"Players win games, coaches lose them, referees ruin them."
-- Eric Wynalda
Absolutely brutal game. It could not in any way have been more poorly officiated; Franz Beckenbauer may well have had an aneurysm in the 47th after the U.S. had two players sent off in the space of three minutes between the end of the first half and the start of the second. The Italian red card - a flagrant elbow to the head, justified. Mastroeni's red in the 45th? Ridiculous. His spikes were out but not fully up - it's not the worst straight red I've ever seen, not even in this tournament (Ukraine's red against Spain was an obscenely bad call), but it was a bad one considering it wasn't in the box or anything. Should have been a yellow. Pope's second yellow in the 47th? Again, probably not the single worst yellow you'll ever see, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a pretty terrible call. That said, we got nothing out of Pope, to paraphrase Bruce Arena; it was his stupid "playing the offsides trap when no one else is" mistake that gave Italy their goal after the U.S. dominated play for the first 20 minutes. Still, the ref's itchy card hand cost the U.S. the game; the fact that we got some decent chances even with nine men should tell you that Italy weren't playing very well. The U.S. defense finally got it together in the second half (ironic since there were only three professional defenders out there) and avoided conceding even though the Italians were on the front foot for most of the 45, and Keller actually made a couple of nice saves.
Beasley's non-goal? Yeah, I guess it was offsides, but man, that sucked. We were screaming in the apartment thinking the U.S. could pull off a miracle. Though frankly, holding with nine men (even if the Italians had just ten themselves)? Kind of a miracle. Though they made mistakes and were punished for a couple of them, this might have been the best international performance in U.S. soccer history, when you combine the aspects of where they were, who they were playing, what happened in the game, and the size of the stage they were on. Gritty, draining second half performance. I just hope the team has something left for Ghana, because those guys aren't exactly pushovers. Combine the Ghana stunner with the U.S. game and the fact that it was almost 90 degrees in the apartment until halftime of the U.S. game and this is easily the most exhausting sports day of my life. I'm just relieved we held on; we can't win the group now, which is unfortunate (because that door had been opened with Ghana's win, and you know Brazil is going to be waiting for the #2 team), but with the way the team played in the first game, and today's partial redemption, I'd take advancement. Ironically I'm now compelled to root for Italy, but even though they're all whiners I think the Czechs annoy me more. Viva Italia!
Cribbing from the format of Michael Davies' rating of England players, here's how I thought the U.S. did:
Not At All Crap
Oguchi Onyewu
Steve Cherundolo
Clint Dempsey
Onyewu had a couple dumb fouls early but managed to avoid a card, and once he settled down he was the most reliable defender at the back. Cherundolo was also fairly good on defense and had no notable lapses. Dempsey's energy and creativity didn't lead to enough U.S. chances, but that was pretty much never his fault. He's gotta start against Ghana.
A Little Crap, But Only a Little
Kasey Keller
Landon Donovan
Carlos Bocanegra
Bobby Convey
DaMarcus Beasley
Claudio Reyna
Jimmy Conrad
Most of the team played pretty well, though all had a handful of flaws. Keller made a couple decent saves but did not punt especially well. Donovan was much more aggressive in the midfield than in the last game but was still too hesitant at the top of the area (so was most of the team, which has to stop). Bocanegra played pretty good defense, enough so that I rarely found myself forced to comment on him, but he did nearly head in an own goal (it went off the crossbar). Convey's speed was good but I think his crosses still leave a bit to be desired. Beasley played great for five to ten minutes and then stopped running, perhaps dispirited that his goal was stripped - but you've gotta keep playing hard. For a while he energized the team but then he vanished, something I don't think Eddie Johnson would have done. Reyna, I feel pretty much the same way about him as Donovan - better than last game (in Reyna's case, since he didn't suck against the Czechs, maybe as good) but didn't help create enough really great chances at the top of the box. Conrad was a minimal factor, but he didn't allow a goal.
Fairly Crap
Brian McBride
Pablo Mastroeni
McBride was much more effective than last game, but considering how invisible he was in Gelsenkirchen that's only saying so much. The couple good chances that came to him he couldn't finish, and it was his interference that prevented Beasley's goal from counting, so I'm forced to stick him here. Mastroeni may be getting a bit of a raw deal since there's no way it was a straight red, but refs frequently give makeup calls and Mastroeni's clumsy tackle gave the ref far too large an excuse to pull another one out.
BMOP (Bowel Movement on Pitch)
Eddie Pope
Absolutely wretched. Even if he could start against Ghana I would hope Arena would bench him like crazy. Take away the second yellow, which was weak; the first yellow was pretty fair if I remember right, and emblematic of one of Pope's many defensive breakdowns. The most egregious of those came in the 22nd, when he inexplicably left his man on a free kick hoping to play the offsides trap - except he didn't tell anyone else, so Gilardino was easily onsides and buried it past a helpless Keller (who really hasn't given up a single goal in this tournament he could do anything about, and three of those involved embarrassing defensive lapses). If I were Bruce Arena I feel like I would have pulled Pope right that second (assuming I could have noticed it from the bench, of course). Pope's game today made Jeff Agoos look like John Terry. What I don't get about Pope is this: I swear that every time I watch the U.S. play, he has a bad game. Why is he such an unquestioned starter?
