So, the U.S. is playing England in their first game of the group stages. It may not be the first game of the tournament or even on the opening day, but the game has already attracted a great deal of attention in both countries (okay, soccer attracting attention in the U.S. is relative). I'll open with where I stand: I think the U.S. will draw or lose to England. All things considered, that's what I believe. Fabio Capello was quite polite, calling it "no easy game." I don't think it will be for England. And I don't just mean insofar as "there are no easy games in the World Cup." I'm sure there have been a few, first of all, and second, I think it will be the toughest game England can play without losing. In fact, I would almost think the odds were nearly even: slightly in favor of the Brits, but with a fair possibility of an upset. Unfortunately, the U.S. has tended to start slow and I see no reason to believe that won't be the case in this tournament as well. The fact that this is the first game for the U.S., I argue, weights the odds further toward the English. But seriously, why is this even a question?
No offense to my Yanks, but how many players on the English squad are going to be coming from Everton, Fulham or the Bundesliga (no disrespect intended toward any of those clubs or leagues either)? Maybe Zamora deserves a shot, but that's about it. The English squad, from strikers to defenders, has superior players in every position. Tim Howard is the only exception, which is why I stopped at defenders. Donovan is good. But if you think he's a Premiership-quality striker, I will argue, at the time of this post, that is yet unproven. I think he might be. Maybe he is, but even still, is he a Rooney or even a Defoe? So why would anyone think that the U.S. was even going to be in the game with England? I think there are two answers to this: 1) For the past decade or decade-and-a-half, the American team has been better than the sum of it's parts while the English have been precisely the opposite. 2) The Brits have a star problem.
I'm actually going to discuss England for a moment. Their stars are also their Achilles' heel. England's stars should be able to pretty much go out and thrash any opponent short of Spain. They did well in the World Cup qualifiers, or rather, they won a group that they should have won and lost only one game that they shouldn't have. Still, that should give the U.S. some pause. England may not collapse this World Cup. However, it should be noted that the sheer number of absolute luminaries of the international football world on the team makes it a difficult team to coach. Few, if any (Lampard, maybe) are arrogant enough to brush off the guidance of Fabio Capello. But they also may be less likely to take his advice to heart. They may be less willing to play the style of football that he wants to them to. After all, Rooney plays a pretty nice style of football that has worked out for him so far. Bob Bradley may not have the reputation of Fabio Capello, but the mentality of the U.S. team may be different. Without the large ego of England and other European or South American teams, Bradley has a better chance to make his squad play like a team, to get his players to play the roles that he wants or needs them to, rather than the way that has worked for them at their club teams.
The U.S. also may have an advantage when it comes to player selection. It's a bizarre thing to propose with the considerable depth that England has in its national team pool. That depth, however, may cause more rotation and may inhibit England's ability to function as a team. The U.S. certainly does have rotation and it does have positions that are competed for by two or more players. But not nearly to the extent of England. Think of all the U.S. players you think might play well as a center-midfielder for the U.S. Now think about England's players. Capello may not give all of those players a try-out, but many of them are going to get a chance. When Arrigo Sacchi has recently lamented that the depth of club squads may be inhibiting their ability to play "team" soccer, is there any reason to think things are different on the national level? England's team is stacked with talent, but no offense to Mr. Capello, I'm not convinced it is the right mix of talent. Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard are two of the best midfielders in the world. It would be foolish not to play them both when you have them. Except that they are very similar players and fulfill similar roles on the field. They also have similar weaknesses, like they don't track back as much as they might. Which isn't a huge weakness, but then you really need to have a defensive midfielder. So either Capello has to put on a largely defensive midfielder who might be lower on the talent list than the rest of the team or the team isn't going to function well as a unit. Ultimately, Mr. Capello is a far better manager than I would ever be and one would be wise to go with his picks instead of mine. However, he is in the limelight and he knows that should England fail to win the entire World Cup, the English press is going to grill him (Abrahamic God, Buddha, the spirits of his ancestors, Brahma, and the pantheon of Greek gods help him if the team should do poorly and crash out at an early stage; he could be deported or killed). He knows that if he puts Lampard, but not Gerrard, or vice versa (or neglects any of England's stars in favor of a role-player), on the team and England do not succeed, that decision would be a lightning rod for controversy.
Of course, Bob Bradley would probably kill to have the talent depth of England (he might consider killing to halve the talent depth of England as well, but we don't advocate violence at this blog). The U.S. won CONCACAF, sure, it's a weak region (sorry, Mexico, it's true). If you're going to pick a weak region team to bet on, Cote d'Ivoire seems a better wager (or did, until their lackluster performance at the African Cup of Nations, thus far). The U.S. has plenty of problems, not the least of which is injuries and a total lack of depth. The U.S. squad has proven that it can do well with players without the star power of Messi, Rooney, or Torres. But having some of their finest players, Onyewu, Davies, and now Dempsey, injured and missing, at best, pre-World Cup training (at worst, the entire tournament) is not at all helpful. Especially, if the team's success is due in part to the players functioning well as a team. Injuries remove that chemistry and may force other team members to play in roles, if not positions, with which they are unfamiliar. I was going to have a whole section on Dempsey and how he seems to under-perform in a U.S. jersey, but now that he may miss the tournament, it seems more apt to point out that he has been one of the leading goal scorers for the U.S. and has drawn attention and defenders from U.S. opponents simply because he is known as one of the higher quality players on the U.S. squad. Should Dempsey miss the entire tournament, any rational individual should be downgrading their hopes of the U.S. performance in South Africa.
Considering Dempsey's injury, which took place after the majority of this post was written, I now expect the U.S. to lose to England. Quite simply, without Dempsey and Davies, I simply do not see enough of an attacking threat to score more than a goal, if that, and without a healthy, fit Onyewu, I do not believe the U.S. can shutout the attacking strength of the English.
As a fan, however, I expect the U.S. to try to go out and win.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment