“Goal Goal USA!!!”

I’ll say this for American soccer: we’re never boring.  Our men might punch below our weight (if you measure weight by GDP and number of kids and teens who play the game), our women might have struggled for the last two World Cups to replicate the magic of 1999, but we produce some memorable matches.  In the past year and change, we have had Landon Donovan’s injury time winner against Algeria, the memorable Gold Cup Final, and now Abby Wambach scoring the latest possible equalizer.  I can picture Uncle Sam shouting “are you not entertained?”  We may not have a defined playing style, but we do have a terrific “we can do this, no matter the circumstances” attitude in late game situations.  Our former colonial masters should take note.

Random thoughts:

1. Great lede by Grant Wahl:

This U.S. Women's World Cup campaign has a chance to get big now. It's one of the slowest weeks on the U.S. sports calendar, so there's not much competition, and any time you mix patriotism and miraculous comebacks and appealing athletes who play for the purity of the sport -- and the winning, of course, always the winning -- well, you've got something that could blow up.

I’d add in Hope Solo, a star goalkeeper who is attractive, has a great name, is terrific at what she does, and comes with a fascinating personal story.  This team has the capacity to draw attention to their sport in the same way that the 1999 team did, although I ought to make the Debbie Downer point that any sort of effect on the struggling domestic professional league would be transitory.  (It makes more sense for the best players in the world to play in Europe one women’s teams attached to established clubs.  Add the branding of Arsenal or Olympique Lyonnais to women’s teams and then they have more of a chance to succeed than they do as the Western New York Flash.)

2. It’s hard to remember a day where Brazil were considered to be big game bottlers, but the women’s team is actually following in a tradition that the men’s team had between the epic performance in 1970 and the return to glory in 1994.  Brazil’s exits from the World Cup in the 70s were acceptable – they lost to the brilliant Cruyff Netherlands in ‘74 and went out in suspicious circumstances without losing a game in ‘78 – but their failures in the next three World Cups were spectacular failures.  In ‘82, Brazil brought one of the great attacking sides of all time to Spain and managed to get knocked out by Italy (in a match in which the Selecao only needed a draw) through a series of comical defensive lapses.  In ‘86, Brazil missed a penalty kick that would have won the match against France and then went out in penalties.  In ‘90, Brazil comprehensively outplayed Argentina, missed a raft of chances, and then lost when the entire back line panicked on the only occasion that Maradona ran at them.  These failures formed Brazil’s reputation when I was becoming a footie fan.  The men have banished the reputation with two more World Cups, but the women seem to have taken the mantle.  Losing in penalties after a late equalizer from a cross is a nice synthesis of Brazil’s failures in the 80s. 

3. Part of what I like about soccer is that it doesn’t have football’s fascist tendencies (and I say that as someone who considers football to be his favorite sport).  There are a host of ways to make this point, but the easiest is that soccer fans honor creative goal celebrations, whereas football authorities think of new, more draconian ways to punish them.  “Let’s fine players who use props.  No, that’s not enough.  We can’t have too much exuberance from these scary Black men.  Let’s take away touchdowns for celebrations that are punctuated with something that might strike a given ref on a given day as excessive.”  That said, soccer could use a governing body that makes the trains run on time.  There is a very simple solution to the simulated injuries that mar the end of matches such as yesterday’s: if a player is down for more than 20 seconds, then the stretcher comes off and the player stays off the field for a minimum of five minutes.  Soccer has an issue with incentives.  Players have an incentive to fake injuries to waste time and break up play, so they do it.  (My beloved Barca are no angels in this department.)  Football players would do the same if they had the same incentives (and indeed, defensive players have faked injuries before to slow down no-huddle offenses).  If FIFA were capable of anything other than sweeping gross acts of corruption under the rug, then it would alter the incentives of players to fake injuries.  It is not, so it will not.

The Beautiful Game

If I were trying to get a non-soccer fan into the sport, then I would show him a tape of the Gold Cup Final.  Cup finals have a reputation among fans as being disappointing.  At the end of a long competition, with the players both tired and under tremendous pressure not to make a big mistake that will be remembered for generations, the odds are generally stacked against a quality match.  Last night’s Gold Cup Final was a major exception to the rule.  Maybe Mexico and the US produce good finals because they aren’t really challenged by the rest of CONCACAF in the lead-up to the final (not unlike Michigan and Ohio State in the Big Ten of the 70s).  Maybe Mexico and the US both have go-for-it mentalities that mean that they take risks on a top stage.  Whatever the reason, last night’s match was not the first time that the US and Mexico had produced a memorable match on this stage (the ‘07 Final was also excellent, settled by Benny Feilhaber’s phenomenal volley), but this was the best.  The US lost, but I feel a sense of pride that the US was part of a spectacle that the entire futbol-loving world could appreciate.  We forget this sometimes, but sports is about entertainment.  If our team contributed to a game that entertained its audience above and beyond the norm, then the natural result should be a feeling of pride, right?

I have had this feeling of the redeeming defeat before.  Off the top of my head: ‘88 Hawks-Celtics Eastern Conference Semis, ‘91 Braves-Twins World Series, the Euro ‘04 Netherlands-Czech Republic match, and the ‘04 Michigan-Texas Rose Bowl.  The two key elements of this phenomenon: a transcendent performance from at least one player on the losing team and the winning team being a great side worthy of respect.  The latter reason is what keeps out experiences like Michigan-Northwestern ‘00 (giving up 54 points to Northwestern can never have a silver lining) and Chelsea-Barca ‘05 (losing to Jose Mourinho can never have a silver lining because the pervading sense is “we have let down the right-thinking futbol world).  Here, both elements are present, at least in modified form. 

Freddie!

While the US did not have a great performance from any of its players last night, it did have a surprisingly good performance from Freddie Adu.  Adu followed his turn as a decisive sub in the semifinal against Panama with a very good game against our arch-rival.  Here is Brian Phillps on Adu:

On the pitch, the strangest development in this year's tournament was the return of Freddy Adu, America's littlest international soccer zombie. Adu is, of course, famous as the teen phenom who signed with D.C. United at age 14, was heralded as the savior of American soccer, and then, after a long skid through Europe, wound up wasting away on an obscure team in the Turkish second division. At the age of 22, he was seen as hopelessly washed up. Fast forward to this June. Brought on as a surprise substitute in the second half of the Gold Cup semifinal against Panama—his first international action since the early Pleistocene era—Adu made a brilliant pass to help set up Clint Dempsey's winning goal. In the final, Adu lofted the corner kick that Michael Bradley headed in for the game's first goal. He played extremely well throughout the match, fending off two and three defenders at a time to emerge as one of the few American positives on the night. There are no second acts in American lives. There is only the CONCACAF Gold Cup.

Adu isn’t going to turn into the superstar that we all dreamed he would be, but on the evidence of the last two matches, he is far from done as a player.  This is a big deal because he would fill the role that has been missing for the US for years: a central attacking midfielder.  Ideally, Bob Bradley would play a 4-2-3-1.  He figured this out after the Nats’ jaded performances in the groups stage of the tournament.  With modern football trending away from the 4-4-2 and with the US having less-than-dominant central midfielders, we cannot get away with having only two guys in the middle.  The problem then becomes the fact that we don’t have a player to fill the key role of the central attacking midfielder in the band of three.  That player acts as the bridge to the defensive midfielders, supplies the outside attacking midfielders, and should be able to hit the killer pass to the strikers.  He is the keystone for the offense.  Kaka plays this role for Brazil, Wesley Sneijder plays it for the Netherlands and Inter, and Mesut Ozil plays it for Germany and Real Madrid.  Cesc Fabregas plays it for Arsenal (hence the Gunners’ dogged retention of a player who clearly wants to leave) and as a sub for Spain. Wayne Rooney and Leo Messi both play in this area for their clubs, albeit in formations other than a 4-2-3-1.  Pep Guardiola and Alex Ferguson have both groomed their best attacking players from other positions (Rooney as a striker; Messi as a right winger) into a role where they float in between the opponents’ defensive and midfield lines, the spot of maximal irritancy to the opposition.

Bob Bradley faced a situation where he has a roster that is a better fit in the 4-2-3-1, but didn’t have a central attacking midfielder.  Michael Bradley and Jermaine Jones are reasonably good defensive midfielders, but struggle when they man the middle by themselves.  Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey are natural outside attacking midfielders who occasionally drift inside.  With Stuart Holden out, Bradley’s only option was to play Sacha Kljeistan in the hole and he just isn’t a world-class player.  The team played better after the formation change, but it still lacked verve from this keystone spot. 

Enter Adu.  I’ll admit to being one of the people who scoffed when he made the roster.  I wondered if Bob Bradley had a death wish when he brought Adu into a deadlocked semifinal against Panama.  However, this move prove to be inspired.  Freddie had the key pass to unlock the Panamanian defense in the semifinal and then he was our best player in the Final, winning the corner for and then assisting on the opener and then playing a key role in the move that put the US up 2-0.  I started off the tournament hoping for the end of Bob Bradley, but by the end, I am giving him credit for making a gutsy decision that paid off in a major way.  The US needs a player like Adu to fill a role and if he can keep up with the form he showed at the end of the Gold Cup, then the Nats are in better shape than they would have been if they would have muddled through to a Gold Cup win with Klejstan in the lineup.