Other than that, meh. I'm not sure why Arena sat on the last substitution, especially with Reyna (and everyone else, really) clearly flagging late in the game. Put in Johnson and try for a last burst, or put in Lewis to tighten up the back, but why leave a sub on the table in a game this draining? Other than that I thought his changes were pretty good.
There is no doubt in my mind that this team does not attack enough. The midfield play itself was nice and aggressive, but everyone tensed up around the area. Can't happen. Please note that the U.S. have still not scored a goal of their own in the World Cup; they need to get at least two up there on Thursday, and that won't happen without more movement in the box. Maybe the U.S. were willing to play for the draw today, but Thursday it's win or bust. Ghana are good, as we saw today, but they're not so good that I would let their offense preoccupy me and waste energy by trying to divide and conquer. Sure, make sure you've got a solid defensive unit out there. But attack, attack, attack. Do, or do not. There is no try.
Whew. Anyone else feel like that second half took ten years off your life?
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Friday, June 16, 2006
World Cup Day Eight
So much for the Group of Death. Especially Serbia's place in it. The Ivory Coast may have been eliminated but they put up two spirited fights; the Netherlands and Argentina were clearly just better. But they only lost 2-1 each time. Serbia, meanwhile, haven't scored a goal yet while surrendering seven, which is only seven times as many as they allowed in ten qualifying games (to be fair, though, they weren't exactly in the toughest group, apart from Spain), and they've been absolutely dominated on both sides of the ball by both Argentina and the Dutch. The Argentines are looking like strong candidates to go a long way in the tournament, and their game against the Netherlands on Wednesday ought to be a great one (unless both teams decide they don't care whether they win the group or not and rest guys, the only drawback to scheduling the bulk of your anticipated marquee matchups at the back end of group play).
I think Cambiasso's goal - Argentina's second, the backheel from Crespo - was the prettiest of the six. Possibly the best goal of the tournament among the ones I've seen. Along with Spain and probably Holland, Argentina really are looking like a major contender right now, at least as far as "firing on all cylinders in the first round" means "looking like a major contender."
Weekend Matches That Will Tell Us a Lot About Their Groups
* Portugal-Iran. Mexico handled Iran pretty well, so Portugal need to take care of business after the Mexicans stumbled to a draw with Angola. This should tell us something about what to expect out of the Portugal/Mexico final that will most likely determine first vs. second place - though with Argentina and Holland waiting, do you want to be either of these teams?
* Brazil-Australia. I think the general consensus is that Brazil aren't as bad as they looked and Australia aren't as good as three goals in eight minutes would suggest. I also think that Brazil could be pulling a 2000 New York Yankees - do just enough to get into the next round, then roll. I'd love to see Australia get a result here, even if only a draw, though.
* US-Italy. A-duh. Something of a must-win for both teams, though the Italians might settle for a draw if they think they can beat the Czechs. How will the U.S. rebound? Will the offense look like anything other than total crap? Tough questions that will be answered soon.
I think Cambiasso's goal - Argentina's second, the backheel from Crespo - was the prettiest of the six. Possibly the best goal of the tournament among the ones I've seen. Along with Spain and probably Holland, Argentina really are looking like a major contender right now, at least as far as "firing on all cylinders in the first round" means "looking like a major contender."
Weekend Matches That Will Tell Us a Lot About Their Groups
* Portugal-Iran. Mexico handled Iran pretty well, so Portugal need to take care of business after the Mexicans stumbled to a draw with Angola. This should tell us something about what to expect out of the Portugal/Mexico final that will most likely determine first vs. second place - though with Argentina and Holland waiting, do you want to be either of these teams?
* Brazil-Australia. I think the general consensus is that Brazil aren't as bad as they looked and Australia aren't as good as three goals in eight minutes would suggest. I also think that Brazil could be pulling a 2000 New York Yankees - do just enough to get into the next round, then roll. I'd love to see Australia get a result here, even if only a draw, though.
* US-Italy. A-duh. Something of a must-win for both teams, though the Italians might settle for a draw if they think they can beat the Czechs. How will the U.S. rebound? Will the offense look like anything other than total crap? Tough questions that will be answered soon.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
World Cup Day Seven
I knew I wasn't going to have time to watch any of the games today, so I just followed the game logs on the BBC website. Brief observations:
* Ecuador! I guess that whole thing about winning at altitude turned out to be kind of overrated, huh? Not that Costa Rica are the greatest out there but Poland aren't awful. I guess the real test will be the German game. If Ecuador don't lose the game, they'll actually win that group, which is kind of crazy when you think about it.
