mexico's number like we have lately.
Gold Cup Goodness + How U.S. v. China Got Interesting
Unbelievably, the CONCACAF Gold Cup is just a week away, which could be why things like rosters of all the teams and scouting reports of Mexico (who look pretty scary...till you consider the Jedi mind-trick the Yanquis have working on 'em; whoops, and hat-tip to du Nord) are trickling out lately. I'm hoping there's plenty more to come. For instance, I read of a scouting report to come from Fox Soccer's site (which means I'll have to bookmark it...again) and I see they've got a pretty snazzy spread for the tournament already laid out (as well as more power-rankings for me to mine - yippee!).
But, as all y'all no doubt know, there's that game against China for an appetizer of sorts. About a week ago, I confessed to an utter lack of interest in this Saturday's game, but, with the appearance of some weird, new names on the game-day roster (Davies, Hill, and Nguyen; and hats off to the Sacramento Bee for paying attention to the California Victory), I'm suddenly thinking this could be worthwhile viewing; so, here's to Bob Bradley for making good use of a friendly.
In a related piece, Jeff Carlisle did some roster day-dreaming for ESPN. While that's worth reading for its own sake, he mentioned a couple angles that got wheels turning in my head. First, there's this bit about Dempsey:
Loathe as I am to play the "build-yer-own-line-up" parlor game, I have to say here, "yes, yes, YES!" I like a free-role for Deuce, which I think he'd get at forward; his defending's not so hot in any case. Just a thought...I'm not sure it will happen.
The big thing for me, though, is what Bradley does with the second 45 minutes - or however much time he opts to devote to experimentation. I'm all for giving the first-choice Gold Cup team - or as much of it as is feasible - time in a live-game situation to play together. But by the second half, I want to see some young guys getting a sniff - and the more the better. Put another way, I'm watching this to see Charlie Davies and Lee Nguyen, guys I've heard decent things about but have never seen. If not for yourself, do it for me, Bob. Thanks. I'll be watching now.
Hmmm....one last thing: I'm finally seeing the reason why China is playing half of MLS after the U.S. Men: they've got the Asian Cup looming - and a poor result to wipe out. That should help raise the level a bit. Good stuff.
(#########)
But, as all y'all no doubt know, there's that game against China for an appetizer of sorts. About a week ago, I confessed to an utter lack of interest in this Saturday's game, but, with the appearance of some weird, new names on the game-day roster (Davies, Hill, and Nguyen; and hats off to the Sacramento Bee for paying attention to the California Victory), I'm suddenly thinking this could be worthwhile viewing; so, here's to Bob Bradley for making good use of a friendly.
In a related piece, Jeff Carlisle did some roster day-dreaming for ESPN. While that's worth reading for its own sake, he mentioned a couple angles that got wheels turning in my head. First, there's this bit about Dempsey:
"The absence of the team's MLS contingent means that the U.S. only has youngsters Charlie Davies and Kamani Hill, as well as veteran Ante Razov available, although the likes of Dempsey could slide up top."
Loathe as I am to play the "build-yer-own-line-up" parlor game, I have to say here, "yes, yes, YES!" I like a free-role for Deuce, which I think he'd get at forward; his defending's not so hot in any case. Just a thought...I'm not sure it will happen.
The big thing for me, though, is what Bradley does with the second 45 minutes - or however much time he opts to devote to experimentation. I'm all for giving the first-choice Gold Cup team - or as much of it as is feasible - time in a live-game situation to play together. But by the second half, I want to see some young guys getting a sniff - and the more the better. Put another way, I'm watching this to see Charlie Davies and Lee Nguyen, guys I've heard decent things about but have never seen. If not for yourself, do it for me, Bob. Thanks. I'll be watching now.
Hmmm....one last thing: I'm finally seeing the reason why China is playing half of MLS after the U.S. Men: they've got the Asian Cup looming - and a poor result to wipe out. That should help raise the level a bit. Good stuff.
