Looking back at Team USA (WC-related)

[Easy Mac]

OK, so knowing what we know now, should we perhaps take a new look at the US's performance in the World Cup?

First off, we lost badly to the Czechs. However, they were the #2 team in the world at the time, so should we really have competed? Obviously everyone already believed we were vastly overranked (though looking back so were the Czechs)

Second, we drew with Italy. We played 45 minutes down a man, down to 9 players. Italy just won the World Cup. We were the only team to score against them during the run of play (although we didn't really score). We were the only team Italy played that didn't lose to them. We were the only team to draw a point from Italy the whole tourney.

Finally, if not for a poor refereeing decision, we looked to have Ghana at a draw. Who knows what happens if that call isn't made in the last few seconds of the half.

Was the tourney a disappointment, of course. But we lost to the #2 team, drew the champion, and lost to a team that beat the #2 team by 2 goals and needed a phantom PK to beat us. Was it really as bad as it first seemed? Can I try to get a job alongside Tony Snow?

[rexallllsc]

*I think* it was as bad as it seemed. The Czechs, a team that didn't advance, dismantled us. We never led in a game. We scored 1 goal.

When you look at who played well for the US, you can say maybe Clint Dempsey, but that's mostly because we didn't have much expectation of him beforehand.

Uninspired, poor showing, IMO.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

OK, so knowing what we know now, should we perhaps take a new look at the US's performance in the World Cup?

First off, we lost badly to the Czechs. However, they were the #2 team in the world at the time, so should we really have competed?

They were #2 in FIFA rankings. The distinction must be made that FIFA rankings are worthless and thus, they were not the 2nd best team in the world.

[kcchief19]

Based on my limit understanding of soccer and my experience with trying to understand and appreciate soccer related to this year's World Cup, I think the U.S. must do two things to succeed on the international level:

1) Send our best players to Europe so they learn how to fall down and act hurt like a pro; and

2) Practice our penalty kicks.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

OK, so knowing what we know now, should we perhaps take a new look at the US's performance in the World Cup?

First off, we lost badly to the Czechs. However, they were the #2 team in the world at the time, so should we really have competed? Obviously everyone already believed we were vastly overranked (though looking back so were the Czechs)

Second, we drew with Italy. We played 45 minutes down a man, down to 9 players. Italy just won the World Cup. We were the only team to score against them during the run of play (although we didn't really score). We were the only team Italy played that didn't lose to them. We were the only team to draw a point from Italy the whole tourney.

Finally, if not for a poor refereeing decision, we looked to have Ghana at a draw. Who knows what happens if that call isn't made in the last few seconds of the half.

Was the tourney a disappointment, of course. But we lost to the #2 team, drew the champion, and lost to a team that beat the #2 team by 2 goals and needed a phantom PK to beat us. Was it really as bad as it first seemed? Can I try to get a job alongside Tony Snow?

Our tie against Italy simply shows what we can do when we want to...we have to coach their will/mental abilities...not their physical ones.

[RPI-Fan]

I think it was a little better than it seems on the surface, but little more than that.

The Czech game was a disaster. Arena and the players fucked us in that game by simply playing scared.

The Italy game the ref screwed us (Pope's red was horrendous), and we gave a nice effort. Very similar to the Germany game in '02 as we were the better team for the first 75 minutes.

The Ghana game, as mentioned, the ref got us with that PK. Arena, however, screwed us in that game. He showed NO urgency. Subbing a LW for a LW in the 70th minute????? He really cost himself our tournament and his job with that game.

[Galaxy]

Biggest fact: We only had four shots on goal in all three games. The lowest of all the 32 nations.

[the_meanstrosity]

I'm with everyone else. The US's performance in the World Cup was awful. Bruce Arena is a great coach and he's done some incredible things for US soccer, but this was probably the worst job he's done as a head coach in his professional tenure.

As another poster stated, the US was way too tentative in the Ghana game. Brian McBride as your lone forward in a 4-5-1 is not going to scare anyone. He doesn't have the speed to keep the defense honest and thus it makes the midfield's job harder. This US team needed more speed up front which would have allowed the midfielders more room to operate. Instead the play in the middle was bogged down for most of the tournament.

