It was a tough ending to a good tournament for the United States. My biggest fear going into the Ghana game was that, with all the hype and excitement of the England game, the Slovenia comeback, and the Algeria drama, the casual American fan would tune in to today's game, see us lose, and say, "Wait, we lost to Ghana? Ghana? Seriously?" I worried casual fans wouldn't quite understand that 1) Ghana is a quality team and 2) simply making it to the Round of 16 is an accomplishment for the USA, no matter how easy their draw may have been.
Ghana is good, just as good as the US if not better. The fact that they were missing their best player (by far), Michael Essien of Chelsea, speaks to the fact that they've got a lot of talent to choose from. They're also quick, fast, and strong. But most important of all, each and every one of their major players plies his trade in a top European league, some with the very best clubs on the continent. Like some of our guys (Dempsey, Howard, Bocanegra, Bradley, Cherundolo), they are all accustomed to the speed of play of the World Cup.
I'm not saying I was incredibly impressed with Ghana - I wasn't. After a flying start, they never really pressed their advantage. It did seem they had their tactics right in the first half. Their five man midfield meant they could both crowd Bradley and Clark (witness the first goal) with a two on three in the center while also keeping incredible width on the flanks. Each time they switched the ball from one side to the other, Donovan and Dempsey, who had been trying to help defend the three central midfielders, had to sprint back out to the sideline to help defend the flank. All this running early on certainly didn't help keep them fresh when extra time rolled around.
As for the US, again with the early goals. Maddening, truly maddening. You would think Bradley would emphasize this to the point of scaring his players into not making mistakes. After such serious lapses in the first three games, I would personally send my team out with the express goal of keeping a clean sheet for twenty minutes. Don't take too many chances, smash it upfield when necessary, get behind the ball, whatever. Just make sure that it is 0-0 after 20 or 30 minutes pass.
But no. Ricardo Clark, poor guy, decided to try to beat a man at midfield with very little defensive cover, coughed it up to Kevin-Prince Boateng, who carried upfield with a lot of confidence and speed. His low shot was good, but Howard should always have his near post and he knows that. Not totally his fault, but he should've done better. It still took the US another twenty minutes to really start playing, and from then on out we had the better of the chances if not the possession. Bradley again covered all kinds of ground, but his final pass was just a few inches off. We deserved the penalty and then had three golden opportunities to take the lead, but wasted all of them. We don't have a great finisher. We don't really even have a very good one, and we paid for that.
So what's the final verdict? It's a respectable showing, a deserved 2nd round berth but no more. I thought the quality of soccer, on the whole, was good. They passed better than they had in previous tournaments and created their own opportunities in a way they usually don't. I think we are one of the sixteen best teams in this tournament, but just barely. Certainly no better than Ghana.
I do hope fans stick with the Cup, with the national team, and with the MLS. What we're seeing now is the fruits of the MLS - basically every one of these players grew up in the league and cut their teeth there. It may not be the English Premier League, and it may be boring as hell to watch a 1-0 game between Kansas City and Dallas on a Thursday night in front of 4,000 fans at Pizza Hut Park. But the quality is always improving, and the young players you see now will get a chance with the national team.
I live on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, where there are literally a dozen pubs and sports bars within a five or ten minute walk. Each and every one of them was packed to the gills for every game the US played. Anyone who watched the Algeria or Slovenia game in a bar or restaurant will tell you what an incredible atmosphere it was. Soccer may never pass the big three (or four) in this country, but can't question its growth. I just hope it carries on and that people take a chance on the MLS and our national team over the coming years.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Goal of the World Cup So Far
The Round of 16 is shaping up, with two pairings set: Uruguay vs. South Korea, Argentina vs. Mexico. The latter's a reprise of 2006's overtime Round of 16 matchup ending with Maxi Rodriguez's stunning volley:
Anyway, no definite choice for thee goal of the World Cup so far, but I sure did like David Villa's solo effort to open the scoring against Honduras in a vital 2-0 win for the Spanish. Villa later scored a deflected second and then missed a penalty (wide with the goal gaping) that actually could end up being pretty huge for if/where Spain end up in the next round. Without further delay, enjoy:
Anyway, no definite choice for thee goal of the World Cup so far, but I sure did like David Villa's solo effort to open the scoring against Honduras in a vital 2-0 win for the Spanish. Villa later scored a deflected second and then missed a penalty (wide with the goal gaping) that actually could end up being pretty huge for if/where Spain end up in the next round. Without further delay, enjoy:
Monday, June 21, 2010
When Alexi Lalas speaks...