Our Friends to the South

The second element of my feeling that the loss was an honorable defeat is that it’s no shame to lose to this Mexico side.  Mexico are not especially strong in the back, especially with a third-string keeper and both Rafa Marquez and Carlos Salcido crocked.  However, they are dynamite going forward.  In six matches in the tournament, El Tri outscored their opponents 22-4.  Their lineup fits together nicely, with Chicharito playing the role of striker to perfection (I compared him to Pippo Inzaghi during the game) and Gio Dos Santos (looking way better than he did when he emerged from La Masia four years ago in Bojan’s shadow), Pablo Barrera, and Andres Guardado swarming behind him.  Add in a solid midfield and you have a team that put up scores against minnows that one would expect from a world class team.  I’m bummed that the US won’t be going to the Confederations Cup, but I have to admit that the futbol fan in me is looking forward to seeing this Mexico side up against Spain and Brazil.

I’ll also admit that, like the New Orleans Saints, I have never been able to make myself dislike Mexico as a rival.  Partly, it’s down to the fact that their playing style is attractive.  I’ll take a game based off of short, slick passing any day.  Partly, it’s down to the fact that I feel political sympathy for Mexicans, who generally come to this country to work their tails doing jobs that Americans won’t do, and are rewarded with this.  And partly, it’s down to Mexican futbol fans, who are some of the best in this country of any stripe.  If I got into soccer in the first place because the atmosphere at the games is the closest fit for SEC football, then it would only stand to reason that I would appreciate a fan base ($) that follows its team all over the country and lives and dies with the fortunes of El Tri.  You have to respect a fan base that showers such unconditional love on a team that has never made it past the quarterfinals of the World Cup or the round of 16 of a World Cup away from home.  Any SEC football fan should be able to watch Mexico play at the Rose Bowl and appreciate the atmosphere.*

* – The venue for the match also helped in producing the spectacle.  It’s rare that CONCACAF gets anything right, but they made a great move in setting up a tournament to maximize the chance of these teams play at that stadium.  There’s really nothing like the Rose Bowl at dusk.  It’s not a multi-tiered monstrosity with the upper decks in the troposphere in order to make way for a passel of luxury boxes.  Just one bowl with the San Gabriel Mountains in the background.  And as a Michigan fan, I was quite prepared to watch my pace-challenged team blow a lead and lose in the Rose Bowl to the delight of the locals.

The Stumbling Elephant in the Room   

Of course, in order to have an enthralling match with chances galore, you have to have shaky backlines and the US supplied that in spades.  Here’s what I wrote after the Nats went out of the World Cup:

The United States lost to Ghana in extra time on Saturday afternoon. In so doing, we lost a good chance to make a deep run in this World Cup. However, the primary reason why the US lost demonstrates that if the Nats would have made the semifinal, it would have represented a level of achievement that exceeds our talent. To put it bluntly, our center backs are not very good, so we can have no complaints that we are not going to finish this tournament as one of the four (or eight) best teams in the world…

In the end, it is just about impossible for a team to survive on the top international level with suspect center backs. Our three options at center back were a player who has missed the entire club season with a major knee injury, a starter for a club side in the second tier of English football who was discovered playing amateur games, and a left back for a team in Ligue Un. The U.S. has top class goalies, midfielders, and attackers; the current generation lacks top class defenders and that's why our World Cup ended in the Round of 16.

While the central defenders were the issue in South Africa, the left and right backs were the issue in the Gold Cup Final.  Steve Cherundolo, who played quite well during the tournament, got a knock early and sent the US defense completely off-kilter.  Jonathan Bornstein came on, which to the Mexicans represented an “Attack Here!” neon sign and 2-0 became 2-4.  No one in defense acquitted themselves well, but Bornstein and Eric Lichaj were routinely abused.  Part of the reason why I’ve left the “Blame Bradley” chorus for the moment is that he isn’t an alchemist, so he can’t make this collection of defenders work.  That said, they did look disorganized after the injury, so it’s not like Bradley is totally blameless.

So where are we after this tournament?  We may have a solution in the central attacking midfield spot, but the gaping hole at left back remains and the prospect of Chicharito making runs around our center backs for the next ten years is a depressing prospect. 

America F*** No

Five Thoughts on the auto-da-fé in Foxboro:

1. I have mixed feelings regarding Bob Bradley. On the one hand, he doesn't have a lot to work with, especially at the back. If we loom at the resumes of his defensive candidates, then it's hard to escape the conclusion that he is being asked to make chicken salad out of you-know-what. Even farther forward, he is supposed to rely on a teenager who just broke into MLS and a striker who has been a total failure in Europe. The best central midfielder on the team spent the season on the bench at Aston Villa. Outside of Clint Dempsey, Tim Howard, and possibly Maurice Edu, it's hard to find a lot of current success stories for Yanks abroad. (Stuart Holden would be an additional success story if not for his injuries.) If Bradley wins the Gold Cup and beats a Mexico side full of players with better resumes, then we ought to laud a significant accomplishment.

On the other hand, what the hell is Bradley doing when he picks his team? Spain win matches by dominating the central midfield area. They play a 4-2-3-1, which means that they have three players in that zone. In this match, those three players were Sergio Busquets, Xabi Alonso, and Santi Cazorla. The US is always going to have issues with players of that quality because we don't have anyone close, but Bradley made a bad situation worse by playing a 4-4-2 that had only two central midfielders. Thus, not only are Edu and Jermaine Jones inferior to the players in their zone, but they were also outnumbered. What is the point of playing two strikers if they are never going to see the ball? Jones and Edu were shockingly listless in the game, but part of their malaise has to be attributed to being given mission impossible by their manager. At best, Bradley was deploying the formation that he is going to use against easier marks in the Gold Cup, but if that's the case, then why even play this game if you are going to serve your players up to the lions?

1a. Two execution metaphors so far. That ought to tell you how well the match went.

2. Was it me or did it seem as if either the ball was underinflated or the grass was too long at Gillette Stadium? The ball kept dying in the grass. Maybe this was by design to prevent Spain from playing their normal passing game. If so, then gee, imagine what the result would have been with balls that actually rolled properly?

3. Santi Cazorla's two goals raise an interesting point for Spain: is he a better fit in the central attacking midfield role than Xavi? The middle man in the band of three in a 4-2-3-1 should generally be able to provide the killer final ball and also crash the box to score. Xavi can obviously do the former, but he's not noted for the latter. Last summer, Vicente del Bosque often started matches with Xavi in the forward role and then he pulled him back into the defensive band of two with a player like Cesc Fabregas moving into Xavi's old spot. This usually worked better for Spain. It's hard to argue with a World Cup-winning manager, but shouldn't he just start matches with Xavi farther back and a goal-scoring threat like Cesc or Cazorla farther forward.

4. Kudos to ESPN for showing the national anthems before the match. ESPN's commitment to proper coverage of Pepidemiology, International Edition stands in stark contrast to both Fox Soccer Channel and Univision. Univision is usually good in this department, but they skipped the anthems before Mexico-El Salvador last night, causing tears of rage on the part of my anthem-obsessed four-year old son. (Thank goodness for YouTube.) Maybe Univision can be excused because the Mexico match was the second half of a double-header and they needed to squeeze in ads between the games. Fox Soccer Channel has no such excuse for skipping the anthems before England-Switzerland. In keeping with their inability to show anything interesting before and after matches, Fox Soccer had a narrator providing useless commentary before the match, but did not show the anthems. If you are going to be blind Anglophiles, then the least you could do is show "G-d Save the Queen," which is typically the high point for an England match.

4a. Has there been a bigger upgrade in a media position than ESPN going from Mark Shapiro to John Skipper? ESPN Hollywood to Ian Darke? It's the broadcasting version of Greg Robinson to Greg Mattison.

5. It's true that Spain was missing a number of first-choice players, but in a way, it's more dangerous to play the second-team guys because Spain are very deep and those second-teamers are going to be highly motivated to prove themselves. Don't you think that Raul Albiol, Santi Cazorla, and Alvaro Negredo were trying to leave an impression with del Bosque? It might have been better to go up against Xavi and Iniesta, neither of whom could have been super-motivated.

Creating a Superconference, International Football Edition

I was by no means alone in expressing the sentiment after the USA-Ghana match that it would be nice if the US played in a major tournament more than every four years:

• After the game, I was commiserating with another fan about the fact that the Nats don't have any major tournaments other than the World Cup. The atmosphere at the Midway was electric. It sucks that we are going to have to wait four years for the Nats to play in a match that approaches the stakes of the World Cup (and no, the Gold Cup isn't the same). My solution: convince CONMEBOL to expand Copa America. Make the tournament 16 teams: the ten powers in CONMEBOL, the US, Mexico, and then four qualifiers from the remaining countries in North and Central America. Let the U.S. and Mexico host the tournament once in a while. CONMEBOL has already invited Mexican club teams to the Copa Libertadores because of the market potential in Mexico; imagine what they can do with Copa America if they can get the US and Mexico as regular participants (as opposed to being the occasional invitee). Wouldn't everybody win with a true American championship?

In a super column last weekend, Gabriele Marcotti went one step further and took the position that CONCACAF and CONMEBOL should merge completely:

That's why the best possible thing for U.S. soccer may be combining CONCACAF and its equivalent in South America (CONMEBOL) into one confederation of the Americas. With its 10 members, CONMEBOL is the smallest confederation, but it's filled with the game's historical and current heavyweights: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and others. Creating one pan-American confederation would allow the U.S. and Mexico to play more competitive games on a regular basis. Second-tier CONCACAF teams—countries that rarely meet top opposition, even in friendlies—would benefit, too.

South American teams would get something out of this arrangement, as well. They'd play a wider variety of teams and styles, which would be a welcome break from playing each other over and over again. There are also financial benefits, like accessing the television markets in the U.S. and Mexico, which would translate into an increase in rights fees and lucrative sponsorship deals. It's not a coincidence that both Argentina and Brazil, arguably the sport's biggest draws, chose to play friendlies in the United States in the past nine months: It pays to do so.