[RPI-Fan]

Oh, also:

Even though the penalty in the Ghana game was horrendous, it doesn't really matter. Without it I suspect we would have won, possibly quite easily, but it wouldn't mean anything.

We'd go into the next round and get pumelled 5-0 by Brazil.

We needed to play to WIN the group, not get a tie or two and a lucky win.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Based on my limit understanding of soccer and my experience with trying to understand and appreciate soccer related to this year's World Cup, I think the U.S. must do two things to succeed on the international level:

1) Send our best players to Europe so they learn how to fall down and act hurt like a pro; and

2) Practice our penalty kicks.

you forgot

3) Figure out how to market a scoreless tie into the greatest sporting event in the history of mankind.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Forget the results (which were not good anyways - 1 tie). Watching how they actually played tells you a lot. And what it says is that the play and the coaching in games 1 and 3 were terrible. Game 2 was good. You only succeed in a World Cup if you play well in all your games.

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

you forgot

3) Figure out how to market a scoreless tie into the greatest sporting event in the history of mankind.

Besides giving a good opportunity to troll, why did you click on this thread again?

[ISiddiqui]

A lot of blame was put on the coaching, but I think a lot has to go through Donovan as well (if not more than Arena's coaching). Donovan was the main man in the 02 Cup. This year, he was no where. He disappeared and most of the offense was supposed to go through him, ESPECIALLY in a 4-5-1 (or 4-1-4-1, whatever you want to call it).d

[KWhit]

I think it was as bad as it seemed. We scored one goal in 3 games! Against Czech, we got stomped by a team that didn't advance. Against Italy, we were given our only goal by an Italian. Against Ghana, we played for a tie when we had to win.

Horribly, horribly coached. And all of our players looked slow and tentative - almost always beaten to the ball.

It was as bad as it looked.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by KWhit

It was as bad as it looked.

Yep.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

you forgot

3) Figure out how to market a scoreless tie into the greatest sporting event in the history of mankind.

There were seven 0-0 matches in this year's World Cup (including two decided by penalty kicks in the knockouts) out of 64 matches.

There were fourteen matches where at least four goals were scored. That's twice as many where there was a good bit of scoring.

[PineTar]

I'm so tired of low-IQ media types and in general American sports dullards who define a game's interest level solely by the scoreline. It's sad and insulting to anyone who enjoys a particluar sport. Take your Budeweiser, hunker down in your recliner and go watch souped up gas guzzlers make left hand turns for the next four hours if you don't like soccer and keep your yap shut.

[ISiddiqui]

Unfortunately they are doing it with traditional American sports as well. People don't appreciate a pitcher's duel as much as they used to, for one .

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

Besides giving a good opportunity to troll, why did you click on this thread again?

Because I like to read leanleft.com once in a while?

The first round isn’t even over yet, and there have already been five 0-0 draws. Five matches in which nobody scored. In the Argentina-Netherlands match, there were a total of six shots on goal in the match (three a side). For those keeping score at home, that’s one shot on goal every fifteen minutes (and that’s only if you ignore “stoppage time”). There were nineteen total shots taken, if you include the thirteen that weren’t on goal. So barely over one shot every five minutes, on average. When Americans complain that “nothing happens” in a soccer match, this is exactly what we’re talking about.

While I’m on this rant, there were six 1-0 matches, three 1:1 draws (nine total draws), and fourteen other shutouts (twenty total shutouts if you count the 1-0 matches). So out of forty matches played, in 25 of them, at least one team failed to score at all. That’s a staggering 62.5%! (By way of comparison, there were fifteen baseball games today, and two of them were shutouts; in all but 13.3% of the games, fans of either team had at least something to cheer for; and baseball isn’t exactly known for being the most exciting sport in the world…)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by PineTar

I'm so tired of low-IQ media types and in general American sports dullards who define a game's interest level solely by the scoreline. It's sad and insulting to anyone who enjoys a particluar sport. Take your Budeweiser, hunker down in your recliner and go watch souped up gas guzzlers make left hand turns for the next four hours if you don't like soccer and keep your yap shut.

I hate Budweiser, I don't watch a lot of TV and abhor car racing in the same manner as you did in insulting those who enjoy that "sport".

[ISiddiqui]

The first round was over a long time ago, Bucc... I know it's hard, but try living in the present .