(#########)
USMNT Tangentials (Though One Is Interesting)
Just a couple quick items on the U.S. Men's National Team to pass on:
1) It looks like the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF), conscious of persistent fan demand for games against European opposition, lined up a pair of October friendlies: one against Switzerland, which is a country, and another against Catalonia, which, unless I'm very much mistaken, is not. Curiously, I find even the game against Calalonia - listed in the press release's headline as a "Spanish regional team" - more exciting than next weekend's China friendly.
2) A really, really intriguing item appeared in ESPN's report about Toronto FC midfielder Ronnie O'Brien declining a chance to suit up for the Republic of Ireland. Here's that:
With the commentary surrounding the recent call-up of Steve Ralston to the Gold Cup team, and the related discussion about a lack of better options on the right side of midfield, I can only assume the good folks at the USSF are mailing O'Brien citizenship applications on a daily basis. I can't believe I'm the only person who would love to have O'Brien suit up for the U.S.
(########)
1) It looks like the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF), conscious of persistent fan demand for games against European opposition, lined up a pair of October friendlies: one against Switzerland, which is a country, and another against Catalonia, which, unless I'm very much mistaken, is not. Curiously, I find even the game against Calalonia - listed in the press release's headline as a "Spanish regional team" - more exciting than next weekend's China friendly.
2) A really, really intriguing item appeared in ESPN's report about Toronto FC midfielder Ronnie O'Brien declining a chance to suit up for the Republic of Ireland. Here's that:
"O'Brien's name has been bandied about as a potential international on both sides of the Atlantic since he emerged as one of MLS' top performers while playing with FC Dallas. (O'Brien holds a Green Card and could potentially apply for U.S. citizenship). The three-time All-Star was a Best XI selection in 2004 and 2005 and seemed in line for a look-see during Ireland's failed World Cup qualifying campaign, but the chance never came."
With the commentary surrounding the recent call-up of Steve Ralston to the Gold Cup team, and the related discussion about a lack of better options on the right side of midfield, I can only assume the good folks at the USSF are mailing O'Brien citizenship applications on a daily basis. I can't believe I'm the only person who would love to have O'Brien suit up for the U.S.
(########)
Gold Cup Roster + Analysis; Watching China
I'll start with the last bit of the title first: by selecting China for this friendly, U.S. Soccer has left me totally uninterested in a U.S. Mens game; I can only call this impressive and move on.
Bob Bradley announced the roster for the Gold Cup today and here's what we're looking at:
So, I'm seeing this and the first question that comes to me is this: Why the hell do we always play this damn tournament (the Gold Cup, that is) in the States? C'mon, CONCACAF, let's dish this thing around. It'll help us - that is the Yanquis - in the end and, seeing as no one shows up, I'm thinking the Central American stadiums that are good enough for World Cup qualifying are good enough for this. Sorry, early digression....
As, I believe, every last person who blogs on soccer has pointed out by now, the names above are about as surprising as the continued rotation of the earth. Put another way, any tuned in at this point knows most of these players down, perhaps, to their shoe size and breakfast preferences. Since I'll be picking at these below, I think I'll just dump out the key source material and reference it as needed. Here goes:
ESPN Jeff Carlisle
Soccer by Ives Ives Galarcep
USSoccerplayers.com Marc Connolly
MLSnet.com Kyle McCarthy
That's the good, general stuff and, as you'll find in reading, it's not accurate to say the roster met with total silence. Two, um, "older gents" made the cut - Frankie Hejduk and Steve Ralston - as did one (and I think he's the only one) uncapped player: Michael Parkhurst. Most the sticking up that needed doing surrounded the inclusion of Hejduk and Ralston - more on that below - but Galarcep lauds Parkhurst's inclusion, while Carlisle implies his inclusion might be a manuever to fend off Irish interest. The only doubter I've seen on Parkhurst's inclusion came from Mike H of My Soccer Blog, who thinks the Revs' defender hasn't had the best of seasons so far. I'll only say I disagree - he stuffed Landon to bursting like a Thanksgiving turkey - and leave it at that.