Because this idea makes perfect sense for all of the major stakeholders, it will never happen.  Keeping in mind that FIFA has been run for 15 years by a kleptocrat and the only opponent in that kleptocrat’s bid for another four-year term is the person who brought us Qatar 2022, it’s hard to imagine that the sensible solution of combining federations will happen.  As a result, the US and Mexico will keep on playing “big” matches Trinidad & Tobago and Nicaragua instead of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay.  Hooray!

The Blame Game

The United States lost to Ghana in extra time on Saturday afternoon. In so doing, we lost a good chance to make a deep run in this World Cup. However, the primary reason why the US lost demonstrates that if the Nats would have made the semifinal, it would have represented a level of achievement that exceeds our talent. To put it bluntly, our centerbacks are not very good, so we can have no complaints that we are not going to finish this tournament as one of the four (or eight) best teams in the world.

The US conceded five goals in four games. Every one of the goals came right down the middle:

1 - England come through the middle, Gooch is sucked too far forward, Clark and Cherundolo are unable to cover, and Steven Gerrard scores.

2 - Valter Brisa ghosts in from the right into the space between the midfield and back line. The center backs don't step out, and Birsa knocks home a screamer.

3 - Slovenia come forward on the counter, one or both of Demerit and Gooch butcher their assignments, and Zlatan Ljubijankic scores.

4 - Ricardo Clark turns the ball over in the midfield to Kevin Prince-Boateng. KPB then turns Demerit inside-out before beating Tim Howard at the near post.

5 - Asamoah Gyan simply splits the US centerbacks, latches onto the most hopeful of long balls, and smashes a shot past Howard.

In every instance, the centerbacks were at least partially at fault. On some occasions, they were too slow. On others, they compensated for their lack of speed by playing off of faster attackers, which gave those attackers space to unleash lethal shots. There were also positional issues, mainly when the pairing was Gooch and Demerit. In the end, it is just about impossible for a team to survive on the top international level with suspect centerbacks. Our three options at centerback were a player who has missed the entire club season with a major knee injury, a starter for a club side in the second tier of English football who was discovered playing amateur games, and a left back for a team in Ligue Un. The U.S. has top class goalies, midfielders, and attackers; the current generation lacks top class defenders and that's why our World Cup ended in the Round of 16.

I say that as an opening before I start complaining about Bob Bradley. Bradley got the Nats to a result commensurate with our talent. In that sense, he cannot be criticized too harshly. The combination of his conditioning regime and the belief/chemistry that he fostered with the team was the major reason why the Nats kept fighting back from deficits. Bradley was able to diagnose problems in the lineup and make appropriate changes. Unfortunately, those problems were usually the result of Bradley's selection issues. By the fourth game of the tournament, the gaffer should know his best XI, but Bradley did not.

One doesn't have to be Jonathan Wilson to figure out that: (1) Maurice Edu is a better option in defensive midfield than Ricardo Clark; and (2) Robbie Findley is a poor man's Theo Walcott: a fast attacker with little ability to pass or shoot. Bradley should have learned after the Slovenia game that the best lineup for the US was Edu anchoring the midfield, allowing Bradley and Feilhaber or Torres to get forward, and then sticking Donovan and/or Dempsey higher up the pitch. He had to relearn that lesson when Clark played poorly and had to be hauled off 30 minutes into the Ghana match. Not surprisingly, the Nats looked much better when Bradley deployed the lineup from the second half of the Slovenia match. The fact that he didn't learn what appeared to be an obvious lesson is the major black mark against him in the aftermath of South Africa '10.

Other thoughts:

• In 2006, I watched the Ghana match with Spencer Hall at a bar off of Moreland. I wore my '96 USMNT jersey. We conceded early, Dempsey forged an equalizer, and then we lost. In 2010, I watched the Ghana match with Spencer Hall at a bar off of Moreland. I wore my '96 USMNT jersey. We conceded early, Dempsey forged an equalizer, and then we lost. Bob Bradley isn't the only person who doesn't learn from experience.

• After the game, I was commiserating with another fan about the fact that the Nats don't have any major tournaments other than the World Cup. The atmosphere at the Midway was electric. It sucks that we are going to have to wait four years for the Nats to play in a match that approaches the stakes of the World Cup (and no, the Gold Cup isn't the same). My solution: convince CONMEBOL to expand Copa America. Make the tournament 16 teams: the ten powers in CONMEBOL, the US, Mexico, and then four qualifiers from the remaining countries in North and Central America. Let the U.S. and Mexico host the tournament once in a while. CONMEBOL has already invited Mexican club teams to the Copa Libertadores because of the market potential in Mexico; imagine what they can do with Copa America if they can get the US and Mexico as regular participants (as opposed to being the occasional invitee). Wouldn't everybody win with a true American championship?

• If you asked me right now to choose between the US producing a world class centerback and Jozy Altidore developing a first touch and ability to finish, I'd be hard pressed to come up with an answer. Jozy does a lot of good set-up work, but it's not good for a striker to play four games at the World Cup without scoring. One way of looking at Saturday's result is that Ghana won because their striker was able to create and finish a chance, whereas ours was not. Jozy is young and there's time for him to develop skills, but he needs to be playing regularly with a club that has a track record of developing talent. In retrospect, a year with Phil Brown was a wasted year.

• I was a little let down by Tim Howard on Saturday, especially by his positioning on the first goal. I was reminded that Howard is a very good goalie, but he does have a reputation in the EPL for giving up goals on long range shots. He gave up two at this World Cup.

• I made a joke about the Red Army crushing the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 at some point in the first half after a bad call, but I can't for the life of me remember what the call was.

• I would have liked to have had a healthy Gooch and Charlie Davies on Saturday, but I'm sure that Ghana would have liked a healthy Michael Essien. If Ghana beat Uruguay, they will become the first African team to make the World Cup semifinals and they will have done it without their biggest star. There has to be some meaning in that possibility, but I'm not sure what it is. Something about the importance of having a bunch of good players playing together as opposed to a team that revolves around a superstar?

This is Awesome

The reaction to Donovan's strike all over the country.

This raises an interesting point: do the TV ratings account for the fact that so many people watch World Cup games in bars? More than any other sporting event, there is a communal element to World Cup games, in part because of the "us versus them" element and in part because many of the games are during the work day, so people watch with their co-workers at the local bar as opposed to at home on their couches.

Landon Donovan

Comin' to save the muthaf***in' day now.



I have absolutely nothing educated to say about that game. There was a friggin' lid on the goal for 90 minutes, infuriatingly placed there by a combination of wayward American finishing, a competent Algerian goalie, and a Belgian linesman whose country I would forever curse if they didn't produce such delicious beer. Chance after chance went begging. I couldn't eat, I couldn't drink, and I could barely form coherent sentences other than "A goal, please!?! F***!!!" I could barely see the screen at Ri Ra because we were sitting towards the back of the room and, sports fans being sports fans, everyone stood up at key moments. When Landon scored the winner, all I could do was judge the reaction of the people in the front of the room before jumping around like I just won the Showcase Showdown and landing in the arms of my friend who convinced me to watch the game at Ri Ra instead of Taco Mac, which has a million elevated TVs.

Now, we're likely on the Serbia/Ghana/South Korea/Uruguay quarter of the bracket. Nothing is a given or likely for a team that rallied from 2-0 down against Slovenia and then needed a Hollywood ending to beat Algeria, but that's not exactly the quadrant of death. If we were wondering which quarterfinal is going to be billed as the "one of these teams is about to make the World Cup semis?", here it is. Thank you to Raymond Domenech and the incompetent FFF for their attempt to one-up Gamelin for the title of "worst French management ever."

Other random thoughts:

• Now do you people understand why I and most of the rest of the planet love this game? There is nothing quite like the Chinese water torture that is the second half of a game in which your team needs a goal. The second half of Chelsea-Barca in '09 took a little bit off my life; today did the same. BTW, have I ever mentioned that Landon Donovan is Andres Iniesta with a tan?

• What was more improbable: the Nats winning in injury time or Jonathan Bornstein putting in a good performance in a crunch game. Let's hear it for the Tribe!

• Speaking of which, I'm not predisposed to root for Germany, especially when Ghana are the last hope for an African team making the knock-out rounds in this tournament. However, the prospect of an England-Germany knock-out game is too tasty. This is one of the conflicts that the World Cup presents. On the one hand, most fans like to root against the favorites, especially teams like Germany and France. On the other hand, when the favorites don't progress, the knock-out rounds aren't as good. Does anyone remember anything about Turkey-Senegal in '02?

• Save for his finishing (which is an awfully big caveat for a striker), this was one of Jozy Altidore's best games for the USMNT. He was a constant threat, right into injury time. Let's hear it for Bob Bradley making sure that these players are in peak physical condition.

• Spare a thought for Slovenia. They are the smallest nation in this tournament and they were mere minutes away from progressing.

• When I get around to buying one of the navy US jerseys, Michael Bradley's name is going on the back.

• I could not have been angrier at Algeria as the game went on. They had a chance to progress with two goals, but they were sitting in a friggin' bunker, making no effort to press the US or force mistakes. Maybe they were just out of gas, but to my conspiratorial mind, I assumed that they were letting their dislike of the US trump their own self-interest. Congrats to the Desert Foxes on going goalless for 270 minutes; you brought SO much more to the table than Egypt would have. (/shout out to the Pharaohs).

Random Thoughts before D-Day (North Africa Version)

• I love the World Cup again. I reserve my right to change my mind in three hours.