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

(By way of comparison, there were fifteen baseball games today, and two of them were shutouts; in all but 13.3% of the games, fans of either team had at least something to cheer for; and baseball isn’t exactly known for being the most exciting sport in the world…)

That's the biggest difference, and what I've migrated through while becoming a soccer fan over the last few years. Goals aren't the only things as a fan to appreciate and/or cheer for. As a football fan, do you only cheer touchdowns? Or first downs, great catches, nice defensive stops... even if, eventually, they don't pay off in points?

[PineTar]

I was using an over-generalization to prove a point. FWIW, I don't mind racing and can actually watch it and appreciate its intracacies. I should point out, nowhere in that thread did I reference you. Any assumption regarding the "dullard" comment was yours to make.

[ISiddiqui]

And while scoring goals in the end goal, there are numerous exciting plays that happen during the match that do not result in goals. In the Argentina-Netherlands game that the neanderthal you linked to references, both teams had clinched their place in the next round and really had little to play for, so of course they weren't going to go for the gusto. What, you think every game in Week 17 in the NFL is exciting?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Celeval

That's the biggest difference, and what I've migrated through while becoming a soccer fan over the last few years. Goals aren't the only things as a fan to appreciate and/or cheer for. As a football fan, do you only cheer touchdowns? Or first downs, great catches, nice defensive stops... even if, eventually, they don't pay off in points?

Great analogy ! So Bucc, do you sit on your hands unless your team scores a TD? No matter what great plays happened on the way?

[st.cronin]

Bucc actually makes a good point, though: As long as Soccer is considered a second-tier sport in this country, it will be difficult to compete in the World Cup, for a lot of different reasons.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Bucc actually makes a good point, though: As long as Soccer is considered a second-tier sport in this country, it will be difficult to compete in the World Cup, for a lot of different reasons.

Track and Field doesn't exactly have a huge following and we dominate that.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Track and Field doesn't exactly have a huge following and we dominate that.

yeah, well olympic sports are pretty much an entirely different thing, you really can't compare them to international competiations of widely-played professional sports.

[PineTar]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Bucc actually makes a good point, though: As long as Soccer is considered a second-tier sport in this country, it will be difficult to compete in the World Cup, for a lot of different reasons.

The American media plays a big part in shaping people's opinion of the sport. Sports talk radio in Chicago spent roughly 60 seconds discussing the US-Ghana match and about 23 hours discussing Ozzie Guillen's colorful description of Jay Marioti.

And what does it say about the network's view of the World Cup when their number one play-by-play man (Dave O'Brien) for the tournament had covered a total of EIGHT soccer matches prior to the beginning of the WC?

[ISiddiqui]

Probably that the US doesn't have any really good soccer play by play men (which we don't) and that they wanted to REALLY keep Dave O'Brien for baseball (in which he demanded in his contract that he be the #1 PBP guy for the WC).

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Great analogy ! So Bucc, do you sit on your hands unless your team scores a TD? No matter what great plays happened on the way?

I only cheer or jeer for the penalties.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by PineTar

The American media plays a big part in shaping people's opinion of the sport. Sports talk radio in Chicago spent roughly 60 seconds discussing the US-Ghana match and about 23 hours discussing Ozzie Guillen's colorful description of Jay Marioti.

And what does it say about the network's view of the World Cup when their number one play-by-play man (Dave O'Brien) for the tournament had covered a total of EIGHT soccer matches prior to the beginning of the WC?

It's very much a chicken and egg situation... there are a number of things that help feed each other, and right now soccer in the USA has none of it.

1. Media attention would help get people to attend games.

2. Attendance would help generate media attention.


I think MLS can work eventually with the snail's pace they've been moving at, but it will take a long time. I think they have the potential to take a larger step forward if they can make the sport "cool" in the eyes of the public. I think they have a shot to help make that happen when Beckham inevitably joins the league. The sooner they can get him over here, the more valuable he'll be for the league long-term.

[ISiddiqui]

MLS will be getting more media attention from ESPN next year. That's because it'll be the first time that ESPN pays for MLS broadcasting. Beforehand it was a profit sharing thing, but now there are rights fees involved. It means that ESPN will probably advertise it more to get their money back on it and then some.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

OK, so knowing what we know now, should we perhaps take a new look at the US's performance in the World Cup?

