Czeching out

"We're still a fraud."
-- Casey Stengel, after the Mets lost 7-0 to St. Louis to open the 1963 season

I can barely believe I just watched that. It's one thing for the U.S. to lose - we were playing the #2 team in the world, after all, even if some pundits feel that ranking (like ours) is a tad high, and we have, historically, not fared well in Europe (0-7 all-time in the World Cup there - 0-3 in 1990 and 1998, and 0-1 in 1934) - but to lose badly, and to look just awful in doing so... that is what really baffles me. Wasn't this the best U.S. team ever? Hadn't we improved? Sure, we could have played well and still lost to a team this good - but not 3-0. And we did not play well.

So what went wrong? Let's see just how many items we'd get if we made a list:

1. The Czechs were stronger. The size advantage may have been minimal outside of Jan Koller, but the Czechs won a ton of 50/50 balls and frequently stood up American runs.

2. The Czechs were faster. See Rosicky's second goal for about all the proof you need on this one. The Americans just looked tired and slow and were frequently caught flat-footed on both offense and, more problematically, defense.

3. Minimal aggressiveness from the Americans. The U.S. man of the match has to be Eddie Johnson, about the only guy who seriously threatened Petr Cech aside from Claudio Reyna's post action and an actual invigorating presence. Too bad he couldn't invigorate more than one or two of his teammates. As Marcelo Balboa noted midway through the second half, the Americans were mostly "standing around waiting for the ball to come to them." If they had been playing for a 0-0 draw maybe this would have been an acceptable tactic, but they were already down 2-0 at this point.

4. Horrible ball control. The U.S. actually won time of possession 52-48, which proves nothing except that there is no more overrated stat in sports with the exception of the hold in baseball. I've often come away from U.S. games feeling underwhelmed by the quality of their touches, but this took the cake. For every decent pass, there were five that missed their target terribly; at least one of every two balls played to the feet of an American either bounced up or away from them, enabling the Czech defense to catch up on the rare occasions they were behind or just generally letting the opportunity get squandered. This might as well have been the team of college kids who lost 5-1 to Czechoslovakia in 1990.

5. Weak crosses. It seemed like 75% of the American crosses, especially Convey's, were way too low and easily deflected by Czech heads. It also didn't help that the Czechs were winning most of the header battles, but even when the Americans were around the box, they just couldn't get decent service inside it. Speaking of which:

6. Little to no adjustment as the game went on. Because of the poor service, McBride was a complete non-factor; he thrives when his teammates are getting him the ball for headers and finishes, but when nothing's coming his way he's a ghost. Either Arena needed to tell his guys they had to have better service, or he should have pulled McBride for Wolff much, much earlier.

7. Poor defensive marking. Who the hell was supposed to be on Koller when he scored? I realize he's big, but shouldn't someone have been in front of him? The Americans also played with fire with the offsides trap; it's nice and all, but how about just defending? The offsides trap is the mark of a team that knows it can't stop its opponent on its own; it's the sort of thing you see when some Conference team plays Man U in the FA Cup. The reliance on the trap led to the third Czech goal, as noted above; Rosicky timed it perfectly, outhustled the last defender, and there was no one else to stop him. Meanwhile, the Czechs seemed to have eight guys in the box every time the Americans came down.

8. Zero team chemistry. Arena's been deified for making U.S. Soccer respectable for the first time in 75 years, but it's time someone other than DaMarcus Beasley called him out for the questionable practice of keeping his lineups secret from everyone - including his players - and not playing the same starting 11 together for nearly long enough during qualifying. A lot of problems 3, 4, 6, and 7 came from the fact that this team hasn't played together enough and just doesn't look comfortable; it's like playing an MLS All-Star team against Chelsea. I have to believe that the Americans have more inherent talent than they showed, but when you just don't know how your teammates like to play the game, it's tough to get in sync, especially in the first game and especially against an opponent this strong. That's why it looked like so many passes weren't working, that's why the Americans looked so tentative on offense for much of the game, and that's why the defense looked so muddled. You have to know where your teammates are going to be, and if you don't play with them, you aren't going to. I know it's hard to get this kind of chemistry on a national team, since guys are off with their clubs for most of the year, but every soccer power seems to manage it somehow. (Possible exception: England, who always seem to try coasting on their talent. Then again, they also have a knack for failing to come through in big games, and I doubt that's entirely coincidental.)

Can the U.S. still go through to the second round? Sure - they haven't been mathematically eliminated, and wins over Italy and Ghana would all but punch the ticket. But if you think the team we saw today has any chance of beating Italy... well, you can pretty much forget that. Heck, they might not even be able to beat Ghana. Major adjustments are necessary - and Arena needs to decide on a lineup now and let them play together for the next four days. I know his theory about not letting the other team know who or what to prepare for... but a fat lot of good that did them today. Arena dubbed his team a "sleeping giant" before the Czech game; maybe if the right things are done before Saturday, the U.S. will show up for their next two games without looking like they've still got their pajamas on.