• I just finished Inverting the Pyramid, which I thoroughly enjoyed. A couple initial thoughts. The description of Greece's Euro '04 win made me think of Paul Johnson and Georgia Tech. Otto Rehagel brought back the sweeper system and man-making, a defensive system that had been out of favor in major football for decades. Opponents had forgotten how to deal with that system, so Greece strung together 1-0 wins over France, the Czech Republic, and Portugal, all of which had far more talent than the Greeks. Does that sound a little like Johnson's success on the Flats? And if this analogy holds, then Greece's lack of success since 2004 - they failed to qualify for Germany '06 and they were knocked out at the group stages in Euro '08 and South Africa '10 - is a worrying sign. An unrelated note from the book: this quote from Arrigo Sacchi is the best counter to the "you never played the game" criticism of coaches and commentators from current or former players: does a jockey first need to be a horse?

• West African sides are often accused of wasting their formidable talent in major tournaments through bouts of naivete. The archetype of this phenomenon are the two penalties that Cameroon gave away to England in Italia '90 when the Indomitable Lions were poised to make the semifinals. Nigeria's red card when they were on the front foot against Greece is a perfect recent example. With that context in mind, Kaider Keita's Oscar-worthy performance in getting Kaka sent off was sadly hilarious. On the one hand, a West African team had finally figured out how to deploy the sort of gamesmanship that we take for granted from most major futbol powers. On the other hand, Keita's timing was exceedingly bad, as the Ivory Coast was already cooked in the Brazil game, so getting Kaka sent off reduced the chances of Brazil delivering the hiding to Portugal that the Elephants need to progress. Even when an African side deploys the dark art of play-acting, they don't get it right.

• Barcelona lacked a proper left-sided attacker this year after Thierry Henry showed that his career as a top level footballer was over. With that in mind, David Villa's opener against Honduras - in which Villa cut in from the left, beat two defenders, and then laced a shot into the side netting while maneuvering around a third - was sweet music to my . . . eyes? I liked what I saw from Spain against Honduras, minus Fernando Torres's incredibly wasteful finishing. Jesus Navas and Sergio Ramos made absolute mincemeat of the Honduran left and Villa had his way on the right. Spain 4 Chile 2 seems like a likely result on Friday. In terms of attacking, chances, and drama, that should be the game of the group stage.

• I don't know what to think about the Nats today. On the one hand, they looked very good in the second half against Slovenia, so you would hope that they can take that momentum into a game against a weaker foe that is going to have to press forward. Algeria are going to be uncomfortable needing to attack, which should create all sorts of chances for the US. On the other hand, nothing ever comes easy for our boys. The memories of Poland in '02 are still fresh. I like the US 2-1 today, but I'm uneasy, although not as uneasy as I would be if I were an England fan.

• Speaking of which, those of you who are regular readers can probably imagine how much joy I am taking from England's inability to complete a pass from point A to point B. All of the reasons why I don't like England - overrated EPL players who benefit from playing with skilled foreign teammates, passion in the place of skill, running in the place of passing - have been evident in the Three Lions' struggles. Not that he asked me, but if I were Fabio Capello, I would: (1) make Wayne Rooney the striker; (2) give license to Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson to get forward to pump crosses into the box; (3) bench one of Lampard or Gerrard (probably Lampard); (4) play Michael Carrick in the base of a 4-3-3 next to Barry and tell Carrick that his job is to be Andrea Pirlo or Xabi Alonso by spraying passes everywhere; and (5) make Aaron Lennon and Joe Cole the right and left wings of the attacking trident with instructions that they need to stretch the Slovenia backline and pin the Slovenia left and right backs to the wall. Capello is probably too conservative to do so, which raises another criticism of the English FA: they have figured out that there are no good English managers, but why have they tried to solve the problem by hiring two of the most conservative products of Serie A? I like Capello and will never dispute his merits as a manager, but when England's problem has been scoring goals against top competition and then going out on penalties, he doesn't seem like the fix. In retrospect, wouldn't Guus Hiddink have been the better solution?

Instathoughts on USA 2 Slovenia 2

Overall, a good result that feels strangely empty. The US shouldn't have many problems with an Algeria team that will almost certainly have one foot on the plane. (Note: I'm sure I was saying the same thing about our final match with Poland eight years ago.) It is very unlikely that a win over Algeria will not send the US into the knock-out stage. And with Germany losing and looking vulnerable, the premium for winning the group has gone out the window. I ought to be thrilled with the guts that the US team showed by fighting back from 2-0 down in the second half. (What was it that everyone says about this team being inconsistent?) Still, there's such a feeling of frustration because the winning goal was waved off because Michael Bradley managed to find himself in an "offside" position as a result of being tackled in the box. Swirl that one around in your mouth for a moment.

Lotsa thoughts:

1. The US looked really good on free kicks. Landon Donovan's deliveries were consistently excellent and we had guys crashing to the right spots time and again. It seemed like it was a matter of time before we scored on one. Also, I was a little surprised that Slovenia - a team with a reputation as an organized, defensive side - was so slack in marking our attackers. England will have a field day on set pieces if they get the opportunities.

2. I'll repeat my gripe from eight years ago: FIFA damages the World Cup by making nice with its broad constituency by having refs from tiny countries calling big matches. In 2002, South Korea advanced to the semifinals because refs from Ecuador and Egypt were intimidated by the Koreans' fantastic crowds. Today, the US was undone because of a crew from Mali. Honestly, does anyone think that a ref from one of the poorest countries in the world is better able to handle the speed of a world class game and the pressure of making calls in front of 80,000 fans with hundreds of millions watching all over the globe? I can't claim to be an expert on the domestic league in Mali, but I'm guessing that your average ref from any one of the major European leagues, not to mention the leagues in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the US, and Japan, would be better positioned to make a close call in a critical game.

2a. And FIFA's referee selection policies are made worse by its refusal to do anything to make sure that the right call is made. FIFA hasn't gone to two refs, it hasn't put refs behind the goals (yet), and it is totally against video replay. Any one of those fixes would have increased the chances that the right call would have been made on Edu's goal. It is very difficult to be a ref or a linesman. I can think of few calls in sports that are harder to make than offside because the linesman has to see two different places within a split second. Because of the low-scoring nature of the game, refereeing decisions take on out-sized importance in futbol. These are all reasons why FIFA should be doing more to get calls right, as opposed to its current policy of sticking its collective fingers in its ears and singing "Mary had a Little Lamb."

2b. The US has had a dreadful decision go against it in the last three World Cups: the handball on the line by Frings in '02, the penalty that ended our hopes against Ghana in '06, and now the travesty of a call on Edu's winner in '10. Can we think of any notable bad calls that have gone our way? The only one that comes to mind is the penalty that Mexico should have had when they were down 1-0 in the '02 Round of 16.

2c. All that said, in futbol, you just have to accept that calls are going to be missed.

3. Maybe my view is distorted because the US played with more urgency in the second half and Slovenia was sitting on their lead, but I liked the 4-3-3. Bob Bradley moved Maurice Edu into a proper holding role, which we don't have in the 4-4-2, put Michael Bradley into a more offensive midfield spot alongside Benny Feilhaber, and then pushed Donovan and Dempsey into forward positions. That formation makes sense for a couple reasons. First, the strength of this team is clearly in the offensive positions, so why not go with an offensive formation? Play to your strengths instead of compensating for your weaknesses. Second, the 4-3-3 gives more defined roles. Right now, we have two central midfielders, but their roles are mixed between offense and defense. In the 4-3-3, we would have Edu tasked with shielding the back four (which they desperately need) and Bradley in a more advanced position to take advantage of his Gerrard-esque ability to crash the box. The US has given up three goals in this tournament, all right down the middle and all in the space that would be covered by someone playing the classic Makelele role. The downside to a 4-3-3 would be that Dempsey and Donovan would have to run their tails off to provide help for the left and right backs. That said, maybe encouraging opponents to play down the wings and cross would play to the strength of our centerbacks. That certainly worked against Spain last summer, although Spain is a unique case.

4. Demerit and Gooch have played together for ages, but they are not doing a good job of communicating. Also, with Gooch slowed by his knee injury, we have two slow centerbacks and we can only get away with one.

5. Did anyone else notice on Landon's goal that he didn't have a passing option because Feilhaber ran into Dempsey? They both went to the same spot.

6. Boy, this tournament has gotten a lot better after the first set of games. The goals are suddenly coming in a flood. I'm happy to have been wrong.

7. Assuming that England beats Algeria by more than one goal, Slovenia is going to have to play to win against England. Let's see how a naturally defensive team does in that situation. They were in the same spot in their second leg match against Russia and they pulled it off, but it's easier to go for the win at home as opposed to at a neutral site.

Post Squinting at my iPhone USA-England Thoughts

I was on a ferry coming back from a wedding between 3 and 4:30 on Saturday. Thanks to the wonder of modern technology, I was able to watch the game on my phone. Thus, I have thoughts, but I have to start with the caveat that I might have missed a thing or two . . . like which players were which.

1. Overall, I'd say that the U.S. had a pretty good performance and generated a very good result. Any of us would have taken a draw before the game started, so 1-1 puts the Nats' chances of qualifying well over 50%, especially in light of the fact that neither Algeria, nor Slovenia looked especially good yesterday morning. The Nats were under the cosh for a fairly good portion of the second half, but they didn't give up too many clear chances and their defensive attention ensured that England's best chances in the second half fell to two players who cannot finish: Emile Heskey and Shaun Wright-Phillips. (Or maybe we were just lucky?)