First off, we lost badly to the Czechs. However, they were the #2 team in the world at the time, so should we really have competed? Obviously everyone already believed we were vastly overranked (though looking back so were the Czechs)

Second, we drew with Italy. We played 45 minutes down a man, down to 9 players. Italy just won the World Cup. We were the only team to score against them during the run of play (although we didn't really score). We were the only team Italy played that didn't lose to them. We were the only team to draw a point from Italy the whole tourney.

Finally, if not for a poor refereeing decision, we looked to have Ghana at a draw. Who knows what happens if that call isn't made in the last few seconds of the half.

Was the tourney a disappointment, of course. But we lost to the #2 team, drew the champion, and lost to a team that beat the #2 team by 2 goals and needed a phantom PK to beat us. Was it really as bad as it first seemed? Can I try to get a job alongside Tony Snow?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

MLS will be getting more media attention from ESPN next year. That's because it'll be the first time that ESPN pays for MLS broadcasting. Beforehand it was a profit sharing thing, but now there are rights fees involved. It means that ESPN will probably advertise it more to get their money back on it and then some.

It's a start.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, they'll be growing quickly (rights fee contract with ESPN, perhaps the "Beckham Rule" gets passed allowing stars to come to the US) at a point in time where the sickest of the "Big 4" is struggling. Perhaps some inroads can be made in the (yes, small) media vaccuum (ESPN DID show a lot of hockey games when they had the NHL).

[Samdari]

I think that the US played to the level of their talent. Is that bad? I don't know. We should be disappointed in the effort displayed vs the Czechs, but proud of how hard they played vs. Italy and Ghana.

It is a testament to how much we have improved that we are now considered almost locks to qualify for the WC against the likes of Trinidad and Tobago, whereas that used to be somewhat of a struggle.

But, the US simply does not have the players to compete with the best in the world. The top teams leave players off their 23 man rosters who play in the top 4 or 5 leagues in the world. The US cannot come up with 23 who do. We don't compete with these countries because we don't send Randy Moss, LaDanian Tomlinson, DeWayne Wade and LeBron James (after they have spent their lives learning the sport). The other countries do. We're sending AAA players against major leaguers, and just like that competition, the AAA guys can compete and occaissionally win, but over time, the major leaguers would dominate.

As for "we should send our best players to Europe" - if they were good enough, European teams would get them - the money they make in the US is not even close, so I doubt many would turn down opportunities.

[Critch]

I wasn't expecting the US to do much this World Cup. I was expecting a bit of a let down this time around as most of the good players were either past their prime (Reyna, McBride, Pope) or too young to have reached their prime (Johnson, Convey, maybe Donovan and Beasley too as prime is generally late 20's). Kind of a gap between two generations.

Last World Cup was better, next World Cup will be better, this one was just at the wrong time.

I would have said this before the World Cup, but I knew somebody would shout me down as a EuroSnob for doubting the team

[ISiddiqui]

EUROSNOB!

It amuses me how much that has become considered to be an 'insult' by the BigSoccer US faithful. Almost any criticism of the US team before the WC, suggesting Donovan should have stayed in Europe (albeit with a different league... the Portugese or English may have been better for his strengths), or simply doubting that the US had the talent and/or depth of big time Euro sides would end up in being labeled a Eurosnob. C'est la vie .

[Fighter of Foo]

Donovan has clearly regressed/stagnated, Beasley is/was out of form for most of the year. Reyna and O'Brien were hurt. That's 4/5 of our midfield from last year either not playing or playing poorly. We would have struggled against Japan, much less a group with three of the top 8-10 midfields in the tournament.

This was true going into the tournament, we were crap in the opening game and STILL had a chance to advance. Given the above scenario, that's about the best you can hope for.

[FrogMan]

Originally Posted by Celeval

That's the biggest difference, and what I've migrated through while becoming a soccer fan over the last few years. Goals aren't the only things as a fan to appreciate and/or cheer for. As a football fan, do you only cheer touchdowns? Or first downs, great catches, nice defensive stops... even if, eventually, they don't pay off in points?

I'd like to second, or third, that this is a great analogy. Means you have to look at the game differently.

On the other hand, if we go with points as being the most important thing, that would mean that basketball is an off the chart super duper interesting sporting event. Hrm, no, not to me, at least not the first three quarters in a game. I *might* be interested in the close finish of a game, but simply seeing baskets being scored does nothing to me...