To praise another bit of Mike H's post, though, he's the only person I've seen who broke down players missing time with their MLS clubs by team. Who hurts the most? As Dan Loney points out, the Revolution. And I don't have to tell anyone it's not just a numbers thing, but it's positional as well. For instance, Chivas may be missing two guys - Jonathan Bornstein and Brad Guzan - but that's not gonna hurt nearly as bad as Houston missing Brian Ching (wait...he has played this season?) and (in all sincerity) Ricardo Clark; chuck a missing Dwayne DeRosario in the fire (regardless of form) and you get to thinking Houston actually might never score again.
Turning to the seemingly weightier debate, I tilt toward the "Why Ralston, Why Hejduk?" column - and for the obvious reason: they're old, Ralston especially, and they won't be around much longer. The most comprehensive rebuttal to that appears in Connolly's piece and, I'd say his point - basically, that Bradley's priorities run through the Confederations Cup when both players can certainly still contribute - holds so long as you're talking Gold Cup and not Copa. Come Copa time, we really need to get younger players in those positions. For me, however, I think we can win the Gold Cup without them, so....well, I just don't get their inclusion. Ralston's doing great and this year I'm thrilled, both personally and as a Revs fan, but I'd rather see Bradley really scouting alternatives....though, to be honest, as I look over the list of all current MLS players no one is really jumping out. But here are a few: Arturo Alvarez (I owe Ian Plenderleith for that one), Kyle Martino or Eddie Gaven (I know, I know), or even the more obvious choices like Brian Mullan. Maybe he's holding out for the Copa on that bunch...anyway, I'm just sayin' the Yanquis wold probably do just fine with someone like Alvarez and Bradley would be be blooding someone for the future.
Speaking of the Copa America, Sideline Views' Andrea Canales picked up something I hadn't seen elsewhere: a stray comment from Bradley about 8-12 players being in the mix for both the Gold Cup and Copa. While I had seen a musing or two about Landon signing on for both, Canales' post is the only place a figure of that sort came out. As noted there, that figure includes both MLS and Euro-based players - I have to think between-projects guys like Oguchi Onyewu and DaMarcus Beasley are shoo-ins for two spots, maybe even Kasey Keller.
Anyway, that's plenty on this I should think. There's plenty of good stuff in the things I've linked to that I haven't mentioned. For instance, Marc Connolly takes an engaging look back at U.S. rosters past; he makes a good point using them, but I found the look interesting by itself. The MLSnet.com article has the best stuff on reporting dates - which impacts MLS, of course - as well as mention of Pablo Mastroeni's two-game suspension (surprise, surprise).
Whoops, almost forgot this: Marc Connolly and Ian Plenderleith, in a roundtable for two, revive the great debate about combining the Gold Cup with the Copa America to, y'know, make our tournament worth a damn...that should tell you where I fall on that debate (if not, get on the phone to Brazil, Jack Warner...earn your friggin' bought seat).
(########)
Bob Bradley announced the roster for the Gold Cup today and here's what we're looking at:
"Goalkeepers: Tim Howard (Everton), Brad Guzan (Chivas USA), Kasey Keller (Borussia Moenchengladbach).
Defenders: Frankie Hejduk (Columbus Crew), Carlos Bocanegra (Fulham), Jay DeMerit (Watford), Jonathan Bornstein (Chivas USA), Michael Parkhurst (New England Revolution), Frank Simek (Sheffield Wednesday), Jonathan Spector (West Ham United), Oguchi Onyewu (Standard Liege).