2. Before the game, I talked to a friend and predicted a 2-0 loss. I wasn't concerned about England creating offense through the midfield because I've seen way too many matches in which Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard get in one another's way. My concern was Ashley Cole and Glen Johnson having their way with our left and right backs and then getting crosses in for Wayne Rooney to finish. So, you might imagine my surprise that England struck early with a move that came right through the midfield. Gooch was drawn out of position to deal with Rooney and Gerrard exploited the massive space behind him. Gooch might have been instructed to step out on Rooney (I can't give credit for the Nats ensuring that England's weakest finishers got chances without acknowledging that this strategy can cause the defense to be pulled out of shape), so it's possible that Ricardo Clark deserves more of the blame for not tracking Gerrard's run. Bob Bradley had a good game, but I was not thrilled with his selection of Clark. Ricardo isn't as good a defensive option as Maurice Edu or as good a passer as Jose Francisco Torres. Landon Donovan was a little quiet in the match, in part because he was up against an outstanding left back, but also in part because his supply wasn't great. Torres would correct that problem. I really hope we see Jose against Slovenia.

3. But if we're talking about managerial goofs, the majority go to Don Fabio. He doesn't have a great option between the sticks, but managed to take one that led to an enormous gaffe for the Nats' goal. He had to pull off a midfielder in the first 30 minutes and then a central defender at halftime. He deployed the midfield combination that has never worked for England. That said, Capello's mistakes illustrate the weaknesses of England's talent base. The country hasn't produced a top keeper since Gordon Banks and all of EPL's top clubs have foreign goalies. England have not have a proper left-sided midfielder for ages, with the possible exception of Joe Cole, so Capello had to choose between James Milner - a jack of all trades and master of none - and Shaun Wright-Phillips - a natural right-sided midfielder who brings little other than speed - for his left wing. He has to play Lampard and Garrard together because England have only one proper holding midfield as a result of Michael Carrick's poor season. In sum, you wouldn't know it from listening to the English media, but the England team is not especially talented.

4. Can we all agree that the one instance of bad luck for the U.S. is that Jamie Carragher didn't get sent off? He was on a yellow when he bundled into Robbie Findley as Findley bore down on goal. Carragher is too slow to function at this level and the Nats exposed his lack of pace on more than one occasion.

5. The weekend's results create a new goal for the Nats. Coming into the tournament, we all wanted them to make it out of the group my any means necessary. Now, with a draw against England and Germany looking like the best team in the tournament, there should be motivation for the Nats to do their best to win the group to avoid the Germans in the round of sixteen. Am I getting carried away? Probably.

Five World Cup Thoughts

We're two-and-a-half weeks away! Hide the women and children. (Speaking of which, my wife happily pointed out that all of the games will be during the day, so I'll be watching them at night after she goes to bed. When I pointed out that there are games on the weekends, she was less than pleased. Then again, I watched all of Dancing with the Stars this season, so I'm loaded with ammo.)

1. Argentina is the most interesting team in the tournament and might be the most interesting World Cup team of all time. The race of the Ballon D'Or right now is between Leo Messi and Diego Milito, both of whom play for Argentina. However, Milito might not make it into the side because if Argentina's depth at the position. There is no team in the world that is as deep at a position as Argentina is at the striker spot between Messi on the right and Di Maria on the left: Milito, Higuain, and Tevez, all of whom had great seasons against top competition. And best of all, Argentina have a madman making the decision. A guy who ran over a photographer and then showed his remorse by saying "What an asshole you are! How can you put your leg there where it can get run over, man?" Frankly, I can't wait to see what happens. This will be like Kate Gosselin being made Chairman of the Federal Reserve, only without the worldwide economic meltdown as a result.

2. I participated in a World Cup draft with some friends and I was struck by the fact that there is a broad consensus as to the hierarchy of the teams. Every time I was thinking that two or three teams were the next logical picks, those two or three teams would be the next ones off the board. When I got excited that we were three picks away and Portugal, Serbia, and Paraguay on the board, all three got taken in rapid succession. Other than the USA going ridiculously early (9th pick!), the draft went exactly as one would expect.

3. I'm disappointed that Brazil isn't on the same side of the bracket as Serbia. Brazil are the odds-on favorites, but they struggle mightily against defensive teams that go not expose themselves to the counterattack. Brazil are not good at breaking down an opponent that is waiting for them and that is doubly true with Kaka out of sorts. Serbia sets up as the perfect team to upset them, but they could not meet until the final. Serbia could end up playing England in the Round of 16, which would be a tricky tie for the English.

4. It's hard to look toward the second round after the performance of the Nats' backline last night, but the uncertainty surrounding the German camp is good news for the U.S. because the Germans are a likely second round opponent. Michael Ballack scored the winner against the US eight years ago, but he is out of the tournament. Germany's strikers had poor seasons for their club teams this year and there is controversy hanging over their camp because the in-form non-auslander striker in the Bundesliga - Kevin Kuranyi - has been left at home. Finally, the Germans have no idea who is going to be between the sticks after years and years of top-notch keepers from Maier to Schumacher to Illgner to Kahn to Lehmann. (And yes, I did that off the top of my head. German keepers are like Italian central defenders, Brazilian playmakers, and English penalty goats: you never forget them.) Germany do have a good crop of young players coming up and two in-form players who should be the backbone of a good team - Bastian Schweinsteiger and Phillip Lahm - but they are not vintage and it's within the realm of possibility that the Nats could beat them if we sort out our oil spill of a back four.

5. A lot of the time, success and failure at the World Cup is decided by having the guts to make a bold decision. For instance, imagine that Spain are 0-0 with Portugal in a Round of 16 game with ten minutes remaining in extra time. Vicente del Bosque's captain is his goalkeeper, Iker Casillas. However, Casillas's back-up is Pepe Reina, a noted expert at stopping penalties. The smart move would be to bring Reina on, assuming that Spain has not used all three subs. (And yes, I know that Casillas got Spain past Italy in penalties two years ago. Reina is still a better penalty stopper.) Does del Bosque pull off his captain? If England are looking narrow and congested in the midfield, will Fabio Capello have the guts to bench either Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard? How wedded will Marcelo Lippi be to his 2006 players in light of the fact that Italy's young players are, in many cases, better models? We've already seen one instance of the bold, but right decision not being made: France could have fired Raymond Domenech and hired Laurent Blanc instead of simply making Blanc the coach in waiting. Domenech has the confidence of absolutely no one, whereas Blanc has proved his worth at Bordeaux and is a hugely respected figure because of his role on France's '98 World Cup-winning side. France essentially sacrificed the tournament by leaving a fool in charge.

Lefties on the Right

If you're interested in footie tactics, then I can't recommend Jonathan Wilson's pieces in The Guardian strongly enough. His latest offering explains why teams are getting so much benefits from playing wingers on their off-feet, i.e. putting a left-footed player on the right side of the pitch. The short explanation is that this allows a player to cut in to shoot or to send in an in-swinging cross to the far post, as opposed to putting a right-footed player on the right wing where all he can do is send in an out-swinging cross.

The additional benefit for a team deploying its wingers in this manner is that the defensive counter-measure is to do the same with its fullbacks, i.e. put a left-footed player at right back. Chelsea did this to great effect against Barcelona last year when they put left-footed Jose Bosingwa at right back to deal with Leo Messi. However, when a team does this, it cuts down on the offensive punch that it can expect from its fullbacks, which might explain why Chelsea, a team that depends on its fullbacks for width, created so little offensively against Barca (especially in the first leg).

When I read the article, my thoughts naturally went to ... Preki? Yes, Preki. Steve Sampson might not have had the most successful term as the coach of the National Team, but he did have the good sense to put the left-footed Preki on the right wing, where his sole job was to cut in and unleash shots off of his sweet left boot. Unfortunately, I have a very distinct memory of the US fumbling around against Iran in the '98 World Cup and the announcer noting that the Iranians had scouted Preki and figured out how to take away his one trick. That trick was about the only thing that the '98 team had going in its favor.

Instathoughts on the Draw

THANK YOU, SEPP BLATTER!!! The US could not have come away with a better draw. It's too much to ask for a draw with three weaklings at the World Cup, so the key is to avoid being in a group with two other quality teams. It doesn't matter if you have drawn 1970 Brazil because two teams are going through; you just want to avoid drawing two other teams who can beat you. With a group including the weakest teams in Pots C and D, this is an unmitigated success for the US.

Additionally, I don't see England as a bridge too far for the US for a few reasons. First, it's England at the World Cup and they aren't playing at home. Second, England are a relatively narrow team (they have no left wing and their best attacking players all come through the middle), so they won't be able to take advantage of the US's suspect left and right backs like, say, Holland would. Third, if the US is going to play on the counter, they will want to play against a defender who leaves his post. Ladies and gentlemen, meet England right back Glen Johnson. Landon Donovan, meet the acres of space that Johnson will leave behind him as he bombs forward. (I do realize that Johnson getting forward contradicts my notion that England are a narrow team. Just let me have my illusions.) In all three respects, England are a little like the Spain side that the US upset this summer, only they don't have half the technical ability of Spain's midfield.

The major counter to everything I've just written: Fabio Capello versus Bob Bradley. With both having months to prepare. I'm having flashbacks to Pete Carroll versus Lloyd Carr in Pasadena.

Tim Vickery did say that Brazil were due for a tough group. Tim is always right. Holy cow, I'm not sure that I've seen a group with three teams as good as Brazil, Ivory Coast, and Portugal, at least since the tournament expanded to 32 teams. Right now, the Portuguese look like the odd team out. Remember their exit from Euro '08 with Ricardo flapping at German crosses? There is no team in the world that presents a greater aerial threat from set pieces than the Selecao. And the Ivory Coast have Didier Drogba. Yeah, Portugal are headed out. F*** you, Ronaldo. This group will be interesting not just to see who comes out, but also because there will be a major incentive to finish first to avoid playing Spain in the Round of 16. Not that Brazil would be scared of Spain (or anyone), but they would rather not be playing a contender right out of the box in the knock-out stages.