* How much can it possibly suck to have absolutely nothing to play for? Costa Rica and Poland are both eliminated and they have to play each other, which means they don't even get to play the role of spoiler. I guess they can avoid trying to finish last. Costa Rica are on no points and -7 GD, which by my count currently puts them dead last in the Cup.
* That entire Group B has been pretty uninspiring, huh? Kinda sad when your most exciting game is a 0-0 draw. England are through despite not looking great at all. You have to give the edge to Sweden to be the second team, as the chalk would have dictated, but Trinidad and Tobago are, shockingly enough since they have yet to score a goal, still in it. They need to win, have England beat Sweden, and make up three goals in the process (and even then that would only draw them dead-even with Sweden, so really they'd want to make up four if possible). Considering the level of scoring in this group so far, I'm doubting that one.
* This absolutely has to be the most talented England team in at least a generation, so you have to wonder why they look so bad at times. I think it comes back to the all-star team problem. These players don't play together that much all year, but even when they do, the "get as many stars into the lineup as possible" method presents some problems since Rooney and Owen are totally different types of forwards and they don't start a single holding midfielder (not a natural one at any rate). They've also had all kinds of second-half problems under Eriksson (see: 2002 World Cup, especially games against Argentina and Brazil), which at least they squashed a little today. That comes when Eriksson suddenly yanks the stars in the midfielder and throws in a bunch of defense as long as England have a lead, however slim. It's fashionable to bash the manager in England, and he's invited plenty of it on himself, but no matter how you feel about his extracurriculars, there is little denying that he is overly cautious at times. A team with this much talent, especially on offense, shouldn't sit back so much. Does Brazil?
* An England-Germany round of 16 game sounds pretty good if you're a soccer fan, doesn't it? Maybe not so much if you're a fan of those two teams, though. Despite Ecuador's early success, I'm sure England fans would rather their team face the South Americans than the home team.
* Ecuador! I guess that whole thing about winning at altitude turned out to be kind of overrated, huh? Not that Costa Rica are the greatest out there but Poland aren't awful. I guess the real test will be the German game. If Ecuador don't lose the game, they'll actually win that group, which is kind of crazy when you think about it.
* How much can it possibly suck to have absolutely nothing to play for? Costa Rica and Poland are both eliminated and they have to play each other, which means they don't even get to play the role of spoiler. I guess they can avoid trying to finish last. Costa Rica are on no points and -7 GD, which by my count currently puts them dead last in the Cup.
* That entire Group B has been pretty uninspiring, huh? Kinda sad when your most exciting game is a 0-0 draw. England are through despite not looking great at all. You have to give the edge to Sweden to be the second team, as the chalk would have dictated, but Trinidad and Tobago are, shockingly enough since they have yet to score a goal, still in it. They need to win, have England beat Sweden, and make up three goals in the process (and even then that would only draw them dead-even with Sweden, so really they'd want to make up four if possible). Considering the level of scoring in this group so far, I'm doubting that one.
* This absolutely has to be the most talented England team in at least a generation, so you have to wonder why they look so bad at times. I think it comes back to the all-star team problem. These players don't play together that much all year, but even when they do, the "get as many stars into the lineup as possible" method presents some problems since Rooney and Owen are totally different types of forwards and they don't start a single holding midfielder (not a natural one at any rate). They've also had all kinds of second-half problems under Eriksson (see: 2002 World Cup, especially games against Argentina and Brazil), which at least they squashed a little today. That comes when Eriksson suddenly yanks the stars in the midfielder and throws in a bunch of defense as long as England have a lead, however slim. It's fashionable to bash the manager in England, and he's invited plenty of it on himself, but no matter how you feel about his extracurriculars, there is little denying that he is overly cautious at times. A team with this much talent, especially on offense, shouldn't sit back so much. Does Brazil?
* An England-Germany round of 16 game sounds pretty good if you're a soccer fan, doesn't it? Maybe not so much if you're a fan of those two teams, though. Despite Ecuador's early success, I'm sure England fans would rather their team face the South Americans than the home team.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
World Cup Day Six
It hasn't been a good tournament so far for the games I listed as the ten I most wanted to see. USA-Czechs was an ugly blowout, and so was today's Spain-Ukraine game. (The other two of the ten that have already taken place, England-Paraguay and France-Switzerland, were total snoozers.) I guess Spain-Ukraine was good if you like goals, and the fourth was a cracker. On the other hand, maybe that goal doesn't happen if Ukraine aren't reduced to ten men on one of the worst straight reds you'll ever see in your life (to say nothing of the fact that it shouldn't have been a penalty either). This is not to say that Ukraine were ever in the game, because they weren't. They may possibly have played worse in relation to their opponents than did the U.S. in the Czech game. So what set up to be the best game of the day actually ended up being the worst.
I had minimal interest in Saudi Arabia-Tunisia and didn't have the time to watch three full games (though I skipped through much of the second half of Spain-Ukraine for obvious reasons), but I did watch the goals. Considering how unfancied both these teams are in their group, all the goals were pretty nice-looking. Of course, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia were playing Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, respectively. I don't think either has a chance against a Spanish side firing on all cylinders, but one or both could steal a point or more from Ukraine unless the first game really told us that much more about the Spanish than about the Ukrainians. Ukraine does still have to be favored to advance for now, I think, given their performance against a strong qualifying group.