...do you all wonder what Ruud Gullit, Juergen Klinsmann, and Steve McManaman think?
Do they think to themselves, "Who the hell is this guy?" or "Should I know you from somewhere?"
In his career, Lalas was a player of considerable heart and limited ability, known to be "good in the air" but little else. He was indeed the first American to play in the Serie A for Padova -- at the time, quite a feat despite the club's lowly stature. He scored an infamous goal to beat England 2-1 in a friendly, though, if memory serves, he scored with the back of his head. And by that I mean he had literally turned around backwards to head the ball.
On TV, I find him to be terribly annoying. He speaks with authority but doesn't really have any. His off-the-field expertise has been proven by basically running a highly talented LA Galaxy team -- a club that gets the MLS does every possible favor to help succeed -- into the ground with bad signings and poor coaching.
Gullit's kind of an agreeable guy, but McManaman is pretty opinionated. Lalas' opinion of the English isn't very high -- perhaps he's not over getting snubbed after a tryout with Arsenal way back when -- and they're always on the verge of clashing. Still, he's the only one of the analysts who never analyzes and he's completely bought into the hype that the US team are poised to do huge things.
Anyway, an open-ended question but one I'm curious about: what do the guys in the studio with a pretty tremendous soccer pedigree think of Lalas? And would anyone else rather be listening to Wynalda? I miss him, and we don't get Fox Soccer Channel anymore either.
Do they think to themselves, "Who the hell is this guy?" or "Should I know you from somewhere?"
In his career, Lalas was a player of considerable heart and limited ability, known to be "good in the air" but little else. He was indeed the first American to play in the Serie A for Padova -- at the time, quite a feat despite the club's lowly stature. He scored an infamous goal to beat England 2-1 in a friendly, though, if memory serves, he scored with the back of his head. And by that I mean he had literally turned around backwards to head the ball.
On TV, I find him to be terribly annoying. He speaks with authority but doesn't really have any. His off-the-field expertise has been proven by basically running a highly talented LA Galaxy team -- a club that gets the MLS does every possible favor to help succeed -- into the ground with bad signings and poor coaching.
Gullit's kind of an agreeable guy, but McManaman is pretty opinionated. Lalas' opinion of the English isn't very high -- perhaps he's not over getting snubbed after a tryout with Arsenal way back when -- and they're always on the verge of clashing. Still, he's the only one of the analysts who never analyzes and he's completely bought into the hype that the US team are poised to do huge things.
Anyway, an open-ended question but one I'm curious about: what do the guys in the studio with a pretty tremendous soccer pedigree think of Lalas? And would anyone else rather be listening to Wynalda? I miss him, and we don't get Fox Soccer Channel anymore either.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Brazil - Ivory Coast
About sixty minutes through the DVR of Brazil vs. Ivory Coast, a game I had marked a few months ago as one to watch in the first round.
The Ivory Coast (I'd do "Cote d'Ivoire", but I can't find the circonflex on blogger) started well but were undone by one of the better goals of the tournament from Luis Fabiano. Kaka set it up, and it was one of the few positive things he did for the entire first half. For the first 20 minutes it seemed like every time he touched the ball, a CIV defender flew in and stuck him. But his pass was nice and simple and put Fabiano through.
Minute 66, Brazil up 3-0, and Elano gets raked in the shins and pulled off -- for Dani Alves, who has to be the best player not starting in this tournament. Can you think of another better? Given that, it's hard to see how Brazil won't make it at least to the final. Dunga's brought a new focus on defense and "efficiency". Lucio is a great center back, Juan does a good job too, and Julio Cesar is apparently the best goalkeeper in the world though I'd personally rather have Tim Howard or Casillas and I think probably still Friedel too. Biased, maybe. So Brazil can sit back, stroke the ball around, stay organized, and then rely on the tournament's most skillful front three in Kaka, Robinho, and Fabiano to counterattack and get a goal. Score that first one -- as with against the Ivory Coast -- and the opponent's plan changes, the game opens up, and Brazil can go be Brazil.
We'll see what happens against Portugal, but my guess is that they rest a few guys and still come away with at least a tie.
As for the Ivory Coast, they've really done themselves a lot of harm with such a heavy loss. As with South Korea or South Africa, a one goal loss would've been acceptable. Allowing so many goals though is likely to come back and bite them.