Where is Sophia Loren when you need her? Conspiracy theories can be great fun, but FIFA did the hosts no favors by handing them one of the two toughest draws from two of the pots. Also, the idea that FIFA wanted to screw France went out the window when the France got the coveted South Africa draw. You'll hear the "no host country has ever failed to make the knock-out stages" stat a million times, but I can't remember a host side worse than South Africa. Even South Korea and Japan had better resumes and they also added fanatical support at home. Austria and Switzerland just hosted the Euros and neither came close to coming out of their groups. At the end, talent has to play a role.

I'm going to guess that Spencer Hall is annoyed. I watched the '06 Final with Spencer and he spent much of the time explaining why he hates Italy more than any other team. I found this bizarre, since France is so obviously more hate-worthy and there is hard evidence for that fact. (I'm just not sure what it is.) Anyway, Italy could not have done any better with their draw. (And yes, I know that Paraguay did well in qualifying.) They're famously slow starters, but it's hard to see complications against New Zealand and Slovakia. That said, I can also see a second-round match against Cameroon with the entire stadium rooting against the Azzurri.

Just so you know, the over/under on "don't get bogged down here with your bigger foe on the horizon" jokes from me when Germany meets Serbia: 427.

Stuff that only I care about: Argentina, Greece, and Nigeria were all drawn together at USA '94. The fourth team in that group was Bulgaria. Argentina bombed Greece (with Maradona's famously demented celebration after scoring) and then beat Nigeria 2-1 in an outstanding match. Then, Maradona was sent home for failing a drug test (Ephedrine, if I recall correctly. If you remember what he looked like at that stage, the idea of Diego taking diet pills is not especially surprising.), Bulgaria drilled Argentina in the last group game, and then Romania sent them home in the round of 16. Nigeria blew a late lead and were knocked out by Italy, and Bulgaria made the semis before losing to a pair of Roberto Baggio goals. And no, I didn't look any of that up.

If the seeds hold, then we'll get Germany and Argentina in the quarterfinals for the second straight World Cup. Maybe this time around, Argentina will see fit to play Leo Messi.

Sand vs. Sheep!!! Who Could Resist!?!

The World Cup is the most popular sporting event in the world. (Screw you, Olympics. The next time you inspire enough passion for people to riot in the streets or come to the airport to throw rotten vegetables at the national team after being bounced by North Korea, you let me know. I'm sure NBC will get to work on a treacly human interest story to illustrate the point.) The qualification cycle for South Africa 2010 is coming to a close and is rife with storylines. The top two players in the world - Leo Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo (and in that order, thank you very much) - are both in danger of not qualifying. Regional rivals Denmark and Sweden face off with a spot on the line in the "our blondes are more comely than yours" bracket. Germany and Russia get together in Moscow with an automatic spot at stake, not that there is much history of conflict between those two nations. (If I were forced to watch that game without making WWII references, the end product would not be dissimilar from the episode of Beavis and Butthead where Mr. Buzzcut forbids the protagonists from laughing during Sex Ed. If only this game were being played in early December.) Neighbors and old rivals Argentina and Uruguay could play next week with a spot on the line.

In short, there are a ton of great matches to be played over the next week, matches that have positively enormous stakes, and few will be seen in this country. The reason is that FIFA gives the TV rights to the host federations and those federations sell to whatever media entities offer them the best deals. Thus, the Nats' game in Honduras on Saturday night that could end with our boys printing their boarding passes for Jan Smuts, er, Oliver Tambo International Airport will not be seen in this country except in certain bars, as if it were some 70s era stag party flick. Grant Wahl has the details:

The U.S. could clinch a World Cup berth on Saturday night, and not many American soccer fans will be watching.

That's the absurd situation we find ourselves in thanks to the screwy way that FIFA allows host countries to handle the video broadcast rights for World Cup qualifiers. As a result, the huge U.S.-Honduras game in San Pedro Sula (Saturday, 10 p.m. ET) will only be available in the U.S. on closed-circuit TV at a small number of bars and restaurants.

Keep in mind, we're talking about closed-circuit TV, not pay-per-view. In other words, you will not be able to see this game in your own home.

This is a trip back to the 1980s that nobody wants. The last event I saw on closed-circuit TV was the fight between Larry Holmes and Gerry Cooney more than 27 years ago.

How did this happen? I called Chuck Blazer, the general secretary of CONCACAF and a member of the FIFA executive committee, to find out. Blazer told me that for years, FIFA has allowed the host countries of World Cup qualifiers to sell the video rights to whomever they wish. Doing so, Blazer told me, allows national soccer federations to make much-needed money to support their operating expenses.

In the case of U.S.-Honduras, the Honduran federation sold the English- and Spanish-language video rights to a media company named Media World. ESPN, the usual broadcaster of U.S. games, was unable to reach a deal to buy the rights from Media World, nor were any other American cable or terrestrial TV outlets.

This problem extends beyond U.S. games. Because the rights to qualifiers are sold by each federation, we end up with a hodge-podge of games on Fox Soccer Channel and GolTV. We might have a huge qualifier being played between France and Italy, but we'll be forced to watch Estonia and Switzerland because our channels don't have the correct rights. In a flood of great games, the only live qualifier on GolTV this weekend is the barn-burner between Costa Rica and Trinidad & Tobago. Fox Soccer leads off with the match-up between bitter rivals Bahrain and New Zealand, before going to France vs. the Faroe Islands and the Denmark-Sweden tilt. One good game between the two networks.

If FIFA were in the 21st century, it would take control of the TV rights and license them out to major media outlets. For the U.S., they could sell the rights to all Nats games to ESPN, Mexico games to Univision, and then let Fox Soccer and GolTV bid on priority packages for the remainder. FIFA would make more money to distribute to the federations and it would help foster the growth of the game around the world by letting people see top games. Those of you who don't like footie, I could probably make you at least a casual fan over 90 minutes of Argentina-Uruguay; I'd have a hard time pulling that feat off with Bahrain-New Zealand.

Amen

I wonder if the commenter who said that he was not going to come back to this site after he figured out that I write about soccer (the 161 posts regarding "the Other Football" must have been confusing to him) is now going to boycott Bill Simmons. A couple thoughts on a very strong piece:

1. I think the correct analogy for Mexico's playing style is not a football team that controls time of possession with a brutal running game and a short passing game. Mexico's tempo is faster than that. At least when playing at the Azteca, El Tri seem more like a football team with an excellent defense that forces a lot of three-and-outs and then runs a no-huddle on offense. They didn't strike me as playing a very deliberate game last week. They're more the Saints with a better defense than they are the Giants.

2. I quite liked this paragraph describing the reaction to the winning goal:

I will remember the reaction afterward: Complete and utter delirium. Everyone just threw whatever drink they had as far as they could. It was like watching a new Pixar movie called "A Snowstorm of Drinks" crossed with a full-fledged prison riot. Then and only then did we realize exactly how much that game meant to the Mexicans. As Hopper said right after the final whistle (Mexico 2, USA 1), "I guess the upside is that we're going to live."

The one sports experience that I can remember that was similar was Charlie Peprah's interception return for a touchdown for Alabama against Georgia in 2002. Peprah's TD was the second Bama TD in quick succession that turned a 24-12 deficit into a 25-24 lead. I've never seen a scene quite like that. Drinks flying everywhere. Noise like you wouldn't believe (amplified for us by the metal overhand right above our heads). I'll always remember looking at my wife and the two of us exchanging looks of utter disbelief at the anarchy going on around us. And two possessions later, Georgia drove down the field and Billy Bennett kicked the winning field goal.

3. I'm not buying the following paragraph:

The good news for U.S. fans? Our boys hung for two hours in Mexico without disgracing themselves. The bad news? The defeat reinforced some basic problems with our soccer program. We have only a few world-class players (Donovan, Oguchi Onyewu, Clint Dempsey and goalie Tim Howard) and lack a franchise guy who could swing any game, even one being played in Estadio Azteca. For instance, I watched Sunday's Liverpool-Tottenham battle, and Steven Gerrard was so ridiculously, dominantly good in so many different ways -- some overt, some subtle -- that I couldn't get over it. He makes difficult plays seem effortless; you never forget he's on the field. America doesn't have anyone like that. Just like in basketball, you can't win championships in soccer without a LeBron/Kobe-type player.

I watched the Spurs-Liverpool match on Sunday and Gerrard was mostly peripheral because Liverpool miss Xabi Alonso pinging the ball around behind him. It was not a dominant Gerrard performance because he lacked support, thus illustrating the fact that soccer, moreso than basketball, requires that the entire team function in order for a superstar to dominate a game. There are few soccer equivalents to a LeBron single-handedly winning games for his team.

4. Amen to this:

Whatever happens, the stars seem to be aligning for soccer in the United States. Subtle factors have made soccer a potential breakout sport for the next decade: high definition; few commercial breaks; games that almost always end within two hours; improved camera angles; increased exposure to international play; a generation of adults weaned on the 1994 World Cup; even the near-death of passing in basketball, which led people like me to gravitate toward soccer simply because I miss seeing telepathic connections between teammates and will take it any way I can get it. I don't think I'm alone.

I have the same thoughts on passing. Maybe it's a result of watching the Gretzky Oilers during my formative sports years?