Germany-Poland was the game of the day and one of the best of the tournament so far, even if I'm no particular fan of either team. It basically embodied a lot of what I find so great about soccer - it was a wide-open game with both teams frequently going on the attack, but a lot of good goal-keeping (especially from Boruc, who would have been man of the match had it finished in a draw) kept it scoreless. The double crossbar right before the 90th was insane, and I think most people thought Germany couldn't break through after that... and then they struck. Wouldn't have happened if Poland had had 11, probably, but the foul that drew the second yellow was plenty legit. Tough break for the Poles; after looking bad against Ecuador, they play probably about as well as they can against Germany and still get no points out of it, and now they're going home early again barring a Costa Rica win over Ecuador, a Poland win over Costa Rica, a German win over Ecuador, and a bunch of stuff that fixes the -3 GD Poland currently has. It's not as impossible as it could be, but you hate to have to rely on so specific a sequence of events. Any draws in there and Poland's done, for example, and there hasn't been a World Cup group without a draw since Group H in 1998. So... yeah.
Tomorrow's games: Ecuador-Costa Rica, England-Trinidad, Sweden-Paraguay. I'd say I'm most interested in the middle one. But really it's all building up to the do-or-die U.S. game on Saturday.
I had minimal interest in Saudi Arabia-Tunisia and didn't have the time to watch three full games (though I skipped through much of the second half of Spain-Ukraine for obvious reasons), but I did watch the goals. Considering how unfancied both these teams are in their group, all the goals were pretty nice-looking. Of course, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia were playing Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, respectively. I don't think either has a chance against a Spanish side firing on all cylinders, but one or both could steal a point or more from Ukraine unless the first game really told us that much more about the Spanish than about the Ukrainians. Ukraine does still have to be favored to advance for now, I think, given their performance against a strong qualifying group.
Germany-Poland was the game of the day and one of the best of the tournament so far, even if I'm no particular fan of either team. It basically embodied a lot of what I find so great about soccer - it was a wide-open game with both teams frequently going on the attack, but a lot of good goal-keeping (especially from Boruc, who would have been man of the match had it finished in a draw) kept it scoreless. The double crossbar right before the 90th was insane, and I think most people thought Germany couldn't break through after that... and then they struck. Wouldn't have happened if Poland had had 11, probably, but the foul that drew the second yellow was plenty legit. Tough break for the Poles; after looking bad against Ecuador, they play probably about as well as they can against Germany and still get no points out of it, and now they're going home early again barring a Costa Rica win over Ecuador, a Poland win over Costa Rica, a German win over Ecuador, and a bunch of stuff that fixes the -3 GD Poland currently has. It's not as impossible as it could be, but you hate to have to rely on so specific a sequence of events. Any draws in there and Poland's done, for example, and there hasn't been a World Cup group without a draw since Group H in 1998. So... yeah.
Tomorrow's games: Ecuador-Costa Rica, England-Trinidad, Sweden-Paraguay. I'd say I'm most interested in the middle one. But really it's all building up to the do-or-die U.S. game on Saturday.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
World Cup Day Five
Who would have thought that the game of the day would turn out to be Korea-Togo? Yet that's how it turned out, at least in terms of actual drama. Togo, one of several African newcomers, looked the better team in the first half, but the Koreans hung on and scored two very nice goals, a free kick in the 54th and a score from Ahn Jung-Hwan in the 72nd.
I certainly didn't think it would, because I skimmed that game before settling in to watch my marquee match of the day, France/Switzerland. Could France recapture their form from the 1998 World Cup? Short answer... no. The Swiss defense was good, but France's near-total lack of attack (did the Americans secretly switch places with the French before the game?) was the real killer. Vikash Dhorasoo - the first player of Indian descent to play in a World Cup finals - looked like France's most potent offensive force, and he only got on in the 84th, just in time to get off one shot that almost went in and not much else. Henry was wasted for the most part. Like the U.S. on Monday, most of the French players seemed too busy waiting for the ball to find them instead of playing actively, a tactic that wasn't going to work against a Swiss back line that came to play. The Swiss offense nearly pushed one across on a few occasions too, though perhaps the best chance saw Alexander Frei attempt to pull a Maradona with his left hand (he received a yellow card for his efforts). All told, a pretty dull game, though I guess what can you expect from the two teams that came out of UEFA qualifying group 4? (France topped that group at 5-5-0, with Switzerland at 4-6-0 besting Israel on GD. The top four teams had just one loss between them - Ireland losing to France - but a total of 22 draws. France played to three separate 0-0 draws in qualifying alone.) This all means that France still has not scored a goal in the World Cup since their 3-0 win in the 1998 final. Way to go, France.