Midfielders: DaMarcus Beasley (PSV Eindhoven), Michael Bradley (SC Heerenveen), Ricardo Clark (Houston Dynamo), Clint Dempsey (Fulham), Benny Feilhaber (Hamburg SV), Justin Mapp (Chicago Fire), Pablo Mastroeni (Colorado Rapids), Steve Ralston (New England Revolution).
Forwards: Brian Ching (Houston Dynamo), Landon Donovan (Los Angeles Galaxy), Eddie Johnson (Kansas City Wizards), Taylor Twellman (New England Revolution)
So, I'm seeing this and the first question that comes to me is this: Why the hell do we always play this damn tournament (the Gold Cup, that is) in the States? C'mon, CONCACAF, let's dish this thing around. It'll help us - that is the Yanquis - in the end and, seeing as no one shows up, I'm thinking the Central American stadiums that are good enough for World Cup qualifying are good enough for this. Sorry, early digression....
As, I believe, every last person who blogs on soccer has pointed out by now, the names above are about as surprising as the continued rotation of the earth. Put another way, any tuned in at this point knows most of these players down, perhaps, to their shoe size and breakfast preferences. Since I'll be picking at these below, I think I'll just dump out the key source material and reference it as needed. Here goes:
ESPN Jeff Carlisle
Soccer by Ives Ives Galarcep
USSoccerplayers.com Marc Connolly
MLSnet.com Kyle McCarthy
That's the good, general stuff and, as you'll find in reading, it's not accurate to say the roster met with total silence. Two, um, "older gents" made the cut - Frankie Hejduk and Steve Ralston - as did one (and I think he's the only one) uncapped player: Michael Parkhurst. Most the sticking up that needed doing surrounded the inclusion of Hejduk and Ralston - more on that below - but Galarcep lauds Parkhurst's inclusion, while Carlisle implies his inclusion might be a manuever to fend off Irish interest. The only doubter I've seen on Parkhurst's inclusion came from Mike H of My Soccer Blog, who thinks the Revs' defender hasn't had the best of seasons so far. I'll only say I disagree - he stuffed Landon to bursting like a Thanksgiving turkey - and leave it at that.
To praise another bit of Mike H's post, though, he's the only person I've seen who broke down players missing time with their MLS clubs by team. Who hurts the most? As Dan Loney points out, the Revolution. And I don't have to tell anyone it's not just a numbers thing, but it's positional as well. For instance, Chivas may be missing two guys - Jonathan Bornstein and Brad Guzan - but that's not gonna hurt nearly as bad as Houston missing Brian Ching (wait...he has played this season?) and (in all sincerity) Ricardo Clark; chuck a missing Dwayne DeRosario in the fire (regardless of form) and you get to thinking Houston actually might never score again.
Turning to the seemingly weightier debate, I tilt toward the "Why Ralston, Why Hejduk?" column - and for the obvious reason: they're old, Ralston especially, and they won't be around much longer. The most comprehensive rebuttal to that appears in Connolly's piece and, I'd say his point - basically, that Bradley's priorities run through the Confederations Cup when both players can certainly still contribute - holds so long as you're talking Gold Cup and not Copa. Come Copa time, we really need to get younger players in those positions. For me, however, I think we can win the Gold Cup without them, so....well, I just don't get their inclusion. Ralston's doing great and this year I'm thrilled, both personally and as a Revs fan, but I'd rather see Bradley really scouting alternatives....though, to be honest, as I look over the list of all current MLS players no one is really jumping out. But here are a few: Arturo Alvarez (I owe Ian Plenderleith for that one), Kyle Martino or Eddie Gaven (I know, I know), or even the more obvious choices like Brian Mullan. Maybe he's holding out for the Copa on that bunch...anyway, I'm just sayin' the Yanquis wold probably do just fine with someone like Alvarez and Bradley would be be blooding someone for the future.