FM

[moriarty]

I think we were killed by over expectations and a lack of depth (other than perhaps midfield) challenging the starters for playing time.

As for the shots on goal, we played basically the entire tournament with one striker ... who was hardly threatening people with his pace. Add to that the one striker forced Donovan to play more with his back to goal (by far his weaker positioning).

At the end of the day though our big stars simply did not perform. Beasley looked like he was still hitting the sauce (WTF happened to this guy), Donovan looked like he did when he was playing in Germany full time, Reyna gave away the Ghana goal, and even Keller looked shaky in goal (outside of a few big stops against Italy).

Looking foward we really need to develop a feared, pacey striker (where's all that famous US altheticism up front?), and some serious help on defense. Starting an aging Pope is not a good sign, and the whole Lewis/Chenundolo left back scenario is almost as bad. On the brightside, Wynne should step up at the right back position and Gooch should be set at one of the central spots for a while.

[st.cronin]

Would Adu have made a difference? He's pretty fast, isn't he?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Great analogy ! So Bucc, do you sit on your hands unless your team scores a TD? No matter what great plays happened on the way?

I saw some ESPN Page 2 writer talked about what people would say if each goal counted as 7 points. And although the writer didn't say it, we could have penalty kicks count as 3 points. So the score of the WC final was 22 to 16.

This was the pretty much the lowest scoring WC ever. If you translate a different year to football scores, you suddenly see how "low-scoring" American football really is.

[FrogMan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Would Adu have made a difference? He's pretty fast, isn't he?

Theo Walcott is also said to be very fast

FM

[MalcPow]

I agree with others that it was as bad as it looked, and maybe worse, the Italian side plays a similarly guarded game that may have kept that match (especially with all the sending off crap) artificially close. A Brazil or Argentina, or even a Germany, probably would have destroyed us like the Czechs did. Pope looked really really bad at times (and was going to get a second yellow eventually in the Italy game, he was playing recklessly and idiotically) and Onyewu seemed to learn a lot but was absolutely lost at times. Not exactly what you'd hope for from your central defense. But the big thing is that, yeah, we just don't have a great player. We have a relatively competent supporting cast, but no stars. Dempsey did seem to have a decent tourney because he would at least run at people and force uncomfortable situations for the defense, no one else was really doing that. We seemed to want to play a conservative defense-first style but we lack the skill to turn possession and a slow build-up into attacking chances and the pace up front to hit people quickly on counter attacks. I realize that sometimes a chef is only as good as his ingredients but still, the squad selection and tactics did not seem to make much sense in this tourney.

[Ryche]

I watched several games from the World Cup and enjoyed them much more than I expected. Two things that really annoy me though.

Penalties - The flopping and bitching were just ridiculous. And they end up being too important as many game winning goals come on penalty kicks or you red card someone and their team is forced to play shorthanded the rest of the way.

Shootouts - I still don't understand how the most important game in soccer every four years can be decided by a shootout. For other games, sure, no problem. But for a championship game?

That said, I'm much more likely to watch soccer on TV now than I was before. Now if only Ireland had a good team I could root for.

[FrogMan]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Shootouts - I still don't understand how the most important game in soccer every four years can be decided by a shootout. For other games, sure, no problem. But for a championship game?

you know, I used to have a problem with that too but I now see it as a contest of technical skill. Shooting and stopping penalties are technical skills. It's one player's skill vs another player's skill. Sure it's not a whole team, but hey, a couple Super Bowl have lately been decided on the foot of Adam Vinatieri...

FM

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Shootouts - I still don't understand how the most important game in soccer every four years can be decided by a shootout. For other games, sure, no problem. But for a championship game?

Can you think of a better option? You could keep playing extra time until someone scored, but after 120 minutes of running, nobody will have the legs to create a scoring chance. About the only thing you could do is slowly start removing players from the field to create a 9 on 9 or 8 on 8 game, but then teams will sit back on defense and not push anyone forward. PKs don't seem like the best option, but it could be...

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Biggest fact: We only had four shots on goal in all three games. The lowest of all the 32 nations.

But they also must have had the highest conversion rate of any nation. At least they had that going for them.