By the way, say what you will about Shep Messing - and I have - but he was spot on in his criticism of France during the game. No rhythm or creativity at all. Haven't they been watching those Nike commercials like everyone else has been forced to?
Brazil/Croatia was also surprisingly uneventful, mostly because Croatia actually played Brazil tough for the whole game. Kaká scored a goal just before halftime that was pretty much unstoppable, but in the second half the holders seemed to have minimal opportunity; Dida found himself touching the ball more often than Stipe Pleitkosa did. In the end it didn't matter much; Brazil found a way to get it done, even with Ronaldo slowly crumbling on the pitch and none of the offensive weapons looking terribly potent. But if you're Brazil, you know you'd better up your game; Australia has some decent offense. That's now my game of the group to watch, though Croatia/Australia should also prove interesting (and will probably be the battle for second place and advancement). I feel like Australia/Brazil will really deliver if you're a fan of the goals, though.
I certainly didn't think it would, because I skimmed that game before settling in to watch my marquee match of the day, France/Switzerland. Could France recapture their form from the 1998 World Cup? Short answer... no. The Swiss defense was good, but France's near-total lack of attack (did the Americans secretly switch places with the French before the game?) was the real killer. Vikash Dhorasoo - the first player of Indian descent to play in a World Cup finals - looked like France's most potent offensive force, and he only got on in the 84th, just in time to get off one shot that almost went in and not much else. Henry was wasted for the most part. Like the U.S. on Monday, most of the French players seemed too busy waiting for the ball to find them instead of playing actively, a tactic that wasn't going to work against a Swiss back line that came to play. The Swiss offense nearly pushed one across on a few occasions too, though perhaps the best chance saw Alexander Frei attempt to pull a Maradona with his left hand (he received a yellow card for his efforts). All told, a pretty dull game, though I guess what can you expect from the two teams that came out of UEFA qualifying group 4? (France topped that group at 5-5-0, with Switzerland at 4-6-0 besting Israel on GD. The top four teams had just one loss between them - Ireland losing to France - but a total of 22 draws. France played to three separate 0-0 draws in qualifying alone.) This all means that France still has not scored a goal in the World Cup since their 3-0 win in the 1998 final. Way to go, France.
By the way, say what you will about Shep Messing - and I have - but he was spot on in his criticism of France during the game. No rhythm or creativity at all. Haven't they been watching those Nike commercials like everyone else has been forced to?
Brazil/Croatia was also surprisingly uneventful, mostly because Croatia actually played Brazil tough for the whole game. Kaká scored a goal just before halftime that was pretty much unstoppable, but in the second half the holders seemed to have minimal opportunity; Dida found himself touching the ball more often than Stipe Pleitkosa did. In the end it didn't matter much; Brazil found a way to get it done, even with Ronaldo slowly crumbling on the pitch and none of the offensive weapons looking terribly potent. But if you're Brazil, you know you'd better up your game; Australia has some decent offense. That's now my game of the group to watch, though Croatia/Australia should also prove interesting (and will probably be the battle for second place and advancement). I feel like Australia/Brazil will really deliver if you're a fan of the goals, though.
Monday, June 12, 2006
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.
-- 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.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
World Cup Day Three
You always hear about the Dutch being a very technical team, "Total Football" and all that, but until you've actually seen the Clockwork Orange play, you can't even imagine just how astonishing it is to see them. I've never seen such a well-executed passing game in my life - ball after ball after ball went exactly where it was aimed at the exact speed necessary. They say "the best defense is a good offense" and that's never been more true than here; Serbia and Montenegro didn't have a lot of chances, mostly because they couldn't pry the ball away from the Dutch passing clinic. Arjen Robben's goal came off a great feed, and he had at least three more excellent chances; he was the man of the match in no uncertain terms. Van Nistelrooy did pretty much nothing, but then he never really had to. After seeing this game I'd say the Dutch are now the #4 team I'm pulling for, behind the US, England, and Australia. How can you not root for a style that gorgeous?
Mexico vs. Iran: I did not attend this concert. Drew and I started playing the US team in CONCACAF qualifying in the FIFA World Cup video game instead.
I was hoping Angola could pull a 2002 Senegal and stick it to their former colonial overlords, but no such luck, although Angola seemed to control a lot of the second half and might have at least gotten a point had they been a little more talented. As it was, Pauleta scored for Portugal in the fourth minute and that managed to hold up. Not as exciting a "watch the favorite hold a 1-0 lead" game as the Netherlands/Serbia game had been, sadly, but at least Angola threatened for a while. I'm not sure if the game says more about Portugal or Angola, though. You have to think that Group D is Mexico and Portugal at this point. Which is really what everyone has been predicting from minute one, because holy crap that's the easiest group out there and it annoys me to no end that Mexico got it when they didn't even deserve to be seeded.
Okay, I'm done. US-Czechs tomorrow - I plan on a long lunch.
Mexico vs. Iran: I did not attend this concert. Drew and I started playing the US team in CONCACAF qualifying in the FIFA World Cup video game instead.