5. Did you ever think that you would read a Red Sox nut like Simmons type the two sentences that conclude the piece?

As for the Mexicans, they averted a national disaster and reignited their Cup chances. On the way back to our hotel, driving in our bulletproof car, we passed under a bridge on the highway and noticed one lone Mexican man happily swinging a flag back and forth. He had to have been 45 minutes from the stadium. There was nobody around him. He just kept swinging that flag with a joyous grin on his face. I remember thinking to myself, "Nobody in America will ever care about a sport that much." And we won't.

Me neither.

Don't Say I Didn't Warn You

Thoughts on El Tri 2 Nats 1:

1. Landon Donovan is one of the fastest players on the US team. Ordinarily, players don't run past him. Efrain Juarez did exactly that to get into the penalty area and set up Mexico's winner eight minutes from time. That one play illustrated why a game at the Azteca isn't a true measuring stick for the Nats. They were playing in conditions that had a major impact on the performance of our players. I wouldn't judge the US for slipping and sliding around if they played on a glacier; I would judge them for failing to make proper crosses while playing in a typhoon; and I won't judge them for being a gear slower than the Mexicans in Mexico City. The US players often looked like they were in quicksand. The altitude had the greatest effect on the US midfielders because they play the position that requires the most running.

2. That said, there were several Americans whose performances were disappointing. Clint Dempsey was completely absent from the game. Carlos Bocanegra's positioning was dreadful at times. Collectively, Dempsey and Bocanegra represented the American left, which explains why every attack that Mexico mounted on its right flank seemed dangerous. I've seen Gio dos Santos on plenty of occasions because he came up through the Barca youth system. He's the same guy who couldn't get off the bench for mid-table Spurs this pas season. He isn't Marc Overmars, but our defense made him look as such.

3. Charlie Davies, holy hell! I'd barely heard of him before this summer, but he was terrific at the Confederations Cup and he was excellent in the game today. His run and finish for the goal were perfect and he came oh so close to nodding Stuart Holden's inviting cross goalward in the second half when Mexico gave the slightest signs of pushing too far forward.

4. You would have to say that that was an eventful game for Landon Donovan. He set up the U.S. goal, then his giveaway in the midfield started the move for Mexico's equalizer, then he was beaten like a drum for the winner (although I'm willing to cut him some slack as described above). Donovan was certainly more of a threat than Dempsey on the opposite wing, but he still has weaknesses.

5. Between the excitement of Andres Cantor and the atmosphere at the Azteca, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of watching the game. That game, in a nutshell, is why I find soccer so compelling.

Don't Get Your Hopes Up

There are a bunch of reasons why the Nats have never won at Estadio Azteca. Mexico City is at an elevation of 7,350 feet. (I guess the nickname "1.4 Mile High City" never stuck?) The air is polluted. El Tri's players and 100,000+ fans are never more motivated when they get a chance to repay the U.S. for James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, and Winfield Scott. (One can make an argument that the Mexican War contributed to our Civil War by bring vast new territories over whose slave/free status the North and South would bicker vehemently, so maybe Mexico already got its revenge? I digress.) Oh, and Mexico has historically had better players and teams than the U.S. does. Its history at the World Cup is longer and more consistent. Its players have made a bigger impact in Europe. Its domestic league is better than ours.

With the one exception that the U.S. has closed the gap significantly with Mexico in terms of the quality of our teams, the remaining statements are all true. I fully expect the U.S. to lose tomorrow. The game means more to Mexico because they need the points badly. Our players are going to be sucking wind by the end of the first half, not because they aren't fit, but because of the conditions. If Argentina, a team with a smidge more skill than the U.S., can lose 6-1 at La Paz and 2-0 at Quito, then there's probably something to the altitude thing. This just is not a good test for the Nats. Wiping the pitch with the African champs was a yardstick. Beating Spain was a yardstick. Staying with Brazil was a yardstick. Playing our arch-rival in incredibly difficult conditions when we only need to finish third out of six to make it to South Africa is not.

All that said, it would be considered poor form for the U.S. to refuse to come out of the locker room with Bob Bradley demanding air:

So how should he play the game? Here are the maxims:

1. 0-0 is a great result. The formula for qualifying for the World Cup is three points at home and one point on the road. (In CONCACAF, three points at home and none on the road is fine, but let's pretend that we're in a difficult situation as opposed to the self esteem-boosting Hex.) A draw is normally a good thing; it's a great thing in this situation because it would deprive one of the Nats' rivals for an automatic qualification spot of two points.

2. Mexico's desperation can be used against them. Remember how the U.S. took advantage of Spain's offensive tendencies to score a great counter-attacking goal? The principle is the same here. Imagine how the Mexican players will react if the game is 0-0 with 20 minutes remaining. Their fans will be onto them with every pass or shot that misses the mark. They'll feel the humiliation of dropping points at home against the U.S. for only the second time ever. They'll be absolutely desperate to score. Does that sound like a team that can be hit on the counter by Landon Donovan and Jozy Altidore?

3. Speaking of Jozy, I would not start him. With endurance at a premium, Brian Ching is a better option because he is in the middle of his season, whereas Altidore is not. Additionally, Ching is better at holding the ball up and the U.S. is going to need that if they are going to play a low energy game for the first hour. Ching should not see the field next summer as a starter, but he's the right striker for this particular time and place.

4. If I could steal from Tim Vickery for a paragraph, there are two keys when playing at altitude. The first is that the road team needs to be as compact as possible, leaving little space between the forward line, the midfield, and the back line. This constricts the game and reduces the amount of running that's required. The second is that the defenders cannot play too deep because the shots from distance are a bigger factor in the thin air. This latter maxim presents a major problem for the U.S. because our central defenders aren't the most nimble players on the planet. They are reliable at heading crosses out of danger, but they can be exposed for pace, especially by the smaller, quicker Mexicans and especially if Demerit and Gooch have to get right up on the attackers. Thus, the midfielders are going to have to provide as much defensive assistance as possible.

5. If you can't tell from the preceding paragraph, I'd like to see two defensive midfielders in the match, most likely Ricardo Clark and Michael Bradley in a withdrawn role. Bradley cannot afford to make the mistake of playing too expansively. I felt great about Bradley's evolution over the course of the Confederations Cup; let's see where he is now.

The "Holy S***, we're 2-0 up on the Selecao!" Impromptu Live-blog

We're playing like Brazil. I kid you not. The second goal was a carbon copy of Brazil's second against us in the group stage: turnover on the offensive right, leading to a lightning quick two-man counter that ends with the diminutive withdrawn striker knocking the ball home from 18 yards. Donovan and Charlie Davies were phenomenal in using one another on the counter. Brazil would be proud to score a goal like that. Any team in the world would be proud to score a goal like that.

As for the opener, it was a carbon copy of the third goal against Egypt: a great cross from Jonathan Spector that was finished by Clint Dempsey. The finish by Dempsey was incredible if he meant it or good fortune if not. Either way, the run and cross put the US in position to benefit from some luck. If Spector turns into an offensive threat at right back, then the US will have a great set-up. Barca are able to get so much offense from Dani Alves because they have a great defensive midfielder and a left back who can play like a central defender when the back four become a back three. With Bocanegra at left back, the US has the latter and with Ricardo Clark playing so well, we have the former.

I can't say enough about Bob Bradley right now. He is getting his tactics exactly right against: two lines of four working together to frustrate a favored opponent. And it's not just his tactics; it takes great instruction in training and during the game to get the two lines to work together so well. Watch how there is always an American player to cover for a teammate when Brazil tries to play a one-two or a player gets into shooting position.

Listening to Tim Vickery's segments on World Soccer Daily for the past two years has been a total education in terms of the way that Brazil play. They struggle to break down organized, defensive opponents (Read: France) because they don't have the skill in the midfield that marked Brazil's game through the Zico-Socrates generation. They are deadly against opponents that come forward and create space for the counter. (Read: Argentina.) They are dependent on offense from their outside defenders. As bad as our tactics were last week, they have been perfect today because we're staying back and we're paying attention to Maicon.

Min. 46 - Uh oh. Luis Fabiano gets the ball at the head of the box, turns, and fires home. 2-1. Great goal. I'm not sure that you can blame Jay Demerit. Maybe he could have been a smidge closer. Predictably, the pass into Fabiano came from Maicon.

Min. 52 - The US has a great counter, but Davies doesn't find the streaking Donovan and then Dempsey can't play in Altidore. Not the greatest first touches from the US.

Min. 56 - Great save from Howard on a header from a corner. Howard has been outstanding and I'm taking him for granted because the keeper position is the one where the US is undoubtedly world class. The defensive style only works with a good keeper and we have one of the best.

Min. 59 - I guess Howard making a save after the ball crossed the line is a great save. Brazil are getting chances off of crosses, showing that our defenders may be good in the air, but we aren't that good. Kaka should have had the equalizer there. Remind me again why FIFA won't put a chip in the ball so we can actually know when it crosses the line, not that a major tournament has ever been decided by a ball that didn't cross the line before.



Min 64 - We maintain possession in the offensive end for the first time in the half, leading to a couple good shots. Nice to see the Nats relieve pressure on the back line a little.

Min. 70 - Horrendous turnover by Bocanegra leads to Fabiano coming in one-on-one with Howard. Howard takes the ball off his feet. Howard is the man of the match if the US holds on.

Min. 72 - Great run by Davies foiled by equally great tackle by Luisao.

Min. 74 - 2-2. I guess it was inevitable the way the game was going. Too bad that Fabiano was there for the rebound because Robinho hitting the bar from three yards would have been one of the great misses of all-time. Great run and pass by Kaka, who beat Spector badly.

