We Want a More Viable Peace Partner In Charge of the USMNT

Four More Years!

Well, B.B. has solidified his hold on the U.S. men's national team. Frankly, I didn't even know he was involved, but I think at some point, we need to have a U.S. citizen running the U.S. program. Plus, he's going to be awfully busy running Israel for the foreseeable future and those up-coming peace negotiations are going to be so time consuming that I just don't know that he'll have enough time to dedicate to our blossoming program. Also, I wasn't a fan of his book, Fighting Terrorism - I thought it was largely political posturing.

What? "Who am . . . ? " Well, Benjamin Netanyahu, of course. You know, "B.B." Who did you think I . . .

Oh. Ooooooh. "Bob Bradley," you say. Well, at least he and Landon Donovan can commiserate about their inability to get a job in England.

Great. Israeli political jokes in a soccer blog. Honestly, why didn't I just go with the more obvious 1984 references? Because I respect your intelligence and worldliness, that's why.

Ow! My Toe!

Do we really think that Bob Bradley is even possibly the biggest stumbling block in front of the the U.S. soccer program? Honestly, I think talent and pedigree are still the greatest impediments. Yes, that is a stumbling block/stubbed toe reference in the section header. This is why I shouldn't be allowed to blog in the morning.

Did anyone read the news about Bob's contract extension and honestly think, "Well, that's it: we're not taking the World Cup home in Brazil"? If so, I salute your optimism and faith in the players to think that he's the one holding them back, but I think you should probably be locked up.

Bob Bradley has plenty of detractors, but it's tough to argue that he hasn't been pretty good for this program. The U.S. program has reached new heights under his leadership, he is complimented by many other coaches - including the Swiss coach who credited Bradley with showing the world how to beat Spain, and the players all seem to like and respect Bradley. Bradley's critics tend to argue that Bradley has had a lot of luck: England was weak this year, as was our group; the U.S. victory over Spain was due to poor Spanish play; Mexico had a bad qualifying run. Maybe, but as the list gets longer it really seems like the team is making their luck. I would also argue that Bradley has helped soccer in the U.S. as a whole; with a team of moderately talented players, he has made them competitive against some of the top sides in the world. That may help "sell" soccer: Few Americans are really looking for the opportunity to see their country thrashed by Brazil, but plenty of sports fans love an underdog story - especially an underdog who makes victory look possible. Lots of fans and pundits like to criticize some of his decisions (I know I do) ranging from tactics to player selection, but in the end, I think his results this far have been pretty good.

The Emmanuel Goldstein Perspective

There's your Orwell joke. Happy? I do view Bob Bradley's contract extension as a missed opportunity for both the USSF and for Bradley himself. Bob Bradley is still reasonably young and, frankly, he is still quite inexperienced. He's coached in the U.S. and . . . that's it. That's great for his familiarity with the U.S. game and players, but if he is going to move on as a coach, he's going to need at least passing knowledge how the game is played, and coached, in the other parts of the world.
As for the USMNT, Bradley has done an excellent job making the U.S. competitive with teams better than the U.S., but has floundered when faced with teams that were weaker or more even with the U.S. team. The vibrant and often-lethal counter-attacking culture that Bradley has instilled in the U.S. team is not effective when opponents are content to draw at zero or refuse to commit too many players forward, fearing the U.S. attack. A new coach brings in fresh ideas and can perhaps teach a team that consistently defeats Mexico to dominate games the way that Mexico does. Such tactics are going to become more necessary as the U.S. talent pool is expanding at what appears to be nearly a geometric-rate. The U.S. isn't going to start thrashing the likes of Argentina or Germany any time soon, but more teams are going to start playing conservatively against the U.S. and that will weaken Bradley's tactics. All that aside, at some point, simply having a fresh perspective is necessary to advance the quality of the team.

Don't Blame Fabio Capello

The coach matters. Somewhat. Let's not exaggerate the impact of these guys though. Fabio Capello simply did not affect the English national team enough to make them play that poorly. The managers get to coach their players a couple of weeks per year. Yes, there can be poor substitutions and poor line-ups, but let us not forget that arguing that different player selection would have been better is counter-factual and should be viewed with healthy skepticism. Ultimately, a coach can be a multiplier at the end of the equation, but the quality of the players and their ability to play together is far more important than the coach, his substitutions, and tactical predispositions. Right now, the rising level of quality in the U.S. player pool is more important than the coach. Re-hiring Bradley is not an aggressive move, but it is a relatively stable one. While the U.S. is still trying to get it's soccer program organized and capable of fully harnessing advantageous demographic shifts and the rise of a domestic division-1 soccer league, a little stability in some part of the program isn't the worst idea. Really, it's a bigger shame that Bradley couldn't find a better job somewhere else.