I was hoping Angola could pull a 2002 Senegal and stick it to their former colonial overlords, but no such luck, although Angola seemed to control a lot of the second half and might have at least gotten a point had they been a little more talented. As it was, Pauleta scored for Portugal in the fourth minute and that managed to hold up. Not as exciting a "watch the favorite hold a 1-0 lead" game as the Netherlands/Serbia game had been, sadly, but at least Angola threatened for a while. I'm not sure if the game says more about Portugal or Angola, though. You have to think that Group D is Mexico and Portugal at this point. Which is really what everyone has been predicting from minute one, because holy crap that's the easiest group out there and it annoys me to no end that Mexico got it when they didn't even deserve to be seeded.
Okay, I'm done. US-Czechs tomorrow - I plan on a long lunch.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
World Cup Day Two
Didn't get to watch anything on Day One because of work, but I don't care much about Group A (although Ecuador is poised to be a surprise advancer). Today was when things kicked in. Unfortunately, I woke up five minutes too late to see England's goal and was simply too tired to stay awake past halftime; I ended up not missing anything. I also didn't miss anything scoring-wise in the Sweden/T&T game which I totally slept through, even if Shaka Hislop turned in what may end up being the game of the tournament for any keeper.
I did get to watch Argentina vs. Ivory Coast, the first game in the Group of Death. Pretty exciting, wide-open game, mostly because neither team wanted to pressure the ball, like, at all. So it pretty much became a game of "which team is better at passing" and I think the answer is unequivocally "Argentina." Argentina's goals were helped greatly by the refusal of the Coast defense to swarm; by comparison, Didier Drogba was more or less mauled whenever he got near the ball, and it's a testament to his talent that he was able to score at all. Many of his teammates seemed to be waiting around for him to do something, to the point that he started dropping back into the midfield in the second half just to get more involved. When he did score, in the 82nd minute, the entire team proceeded to go into a shell, as if they were content to settle for a loss as long as the goal differential was only going to be -1. I know this is the Coast's first Finals, but I didn't expect a team whose advancement could continue the cease-fire in the national civil war to look so apathetic after pulling within striking distance of a draw. But maybe they were just tired at that point.
It's hard to say that Argentina looked great, at least on defense - despite how frequently in disarray the Ivory Coast seemed to be, they still were able to get a number of opportunities, although more so in the first half. And the goals, while nice, were helped by Coast defensive mistakes that a better team might not have made. That said, Argentina did what they needed to do. They still have to play the highest-rated team in the group, though, and the stingy S&M defense, so let's not punch their ticket to the knockout stages just yet.
An observation on watching soccer on American TV: 95% of US announcers come in two varieties: the ones who know nothing about soccer, and the ones who assume the viewer knows nothing about soccer. Shep Messing, serving as color man, kept saying stuff like "For our new viewers..." and then explaining the offsides rule. I understand that some people might be watching the World Cup who are less familiar with soccer, but I mean, I'd hope anyone who's bothering to sit down and watch a soccer game can figure out what offsides is.
But maybe I'm just too sensitive, being much more aware of and into soccer than the average American. In that case, I feel more justified being aggravated by Glenn Davis' play-by-play. It's not that Davis didn't know how soccer worked or anything, but he seemed out of his depth somehow. Maybe it was the spoonerisms ("he's bought the breast energy out of the second-half substitutes") or the fuzzy math ("this game has turned 360 degrees!") or not knowing that the stat he was reciting about the US playing in its fourth consecutive World Cup was wrong.
At any rate, I was unimpressed by the commentary for Argentina-Ivory Coast. We'll see if it's better with other commentary teams. At least this time out it looks like they're doing all the games on-site; in '02 there was one live team and everyone else was looking at a monitor in a studio.
I did get to watch Argentina vs. Ivory Coast, the first game in the Group of Death. Pretty exciting, wide-open game, mostly because neither team wanted to pressure the ball, like, at all. So it pretty much became a game of "which team is better at passing" and I think the answer is unequivocally "Argentina." Argentina's goals were helped greatly by the refusal of the Coast defense to swarm; by comparison, Didier Drogba was more or less mauled whenever he got near the ball, and it's a testament to his talent that he was able to score at all. Many of his teammates seemed to be waiting around for him to do something, to the point that he started dropping back into the midfield in the second half just to get more involved. When he did score, in the 82nd minute, the entire team proceeded to go into a shell, as if they were content to settle for a loss as long as the goal differential was only going to be -1. I know this is the Coast's first Finals, but I didn't expect a team whose advancement could continue the cease-fire in the national civil war to look so apathetic after pulling within striking distance of a draw. But maybe they were just tired at that point.
It's hard to say that Argentina looked great, at least on defense - despite how frequently in disarray the Ivory Coast seemed to be, they still were able to get a number of opportunities, although more so in the first half. And the goals, while nice, were helped by Coast defensive mistakes that a better team might not have made. That said, Argentina did what they needed to do. They still have to play the highest-rated team in the group, though, and the stingy S&M defense, so let's not punch their ticket to the knockout stages just yet.