The Ivory Coast (I'd do "Cote d'Ivoire", but I can't find the circonflex on blogger) started well but were undone by one of the better goals of the tournament from Luis Fabiano. Kaka set it up, and it was one of the few positive things he did for the entire first half. For the first 20 minutes it seemed like every time he touched the ball, a CIV defender flew in and stuck him. But his pass was nice and simple and put Fabiano through.
Minute 66, Brazil up 3-0, and Elano gets raked in the shins and pulled off -- for Dani Alves, who has to be the best player not starting in this tournament. Can you think of another better? Given that, it's hard to see how Brazil won't make it at least to the final. Dunga's brought a new focus on defense and "efficiency". Lucio is a great center back, Juan does a good job too, and Julio Cesar is apparently the best goalkeeper in the world though I'd personally rather have Tim Howard or Casillas and I think probably still Friedel too. Biased, maybe. So Brazil can sit back, stroke the ball around, stay organized, and then rely on the tournament's most skillful front three in Kaka, Robinho, and Fabiano to counterattack and get a goal. Score that first one -- as with against the Ivory Coast -- and the opponent's plan changes, the game opens up, and Brazil can go be Brazil.
We'll see what happens against Portugal, but my guess is that they rest a few guys and still come away with at least a tie.
As for the Ivory Coast, they've really done themselves a lot of harm with such a heavy loss. As with South Korea or South Africa, a one goal loss would've been acceptable. Allowing so many goals though is likely to come back and bite them.
Friday, June 18, 2010
USA-Slovenia, England-Algeria
Had the pleasure of watching both Group C matches in full today. My thoughts:
- The phantom foul on the goal was on Bocanegra. I'm not saying it was right -- it wasn't -- but I'm nearly positive that's what the ref saw. He hooked his arm around the defender and I think from the ref's angle it looked like Bocanegra was the aggressor.
- The inflated expectations for this game, the size of Slovenia (the nation-state), and the fact that no one could name a single Slovenian player are what have us disappointed in not getting the W today. The fact is that Slovenia is not that bad and we're not that good. Most of their players play in top European leagues. They made it through a tough qualifying process. Not the toughest qualifying group, but would the US have picked up 20 points against Poland, Northern Ireland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and San Marino? Somehow I doubt it.
- The US is not that good. Our backline is slow and prone to really bad position play, especially Gooch and Demerit. We've gotten better at keeping the ball, but we make so little out of our possession. Not enough shots on goal. Slow starters. Tactically naive. Not sure what Bradley was thinking with the Clark for Torres switch. I like Torres, but it really underestimated our opponent to think we'd just own the ball all game.
- I thought Edu was awful in his time on the field. Very shaky on the ball.
- McNamaman was wrong and Lalas was right: England just aren't that good. The English game suits these players, and when they play with their clubs in Europe, they're surrounded by more talent, more sophistication, more creativity. I do think Gerrard is really trying to push them, to make those surging runs, but it hasn't happened for him (beyond the 5th minute of the US game). Lampard and Rooney have been worthless and, frankly, look kind of disinterested. Carragher's yellow was a blessing in disguise, as he has looked a little out of his element (which pains me to say as a 'pool fan); he'll sit the third game and I think Upson would be a better option (I'm not the only one).
- Algeria will be every bit as difficult as Slovenia was. If I'm not mistaken, if Algeria win and England and Slovenia draw, Algeria go through. I'm not sure, but if England win I don't think Algeria can advance, even if they win (they'd be tied with Slovenia, who beat them head-to-head).
More later. Gonna be a wild final day in this group.
- The phantom foul on the goal was on Bocanegra. I'm not saying it was right -- it wasn't -- but I'm nearly positive that's what the ref saw. He hooked his arm around the defender and I think from the ref's angle it looked like Bocanegra was the aggressor.
- The inflated expectations for this game, the size of Slovenia (the nation-state), and the fact that no one could name a single Slovenian player are what have us disappointed in not getting the W today. The fact is that Slovenia is not that bad and we're not that good. Most of their players play in top European leagues. They made it through a tough qualifying process. Not the toughest qualifying group, but would the US have picked up 20 points against Poland, Northern Ireland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, and San Marino? Somehow I doubt it.
- The US is not that good. Our backline is slow and prone to really bad position play, especially Gooch and Demerit. We've gotten better at keeping the ball, but we make so little out of our possession. Not enough shots on goal. Slow starters. Tactically naive. Not sure what Bradley was thinking with the Clark for Torres switch. I like Torres, but it really underestimated our opponent to think we'd just own the ball all game.
- I thought Edu was awful in his time on the field. Very shaky on the ball.