Well, that was embarrassing

Thank god, the US Men's National Team played; I have something to talk about other than D.C. United (and my inconsistent punctuation in this blog). I was really getting sick of having to write about a team being completely outclassed, toyed with, and ultimately embarrassed by their opposition. I was sick of writing about a team that can't find the back of the net with both hands and a map. I was sick of writing about a team that got fewer than five shots on frame. I was sick of writing about big defensive lapses and the inability to play the ball through the midfield. So, alright, Brazil - US; here's the recap:

Dammit. I think I covered most of the generalities in the above paragraph, so let's get down to the nitty gritty.

Donovan and Bradley played a level above the rest of their team, I think. They really lived up to their reputation as world class players. Good for them. Donovan disappeared for a little while and Bradley wasn't perfect, but they both looked like they belonged out there and inspired confidence when they had the ball.

Guzan looked good. He made some good saves and he was in a shooting gallery much of the match (I have more appreciation for that after my 5-a-side experience). Howard wasn't at fault for the goals. He played well, but didn't ever have the opportunity to come up huge like Guzan.

Bedoya and Gonzalez were far from perfect, but neither looked particularly outclassed or lost. Of the two, I think that Bedoya was shakier. He wasn't really impressive, but I liked his hunger.

Strikers continue to be a nightmare for the U.S. Altidore looked better than Buddle, Findley, and Gomez, but he looked stronger and more able to impose his physicality in the World Cup. He didn't come off as particularly dangerous on Tuesday night. Gomez and Findley both had flashes of good, in fact, I didn't mind Gomez out there at all (was he on the wing?). Buddle was totally outclassed and completely ineffective, but that may have been because he was cast as the lone striker. Donovan is great going forward, but he tracks back way too much to effectively pair with a single striker. That was a poor decision by Bob Bradley.

Kljestan needs to calm the hell down and not see the field until he does. Feilhaber, I don't want to see start again. Subbing one for the other makes me weep a little.

Boca was fine, but was hardly a rock in central defense. I just don't think Bornstein has it for this level. He had some good moments late in the game, most of them going forward, but his defending was below par and the Brazilians noticed very quickly. Spector, on the other hand, seems to have regressed somewhat. His defending wasn't atrocious, but he never got his rhythm going forward - a role in which he was stronger for Hammers in the Prem and for the U.S. in the Confederations' Cup.

So what to make of this? It was an embarrassment. Okay, no Dempsey or Gooch. Torres wasn't available either, though I don't know if I can say the US was "missing" a guy who usually can't crack the starting eleven (although, adding a possession-oriented central mid might have helped. Brazil maintained a lot of pressure on the midfielders and Torres maintaining possession could have helped. . . if he could maintain possession). Still no Davies, but we're all holding out hope. Moreover, 2 - 0 isn't the worst score ever, but it could have and probably should have been considerably worse. Considering the Brazilians brought a very young squad, this serves as a reminder that the U.S. is a much better team, but is still lacking anything remotely resembling depth and has significant weakness in the starting squad.

But did you think that we were going to beat Brazil?

P.S. After posting this, I realized the Edu was on the field as well. That I forgot entirely more-or-less sums up my opinion of his play.

What the Hell Are You So Happy About?

WOO! LANDY! Hey, no disrespect with the name. I'm not calling you, "Mandon" lest you sound like a gay porn star. You've definitely graduated from "Landycakes," although I may throw that one in affectionately every now-and-then. And not so affectionately if you come to D.C. in a Galaxy uniform. If the Germans can call Schweinsteiger, "Schweini," you can be "Landy."

Okay, I am euphoria-ed out. No, really, I was happy yesterday, giddy even. The result is fantastic, 1st in the group ahead of England with a chance for revenge against Ghana, who knocked us out of the tournament in Germany (Honestly, we lost that game more than Ghana "won" it). Moreover, the U.S., under a lot of pressure and giant spotlight, came through. I suppose the "end" justifies the "means," since there are no points for style and sports are results-based in the end. I just don't think the "means" that the U.S. has shown will get them as far as they can go.