An observation on watching soccer on American TV: 95% of US announcers come in two varieties: the ones who know nothing about soccer, and the ones who assume the viewer knows nothing about soccer. Shep Messing, serving as color man, kept saying stuff like "For our new viewers..." and then explaining the offsides rule. I understand that some people might be watching the World Cup who are less familiar with soccer, but I mean, I'd hope anyone who's bothering to sit down and watch a soccer game can figure out what offsides is.
But maybe I'm just too sensitive, being much more aware of and into soccer than the average American. In that case, I feel more justified being aggravated by Glenn Davis' play-by-play. It's not that Davis didn't know how soccer worked or anything, but he seemed out of his depth somehow. Maybe it was the spoonerisms ("he's bought the breast energy out of the second-half substitutes") or the fuzzy math ("this game has turned 360 degrees!") or not knowing that the stat he was reciting about the US playing in its fourth consecutive World Cup was wrong.
At any rate, I was unimpressed by the commentary for Argentina-Ivory Coast. We'll see if it's better with other commentary teams. At least this time out it looks like they're doing all the games on-site; in '02 there was one live team and everyone else was looking at a monitor in a studio.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
World Cup Preview
I thought about doing an entire preview in this section - by which I mean predicting the outcome of not just every group (as I really already did) but every single game - and then I realized that there was (a) no way I'd be right and (b) no way I wanted to spend all that time for something that was never going to be right. So instead, here are a few random predictions slash total guesses:
Winner: Brazil. I'm pretty tired of Brazil at this point, as they've appeared in every final since I was old enough to follow the WC and won two of them, but who else do you put here? Tommy Smyth appeared on Pardon the Interruption today and said he thought Brazil could be beaten because they don't have enough defense. And sure, Brazil doesn't have the world's greatest defense, but aside from 1994, when have they ever? Sure didn't seem to stop them in 2002, did it? The one thing that might concern me is that their group looks pretty easy, with neophytes Australia and a Japanese team in disarray, and they won't be tested enough. But that won't really stop them, will it? On the other hand, they could potentially face Italy or the Czechs in the first knockout stage, both of which teams could pose real problems for them. So we'll see.
Runners-up: Assume the Czechs are healthy enough to win Group E. They could potentially have only Croatia and France standing between themselves and a semifinal berth. On the other hand, once they get there it could mean a date with Argentina or the Dutch, both teams that are good enough to beat the Czechs. And the injury woes have to worry you a bit. We did see what a big-time goalie can do for even a sometimes spotty offensive team in 2002, though - Oliver Kahn's hands (and one of Torsten Frings') pretty much singlehandedly took Germany to the finals - and Peter Cech is about as good as anyone showing up.
The big early crash-out: There's always at least one. Argentina and France, along with Portugal, fit the bill in 2002. I'm not sure there will be as many this year, but one of Argentina and Holland could find themselves in that spot this year, as Ivory Coast can be scary and Serbia have a strong defense. I don't see any other obvious victims unless Ghana gets hot and pushes out one of the highly-ranked Group E sides. At a guess... I still think there's a chance Italy could find themselves surprised. They're notorious for being slow starters in the tournament and if Ghana can stun them, or even just draw, in the opener, suddenly the next two games - against top six ranked teams - become all but must-wins.
Shock of the tournament: Maybe it's foolish optimism, but I still think the US can come out of Group E (more likely at Italy's expense than the Czechs), which seems like it would be a shock to most people. Paraguay over England in the Group B opener would be pretty surprising. Iran could come out of Group D in second if Portugal matches their historical underachievement. Togo or Angola winning would be big, especially if either shocks their former colonial oppressors - gotta love the fate that drew them in the right groups, just like Senegal pulling (and shocking) France in '02. I'd like to see the Angola/Portugal upset myself, even if Angola is probably the weakest team in the field.
Games I Most Want to See
1. USA vs. Czech Republic
2. USA vs. Italy
3. USA vs. Ghana
4. England vs. Sweden
5. Argentina vs. Netherlands
6. England vs. Paraguay
7. Italy vs. Czech Republic
8. Netherlands vs. Ivory Coast
9. France vs. Switzerland
10. Spain vs. Ukraine
Game I Least Want to See
Mexico vs. Iran. I think they're showing a Nebraska-Notre Dame football game on ESPN Classic at the same time. Can I just root for the stadium to spontaneously implode mid-game?
Winner: Brazil. I'm pretty tired of Brazil at this point, as they've appeared in every final since I was old enough to follow the WC and won two of them, but who else do you put here? Tommy Smyth appeared on Pardon the Interruption today and said he thought Brazil could be beaten because they don't have enough defense. And sure, Brazil doesn't have the world's greatest defense, but aside from 1994, when have they ever? Sure didn't seem to stop them in 2002, did it? The one thing that might concern me is that their group looks pretty easy, with neophytes Australia and a Japanese team in disarray, and they won't be tested enough. But that won't really stop them, will it? On the other hand, they could potentially face Italy or the Czechs in the first knockout stage, both of which teams could pose real problems for them. So we'll see.