- McNamaman was wrong and Lalas was right: England just aren't that good. The English game suits these players, and when they play with their clubs in Europe, they're surrounded by more talent, more sophistication, more creativity. I do think Gerrard is really trying to push them, to make those surging runs, but it hasn't happened for him (beyond the 5th minute of the US game). Lampard and Rooney have been worthless and, frankly, look kind of disinterested. Carragher's yellow was a blessing in disguise, as he has looked a little out of his element (which pains me to say as a 'pool fan); he'll sit the third game and I think Upson would be a better option (I'm not the only one).
- Algeria will be every bit as difficult as Slovenia was. If I'm not mistaken, if Algeria win and England and Slovenia draw, Algeria go through. I'm not sure, but if England win I don't think Algeria can advance, even if they win (they'd be tied with Slovenia, who beat them head-to-head).
More later. Gonna be a wild final day in this group.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Best Goal of the World Cup So Far (Day 5)
Who would've guessed that after 5 days of matches, we'd have seen only two goals from outside the penalty area and both of those (Slovenia's winner against Algeria and Dempsey's now-infamous shot that England keeper Robert Green spilled in the USA's 1-1 draw) were pretty ugly. Sure, they all count, but everyone wants to see a blast from thirty yards fly into the net beyond a diving goalkeeper.
Worse still is the lack of goals. Those who know me know that I love defense. In football, in basketball, and in soccer, I appreciate a tactical chess match where two sides punch each other in the face a few times in a low-scoring, intense affair. I thought the Mexico-South Africa game was a fine game - not high scoring, but with plenty of attacking and great last ditch tackles by defenders. All these complaints about the ball being used, the playing surface, and the vuvuzelas in the crowd add up to one thing: quality is down. The quality has been poor. Of the big teams to play so far, only Germany has truly impressed. England and France were downright disappointing, and the Netherlands were unusually dull yesterday despite the attacking talent they have to offer.
I'd still take South Africa's opening goal as the tournament's finest, simply because of the sheer perfection of the far upper corner ("upper V", as we used to say) finish. But for the sake of posting some new material, I'm posting my runners-up below:
Cacau - Germany 4, Australia 0
Alcarez - Italy 1, Paraguay 1
Worse still is the lack of goals. Those who know me know that I love defense. In football, in basketball, and in soccer, I appreciate a tactical chess match where two sides punch each other in the face a few times in a low-scoring, intense affair. I thought the Mexico-South Africa game was a fine game - not high scoring, but with plenty of attacking and great last ditch tackles by defenders. All these complaints about the ball being used, the playing surface, and the vuvuzelas in the crowd add up to one thing: quality is down. The quality has been poor. Of the big teams to play so far, only Germany has truly impressed. England and France were downright disappointing, and the Netherlands were unusually dull yesterday despite the attacking talent they have to offer.
I'd still take South Africa's opening goal as the tournament's finest, simply because of the sheer perfection of the far upper corner ("upper V", as we used to say) finish. But for the sake of posting some new material, I'm posting my runners-up below:
Cacau - Germany 4, Australia 0
Alcarez - Italy 1, Paraguay 1
Saturday, June 12, 2010
US - England prediction
Writing this just minutes before they kick off.
Alexi Lalas is nuts and predicted the awful Greeks to advance to the second round. He just called 2-1 to the Yanks. I wish. I'd love to see a draw, but I think England is too talented. Remember, this is a team that didn't seem to have any chemistry problems as they coasted through qualifying. Capello is about as tactically shrewd as they come, and England will be ready to exploit US weaknesses, of which there are many (3/4 of the backline, holding midfield, possession play in the final third).
England 2, USA 0. I don't want to see it happen but I think it will.
The key is for the US to make it to the thirty minute mark scoreless. No early goals allowed. I'll also wager that Bradley gets second guessed on this Onyewu-DeMerit partnership, but we'll see.
Alexi Lalas is nuts and predicted the awful Greeks to advance to the second round. He just called 2-1 to the Yanks. I wish. I'd love to see a draw, but I think England is too talented. Remember, this is a team that didn't seem to have any chemistry problems as they coasted through qualifying. Capello is about as tactically shrewd as they come, and England will be ready to exploit US weaknesses, of which there are many (3/4 of the backline, holding midfield, possession play in the final third).
England 2, USA 0. I don't want to see it happen but I think it will.
The key is for the US to make it to the thirty minute mark scoreless. No early goals allowed. I'll also wager that Bradley gets second guessed on this Onyewu-DeMerit partnership, but we'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)