Here's the crux of it: I think the U.S. still choked a good bit. That England game should have been a loss, if not for a goal-keeping error. Holding England 1-0 still wouldn't have been bad, except that England barely made it out of the group (that Slovenian keeper is awful at close range shots - I know he's "highly-rated," but I think a good keeper (Howard) saves both Donovan's and Defoe's strikes). England played really, really poorly. Not as poorly as, say, France or Italy (laughter ensues), but poorly enough. Maybe England is ranked too highly in general, but they should have been able to defeat Algeria and probably should have handled Slovenia more easily. Gave up an early goal against England, TWO first half goals to Slovenia (Algeria held them to one), and took until 90+ to score on Algeria. Sure, Algeria had a decent defense, but how many chances did the U.S. miss? We were fortunate that this tournament is crazy and that we had a weak group. I predicted that we wouldn't make it out of the group, true. I'm glad I was wrong. However, I don't believe that the U.S. can continue as it has. It has to show the team we saw at the end of the Confederations Cup. Make no mistake - we have not seen that team yet. We've seen the team the won the group in qualifying, but this has been far from the U.S. at their best.

Drawing England with a soft goal, coming back to draw Slovenia, squeaking out a win against Algeria - it's good that the U.S. got results while playing somewhere between good and mediocre. But they did so against weak teams, that's hardly convincing that we're ready for the big kids on the block. . Maybe Ghana will bring it out of them. However, that is another game that, by most analysis, the U.S. should win. I hope for a win. More than that, I hope for something to give me hope for an upset when we play a team that should be better than us.

Do we expect too much as fans?

I wonder. Are we expecting too much?

Is it too much to expect good teams to play atleast decently? Is it too much to expect referees to call a good match? Is it too much to expect FIFA to look at video technology? Is it too much to expect Fabio Capello to pick his team by form rather than by names like he promised? Am I asking too many questions?

Today has seen three games with horrible results. Germany was robbed first thing this morning by a referee who was card happy and sent off Miroslav Klose in the first half. In the second game, the USA was robbed of three points by a ref who disallowed a goal wrongly and didn't see the Slovenian players hugging several Americans to the ground. In the third game the ref was not the problem. The players for England can't seem to get over themselves to actually try and Capello can't be bothered to make tactical changes when for the England v. USA game it was apparent that Heskey was useless. Gerrard gave up around the 65th minute today. Even Rooney gave up. Capello was just lucky that David James didn't manage to lose the game for him.

So we now stand at an interesting point. It is no longer a question of whether England or the US would finish first in the group, but more likely who of those two might actually get out of the group, but I'd even argue if either can get out of the group. Both England and the US could easily lose next week. I actually feel bad for US fans such as my partner in this blog, and English fans.

Lightning always strikes twice

There were a lot of twos yesterday: Both the U.S. and D.C. United won, the U.S. scored two goals, D.C. United won two in a row, and unexpectedly both teams at the bottom of the East (D.C. and Philadelphia) won leaving D.C. still the worst team in the league. Only one brace though, as far I know, was DeRo's in Toronto.

U.S. 2 - Turkey 1

After a thoroughly lackluster first half and yet another defensive lapse resulting in a goal against, the U.S. men picked up a scrappy win. Dempsey and Altidore walked away with the goals, but they were not who particularly impressed.

Donovan's first touch that rounded the keeper and subsequent pass on the first goal were excellent. The second goal was quite fortunate, Dempsey basically hip-checked Donovan's awkwardly placed pass roughly into both his and his defender's path, the ball took a deflection off the defender's ankle directly into Dempsey's feet and Dempsey's low shot squeezed between the keeper's arm and body. Not impressive, but it is the type of goal that the U.S. will need to be able to convert.

Bob Bradley's choice of Robbie Findley over Brian Ching was vindicated somewhat by this game. Findley still hung on to the ball for far too long, but Findley looked like a player who could actually use his speed to create, if not convert, opportunities. His play was a couple steps above what we have seen from him at previous national level games or at Real Salt Lake this year.

Jonathan Bornstein was amazing. . .ly bad. I lost count of the number of times he was caught out of position or just burned by the man he should have been marking. Maybe he was trying to make Heath Peace feel better.

Torres, '80s Charlie Sheen hair ("Drugs? You in here for drugs?") notwithstanding, looked good. Not as great as ESPN seems to think he is, but he certainly looked lively, aggressive, and adapted his play to Route 1 soccer. Also, his free kick everything we've been promised from him short of a goal. Donovan's free kicks are excellent as well, but it's nice to have an alternative.

On the whole, the team looked only slightly less worrying than they have since qualifying.

D.C. United 3 - 2 Chivas USA

We have more points than a triangle and karma is a bitch, ain't it Chivas?