Runners-up: Assume the Czechs are healthy enough to win Group E. They could potentially have only Croatia and France standing between themselves and a semifinal berth. On the other hand, once they get there it could mean a date with Argentina or the Dutch, both teams that are good enough to beat the Czechs. And the injury woes have to worry you a bit. We did see what a big-time goalie can do for even a sometimes spotty offensive team in 2002, though - Oliver Kahn's hands (and one of Torsten Frings') pretty much singlehandedly took Germany to the finals - and Peter Cech is about as good as anyone showing up.
The big early crash-out: There's always at least one. Argentina and France, along with Portugal, fit the bill in 2002. I'm not sure there will be as many this year, but one of Argentina and Holland could find themselves in that spot this year, as Ivory Coast can be scary and Serbia have a strong defense. I don't see any other obvious victims unless Ghana gets hot and pushes out one of the highly-ranked Group E sides. At a guess... I still think there's a chance Italy could find themselves surprised. They're notorious for being slow starters in the tournament and if Ghana can stun them, or even just draw, in the opener, suddenly the next two games - against top six ranked teams - become all but must-wins.
Shock of the tournament: Maybe it's foolish optimism, but I still think the US can come out of Group E (more likely at Italy's expense than the Czechs), which seems like it would be a shock to most people. Paraguay over England in the Group B opener would be pretty surprising. Iran could come out of Group D in second if Portugal matches their historical underachievement. Togo or Angola winning would be big, especially if either shocks their former colonial oppressors - gotta love the fate that drew them in the right groups, just like Senegal pulling (and shocking) France in '02. I'd like to see the Angola/Portugal upset myself, even if Angola is probably the weakest team in the field.
Games I Most Want to See
1. USA vs. Czech Republic
2. USA vs. Italy
3. USA vs. Ghana
4. England vs. Sweden
5. Argentina vs. Netherlands
6. England vs. Paraguay
7. Italy vs. Czech Republic
8. Netherlands vs. Ivory Coast
9. France vs. Switzerland
10. Spain vs. Ukraine
Game I Least Want to See
Mexico vs. Iran. I think they're showing a Nebraska-Notre Dame football game on ESPN Classic at the same time. Can I just root for the stadium to spontaneously implode mid-game?
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Oddsmakers and ends
Part of the current line on the World Cup, apparently:
Brazil (2-1), Germany (7-1), England (8-1), Argentina (9-1), Italy (9-1), Netherlands (14-1), France (14-1), Spain (16-1), Portugal (20-1), Czech Republic (30-1), Sweden (30-1), Mexico (40-1), Ukraine (50-1), Croatia (50-1) and the USA (80-1).
Anti-US bias? I'll grant that the US is in a much harder group than Mexico, but considering that over the past few years, the only place Mexico has been able to beat the US is at altitude in Smog City, should their odds really be twice as good? And Portugal's four times as good when that country hasn't gotten out of the first round since 1966? (Again, might be the easier group. And since the US will be stuck facing Brazil even if they do advance - unless they can somehow win the group - you can see why the odds are so low.)
Germany at 7-1 is kind of surprising. I know they're the hosts, but it seemed like the general consensus has been that that team ain't so great right now.
Games start Friday! I'm pumped up, although it's a bit disappointing that I may only get to see the Italy game live of the US's three in group play. But just like in 2002, I'll try to watch all that I can of every nation, even if most of those will be on TiVo. (I probably won't be able to avoid the US results for the Czech game, so I may just keep it on Gamecast at work, but I'd like to watch as many games as possible without knowing the end... it gets really hard to sit through a sporting event when you know what happens.)
Brazil (2-1), Germany (7-1), England (8-1), Argentina (9-1), Italy (9-1), Netherlands (14-1), France (14-1), Spain (16-1), Portugal (20-1), Czech Republic (30-1), Sweden (30-1), Mexico (40-1), Ukraine (50-1), Croatia (50-1) and the USA (80-1).
Anti-US bias? I'll grant that the US is in a much harder group than Mexico, but considering that over the past few years, the only place Mexico has been able to beat the US is at altitude in Smog City, should their odds really be twice as good? And Portugal's four times as good when that country hasn't gotten out of the first round since 1966? (Again, might be the easier group. And since the US will be stuck facing Brazil even if they do advance - unless they can somehow win the group - you can see why the odds are so low.)
Germany at 7-1 is kind of surprising. I know they're the hosts, but it seemed like the general consensus has been that that team ain't so great right now.
Games start Friday! I'm pumped up, although it's a bit disappointing that I may only get to see the Italy game live of the US's three in group play. But just like in 2002, I'll try to watch all that I can of every nation, even if most of those will be on TiVo. (I probably won't be able to avoid the US results for the Czech game, so I may just keep it on Gamecast at work, but I'd like to watch as many games as possible without knowing the end... it gets really hard to sit through a sporting event when you know what happens.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)