Speaking of the Copa America, Sideline Views' Andrea Canales picked up something I hadn't seen elsewhere: a stray comment from Bradley about 8-12 players being in the mix for both the Gold Cup and Copa. While I had seen a musing or two about Landon signing on for both, Canales' post is the only place a figure of that sort came out. As noted there, that figure includes both MLS and Euro-based players - I have to think between-projects guys like Oguchi Onyewu and DaMarcus Beasley are shoo-ins for two spots, maybe even Kasey Keller.
Anyway, that's plenty on this I should think. There's plenty of good stuff in the things I've linked to that I haven't mentioned. For instance, Marc Connolly takes an engaging look back at U.S. rosters past; he makes a good point using them, but I found the look interesting by itself. The MLSnet.com article has the best stuff on reporting dates - which impacts MLS, of course - as well as mention of Pablo Mastroeni's two-game suspension (surprise, surprise).
Whoops, almost forgot this: Marc Connolly and Ian Plenderleith, in a roundtable for two, revive the great debate about combining the Gold Cup with the Copa America to, y'know, make our tournament worth a damn...that should tell you where I fall on that debate (if not, get on the phone to Brazil, Jack Warner...earn your friggin' bought seat).
(########)
Bradley Is It
I haven't checked Soccer Blogs on this, but am fairly confident I'm late. Don't care.
I just want to note my reaction to Bob Bradley being elevated to the U.S. National Team job full-time (and it's not April 1st, right?): YES! And I say that knowing (now) that this isn't yet 100% official. But it's Steve Goff reporting and he seems pretty comfortable with the reporting.
Assuming it is true it's not so much that I credit the Bradley with a Midas Touch, nor do I think he's the Second Coming. But I think he'll do well, perhaps even improve on Bruce Arena's tenure - even if only by benefitting from an improved player pool. But he's acquitted himself very well, both in terms of coaching the team and handling the unique situation under which he operated.
Now...go fuck up that big, bad world, Bob.
(#########)
I just want to note my reaction to Bob Bradley being elevated to the U.S. National Team job full-time (and it's not April 1st, right?): YES! And I say that knowing (now) that this isn't yet 100% official. But it's Steve Goff reporting and he seems pretty comfortable with the reporting.
Assuming it is true it's not so much that I credit the Bradley with a Midas Touch, nor do I think he's the Second Coming. But I think he'll do well, perhaps even improve on Bruce Arena's tenure - even if only by benefitting from an improved player pool. But he's acquitted himself very well, both in terms of coaching the team and handling the unique situation under which he operated.
Now...go fuck up that big, bad world, Bob.
(#########)
USMNT Coach-Watch Returns
It's a subtle thing, but the passage of time somehow faded the word "interim" from Bob Bradley's official title with the U.S. Men's National Team (USMNT, or as I like it, the Yanquis). But it's still very much there and a pair of items - one a vote of confidence from Paul Gardner in the New York Sun and the other a bout of queasiness from Brucio at du Nord - serve to remind all of us that the word "senior national team coach" could soon share interim's fate.
It's strange the way we got here, so strange it makes one wonder what the powers-that-be expected from Bradley. Barring a kiss-n-tell memoir (which assumes a publisher saw bankability from a soccer appartchik biography), we'll never know whether United States Soccer Federation (USSF) expected a flop or not; but it's also reasonable to assume Bradley's success put not only the USSF, but also any potential successor in a bit of a bind. If said successor fucks up, what would that say about the ten-month wait, never mind their basic competence?
A second piece to this comes with the reported short-list, which seems to feature Manchester United assistant Carlos Queiroz and current Olympique Lyonnais (geez...let's just go with Lyon) boss Gerard Houllier. Brucio does a fair whack on Queiroz in his column, so I'll concoct a case against Houllier here. There's no denying his success with Lyon: if memory serves, they won the 2005/06 title and, sure enough, they're taking the current season walking away. For all that, I don't think Houllier's a good fit - or put more precisely, I don't know that his talents translate outside of France. I do know that the Liverpool sides he coached played some of the dullest crap I've ever endured - which raises concerns about wooing/keeping American fans - and I can't see him doing much better with Yanks given the skill/technical knowledge of American plaers; in fact, I see a similarly disciplined approach from a Houllier-led U.S. team.