Okay, D.C. still did not look good. Najar's goal was a free-header and possibly off-sides (I have seen no replays yet), Christman was in the right place at the right time, and D.C. can hardly rely upon injury-time penalties in which the keeper is sent off. D.C. has been looking better, but that's only a comment upon how poor they looked earlier in the season, and continued their improving trend this week. If they ever manage to direct their headers on corners, they might actually be threatening.

Tino hit the post twice and his free kicked looks more like last year's and less like this year's stratospheric blasts. As a forward, Tino didn't look as lost or desperate to create as he has in the midfield.

Najar took some knocks, looked good in general, but is still quite young and over-looked some passing opportunities. I also noticed that the young man has a very deft first touch and close control, but when called to dribble forward, the ball gets away from him quite a bit and defenders were easily clearing the ball off of him.

The jury is still out on King, but I'm leaning toward adequate to mediocre.

D.C.'s central defense still looks incredibly vulnerable to speed and the actual "defending" abilities of Jordan Graye and Rodney Wallace continue to look suspect as left and right backs. That is not to say that I don't like them in their positions, but I don't believe either is a natural defender and quite frankly their defensive lapses and tendency to get forward probably puts too much pressure on the center backs (both Pena and Jakovic are incredibly talented, but don't have the pace to provide too much additional coverage).

Unfortunately, I don't think this is the beginning of a turn around - Chivas was having a bad spell anyway and there problems with D.C.'s defense are too glaring. . . that and the fact that I still doubt this team's ability to score consistently. I'll take the win and be happy this Memorial Day weekend and that's about it.

U.S. 2 - 4 Czech Republic: Thoughts

Well, losing is never good, but it's not the end of the world. Not promising, mind you. But not the end of the world. I'm not going to recap the game, but rather list some of my thoughts and impressions.

• I have Torres' name and Kljestan's number on my U.S. jersey, apparently. Serves me right, but it should be okay: I don't think either of them is going. Kljestan was not bad, he was just a complete non-factor. Torres, I do not think will be selected. I still rate Torres quite highly, probably higher than most people think I should, and I thought he played well tonight. If the U.S. were playing with the squad they used tonight, I would keep Torres. However, he demonstrated neither the imagination nor the ambition going forward that are going to be necessary to the U.S. counter-attack. Dempsey and Donovan will be looking for long passes into space to try to disorient opposing defenses. Torres' short passing and maintenance-of-possession were quite good, however the U.S. is not a possession team.

• If I had to guess between Buddle and Gomez, I think that Gomez is going. However, I don't think that he has a lock. Buddle was much more involved, whereas Gomez looked much more dangerous.

• Demerit and Feilhaber didn't even dress? I don't like that at all. Neither of them should be a lock, in my book, to go to South Africa.

• I want Brian Ching on the squad. There, I said it. Unlike Gomez, Buddle, and EJ, Ching showed some creativity and intelligence. The other three strikers were trying to use their physicality to force opportunities, but to little avail. Brian Ching's back-heels and short passes into space really opened up the Czech defense. In addition, he did what he was supposed to do, and that was to hang on to the ball.

• Onyewu looked hesitant and not just on the first goal. There were a couple of challenges. Not all - he went in hard often and looked like his old self at times. Hopefully, the hesitance is due to it being his first game back, not due to a mental block.

• Beasley looked acceptable, shockingly. I don't rate him very highly, normally. But he looked acceptable as cover.

• Heath Pearce, EJ, you'll be watching the games from your couches or, at best, the stands. Nothing personal, but you didn't have it tonight. Bornstein, you might be going because Pearce blew it.

• Edu or Bedoya. . . that's a tough one. Neither really impressed, but both showed the speed and aggression that Bradley will probably consider an asset in the midfield. Probably Bedoya, due to his promise. Edu has had numerous opportunities, but never managed to lock himself in.

• Holden looked quite good, especially considering he's just back from a broken ankle (Nigel De Jong can burn in a lake of sulphur for all eternity as far as I am concerned).

• Goodson appears to have secured himself a ticket to South Africa. He's not my first choice in central defense, but he's not Bob Bradley's either. He seems more than adequate as cover.

• No Spector tonight; I'm not sure what to make of that. Bradley has made clear in the past that he has doubts about Spector, but it's tough to see benching, let alone not taking, a player who was first team on a side in the English Prem.

• Last but not least, Guzan is now probably last and least. He didn't make any howlers, but he certainly didn't control his box and probably didn't come out as aggressively as he should have on the 3rd and 4th goals. That's not certain because we didn't see any of Hahnemann, but Bradley saw him play during the English season, unlike Guzan. Guzan, I think, is now the U.S.'s third keeper.