Min. 85 - 3-2. Great header from Lucio. Brazil have killed the US with crosses from the wing in this half. That's a difference between Brazil and Spain. Spain can be frustrated if they're forced to go wide; Brazil are big and athletic and have wing backs who can cross the ball beautifully. This game has the feeling of Spurs going two up at Old Trafford and then conceding five in the second stanza. Sometimes, a more talented team gets rolling and you just have to grin and bear it.

Min. 88 - Onyewu heads over from a corner. That could have been a massive reversal of fortune. Brazil are not totally solid defensively, but when have we ever not been able to say that?

Min. 90 - Fin.

Kudos to Brazil, who put on a clinic in the second half. I'm not sure how much blame to apportion out to the defenders for allowing Brazil to take potshots with headers off crosses. Also, the outside midfielders tired and allowed the Brazilian wing backs to dominate outside. At the end, Brazil had better players and once they got momentum, the game was headed in one direction. The US was a very streaky team in this tournament. When they were good (the first 45 minutes against Italy, all 90 against Egypt and Spain, and then the first 45 in the Final), they were very good. When they were bad (the second half against Italy, all 90 minutes of the first game against Brazil, and the last 45 minutes of the Final), they were very bad. The Nats tended to give up goals in bunches, which might speak to the team having somewhat fragile confidence. If I could play amateur psychologist for a second, our team is talented, but when something goes against them against a name opponent, they appear to decide "oh yeah, Italy are supposed to beat us" and then one goal allowed becomes three.

Although there is some sense of a missed opportunity, this has been the best week in US Soccer history. We dominated the African champions, beat the European champions, and then led 2-0 against the South American champions before succumbing. This is a young team, so we should be better next summer. Bob Bradley figured out how to play against teams like Spain and Brazil. Our players will hopefully have the confidence to make a mark in the coming World Cup. Happy days are here again!

Spain 0 USA...uh, er, 2?!?

The United States is in the final of the Confederations Cup. They followed an incredibly improbably passage from Group B with a solid victory over the best team in the world. I don't know where to begin, so I'm just going to start typing.

1. Don't say I didn't warn you about Sergio Ramos. I hated Bob Bradley's tactics against Brazil, but he got it right against Spain. Take it away, Eduardo Alvarez:

Let the record show that I texted a friend of mine as early as minute 15 of the first half asking him what Ramos was doing on the pitch. As explained earlier, the US gaffer decided to give him plenty of space offensively to exploit his back at the counter attack, and Sergio naively swallowed the bait. The US caught Spain's defence out of place at least four times until Altidore scored, in all cases because Ramos wasn't where he should.

The first goal came from exactly the sort of offensive play that works against Spain: a quick ball out of defense and up the offensive left side to take advantage of Ramos being forward. Charlie Davies (one of the revelations of the tournament for me) and Clint Dempsey played a nice one-two, drawing Pique and Puyol towards the play and away from Jozy Altidore. Dempsey then played the ball to Altidore, who spun away from his club teammate Joan Capdevila (kudos to John Harkes for correctly noting that Capdevila isn't the greatest of defenders) and scored.

And while we're on the subject of Villarreal players, the first goal also showed how much Spain misses Marcos Senna. Barca are able to get away with Dani Alves bombing forward because they have a great defensive midfielder (Yaya Toure) who can cover the vacated space. As Alvarez points out regarding his beloved Real Madrid, the Del Bosque teams of the early aughts were able to get away with Roberto Carlos getting forward because Claude Makelele could cover the space. Xabi Alonso isn't a true defensive midfielder. At Liverpool, he has Javier Mascherano to do a lot of the donkey work. Against the US, he was victimized by the interplay between Davies and Dempsey and thus allowed Dempsey to play a dangerous ball into Altidore.

2. After Brazil clobbered the Nats, I made the point that we should not expect our players to compete on a top level because they haven't showed that they can make their way into top club teams. So what happened yesterday? How do we explain the US winning 2-0 against three Barca players, three Liverpool players, two Real Madrid players, and a player from Arsenal, Valencia, and Villarreal? It's hard to fathom, so I'll just say that if Jozy Altidore could consistently pull off the move that he did in undressing Capdevila, then he would be playing regularly next to Giuseppe Rossi as an all-American strike force for the Yellow Submarine. Our players seem capable of achieving great things, but for some reason, they don't do so consistently for top clubs. Maybe a break-through is around the corner? Or maybe we just shouldn't read too much into a sample size of one, no matter how much we want to do so.

3. FIFA refs are punishing us for something. George W. Bush? Hiroshima? Their kids eating too much McDonald's and getting fat? The Jonas Brothers? I'm at a loss to explain how the US seems to be the only team in the tournament that gets straight red cards and typically for run-of-the-mill tackles. The U.S. will miss Michael Bradley in the final, as he played quite well from box to box.

4. It needs to be said: we were lucky yesterday. It's not every day that David Villa and Fernando Torres both sky their shots over from great positions. Spain easily could have gone into the break up 2-1, at which point the Nats would have been vulnerable chasing the game. The difference between a 2-0 win and a 4-1 loss might have simply been two of the best strikers in the world scuffing their chances.

5. Bradley got his defensive tactics exactly right. The US central defenders are strong in the air, but they aren't the fastest guys in the world. So what did Bob Bradley do? Pack his defense into the middle to prevent Xavi from passing his way through and therefore invite the Spanish to come down the flanks and send crosses into the box. Please throw Demerit and Onyewu into that briar patch. Spain's crosses were weak. Bradley's strategy also ensured that Sergio Ramos would keep bombing forward. Hell, I feel like more insults directed at Ramos...

6. Madrid, cabron... Spain won its first major tournament in 44 years after banishing Real icon (and noted bottler for Spain) Raul out of the team. Spain lost its next major tournament because Real right back Ramos gifted space to the US for the first goal and inexplicably tried to dribble the ball directly in front of his own goal to allow Dempsey to poke home the second. The second goal was the result of a mistake that most ten year olds know not to make. As if 2-6 wasn't enough humiliation, the hits just keep on coming for Franco's favorite team.

If I were Bob Bradley

I like to think that I know something about the way that Spain play after having watch Barcelona upwards of 40 times this season. This might not be entirely accurate because there are going to be only two to four Barca players in the Spain side today. Xavi and Puyol are certain starters; Busquets and Pique are possibilities, although unlikely because Xabi Alonso will likely fill the defensive midfield role and Albiol will partner Puyol in central defense. Ideologically, there would also be criticism of conflating Spain and Barcelona:



With those caveats out of the way, the Spain and Barca play very similar styles, built around short passing and quick movement. (The Spanish term is tika-taka football.) Xavi is the fulcrum of both sides, spraying passes all over the place and allowing his team to monopolize the ball, thus protecting the defense. Both sides will press aggressively when they give the ball away so as to prevent the opponent from maintaining possession and running at the defense. Both sides have a rampaging right back who will generate offense down the right flank, but will also occasionally leave his team exposed defensively. Spain have more of an aerial threat through Fernando Torres, which makes them more likely to score on crosses; Barca are more of a threat to dribble through the defense through Messi and Iniesta.

The best blueprint for stopping the Barcelona/Spain style was demonstrated by Chelsea in the Champions League semifinal. If Guus Hiddink isn't going to coach the Nats, then we can at least learn from his game plan against the tika-taka style. Hiddink deployed three robust, physical defensive midfielders: Michael Ballack, Michael Essien, and John Obi Mikel. These three screened Chelsea's able back line and presented a big wall in front of Xavi and Iniesta, while also helping on the wings against Dani Alves, Messi, and Thierry Henry. Chelsea's midfield and defensive lines played close together to deny Barca the space to pass their way through.

The US doesn't have Chelsea's personnel, but Bob Bradley can mimic this approach:

1. Play two defensive midfielders. Ricardo Clark should be an automatic on the team sheet. The second option should probably be Jose Francisco Torres. This is not a game for Bradley to play his best 11. Long term, the future of this team is a Michael Bradley-Benny Feilhaber pairing in central midfield, but that pairing would get eaten alive by Xavi, Xabi Alonso, and Cesc Fabregas. Bradley should be playing in front of two defensive midfielders so he can be free to look for shooting chances at the head of the box, a la Frank Lampard or Steven Gerrard.

2. Keep the defensive and midfield lines close together. If Xavi gets space and time, this is what he will do:



Xavi had four assists in one game against Real Madrid, or two fewer than Cristiano Ronaldo had in the entire Premier League season. Real left space between its lines and was eaten alive. The Nats cannot play an expansive game where they leave players forward thinking about goals. All of the midfield will have to come back to help, both in the middle and on the flanks (especially the US left, where Jonathan Bornstein is going to be vulnerable. When the US gets the ball...

3. Get the ball to the left wing quickly. If the US is going to squeeze out a 1-0 result, the goal will need to come from a set piece (unlikely because we aren't going to have the ball that much and won't get many free kicks) or a quick counter catching Sergio Ramos forward. The one match up advantage that the US has is that it can put its best player - Landon Donovan - on the offensive left side to exploit a Spanish defensive weakness. When Spain relinquishes the ball, the American players will need to get the ball out quickly towards Donovan. Donovan can hopefully exploit space, make a run, and then find Jozy Altidore or Clint Dempsey (one of whom should be playing striker, not both) making a run into the box. I might lean towards playing Altidore in this game because his physical presence would allow the US to play a little low-risk longball.

I'll be very interested when I watch the game to see how Bob Bradley adapts his tactics to play against a superior opponent. He has to do better than he did against Brazil, when his horrendous team selection opened the US to be carved apart. He has to resist the urge to think that the US can play the same against Spain as we did against Egypt. The odds are against the Nats, but after beating 9,000 to one odds on Sunday (I significantly underestimated the odds in my last post), nothing's impossible.