Bradley may not be an improvement in this last category, but he's got the team playing for him at the very least; I don't know that will apply to Houllier. And who knows what would happen then. But, as Brucio points out, it's all too possible that we'll find out.
(########)
It's strange the way we got here, so strange it makes one wonder what the powers-that-be expected from Bradley. Barring a kiss-n-tell memoir (which assumes a publisher saw bankability from a soccer appartchik biography), we'll never know whether United States Soccer Federation (USSF) expected a flop or not; but it's also reasonable to assume Bradley's success put not only the USSF, but also any potential successor in a bit of a bind. If said successor fucks up, what would that say about the ten-month wait, never mind their basic competence?
A second piece to this comes with the reported short-list, which seems to feature Manchester United assistant Carlos Queiroz and current Olympique Lyonnais (geez...let's just go with Lyon) boss Gerard Houllier. Brucio does a fair whack on Queiroz in his column, so I'll concoct a case against Houllier here. There's no denying his success with Lyon: if memory serves, they won the 2005/06 title and, sure enough, they're taking the current season walking away. For all that, I don't think Houllier's a good fit - or put more precisely, I don't know that his talents translate outside of France. I do know that the Liverpool sides he coached played some of the dullest crap I've ever endured - which raises concerns about wooing/keeping American fans - and I can't see him doing much better with Yanks given the skill/technical knowledge of American plaers; in fact, I see a similarly disciplined approach from a Houllier-led U.S. team.
Bradley may not be an improvement in this last category, but he's got the team playing for him at the very least; I don't know that will apply to Houllier. And who knows what would happen then. But, as Brucio points out, it's all too possible that we'll find out.
(########)
Call Up Burciaga? Hell, Yeah! Wait...what?
For reasons better not elaborated upon, I kind of assumed that the Kansas City Wizards' Jose Burciaga Jr. couldn't play for the U.S. Men's National team (Yanquis). (Had I taken the time to read his official profile, I would have known about his past with some of the U.S. Youth teams, but, well, I didn't, so I didn't.)
MLSnet.com's piece from earlier this week on Burciaga's continuing aspirations with the Yanquis, had me whooping seconds to the motion. After all, if it weren't for Burciaga leading with the scoring, KC would have been even worse in 2006. As such, my first impulse was to assume the Yanqui coach Bob Bradley, as well as Bruce Arena before him, were simply crazy; seems like our team needs a steady (skillful?) left back about as badly as anything but a reliable goal-scorer.
The thing is, in my head, Burciaga's great - and, upon discovering he's eligible, I would have started the bandwagon to get him a spot (yeah, I know...Bornstein, but still...). But that same article passed on some criticisms on Burciaga's defensive game that escaped my notice:
It's funny what you miss when you're not watching for it. Duly noted.
(##########)
MLSnet.com's piece from earlier this week on Burciaga's continuing aspirations with the Yanquis, had me whooping seconds to the motion. After all, if it weren't for Burciaga leading with the scoring, KC would have been even worse in 2006. As such, my first impulse was to assume the Yanqui coach Bob Bradley, as well as Bruce Arena before him, were simply crazy; seems like our team needs a steady (skillful?) left back about as badly as anything but a reliable goal-scorer.
The thing is, in my head, Burciaga's great - and, upon discovering he's eligible, I would have started the bandwagon to get him a spot (yeah, I know...Bornstein, but still...). But that same article passed on some criticisms on Burciaga's defensive game that escaped my notice:
"Although the lightning-bolt drives on goal and pinpoint crosses from set pieces that emanate from his thunderous left boot are well known, it's the sometime lapses on the defensive end that can cause coaches to yearn for improvement."
It's funny what you miss when you're not watching for it. Duly noted.
(##########)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)