Well, We Still Have Team Handball....
I'm very disappointed in the United States' showing in the World Cup. For the last four years, all you could hear about when international soccer was brought up was the increasing development of U.S. players, the professional leagues, players playing overseas, etc. You'd believe it, saying such ridiculous things as "yeah, the MLS is pretty legit--Carlos Valdaramma used to play here" and "boy, Cobi Jones really put this league on the map". The closer the Cup got, the louder the trumpets were: "This is the best squad the U.S. has ever put together", "coming off of an impressive and improbable run four years ago, the team is now loaded with experience and will be ready for international play". Well, I think it's safe to say that they were in over their heads.
All the ballyhooing lead to an opening-match tea-bagging at the hands of the Czechs (3-0), who are out of the tournament. This lead to Coach Bruce Arena openly ripping the only names that people in this country recognize on the team (Donovan and Beasley). Media was terrified (and secretly loving it, so soccer could once again be publicly ripped)--after not showing up to face the Czechs, world-renowned Italy was looming on the horizon. They played, they tied, they were respectable (playing 9 men for the better part of the second half). The inevitable ref-ripping began (typical American sports--it wasn't your ability that lead to what happened, it was the officiating--and I'm just as guilty as the next guy), McBride's face was everywhere, and suddenly we were thrown into a Must Win Situation.
Which leads us to today. Do or Die, Leave It All On The Field, 110%, Our Backs Are Against The Wall, Everyone Doubts Us. Big game today vs. Ghana, and as you may have heard, Ghana 2, U.S. 1. Out of the tournament. Over.
We learn that the state of American soccer, at least on the mens/boys side, is where it was in 1998. Still an International Doormat, still junior varsity. The MLS is not a top-tier league, the feeder programs (like the Minnesota Thunder and its league, the USL) aren't sufficient like those overseas, and youth programs still get thoroughly dominated by the Swedes, the Brazillians, and whoever else comes into Blaine for the USA Cup. 2002 was more of an aberration than a sign of things to come. And this sucks because, again, American soccer will not be taken seriously.
Coach, you didn't need Freddy Adu? The Face of the MLS? The most recognizable player after Landon Donovan in the country? You can't tell me subbing him in the second half against Ghana, his birthplace, wouldn't have sparked a little fire for the squad. He's the most talented player in the U.S., at age 16 or 17, but I guess we did fine without him. Why I pose that question to Bruce Arena, I have no idea, because that was almost certainly his last game coached for Team America (World Police).
And yet, all this complaining I'm doing and as worried I am about the State of Homeland Soccer, at least we made the tournament. Ireland, my usual no. 2 team, didn't make it. Imagine how well that's going over right now.
posted by Zach Brown at 12:18 PM
7 Comments:
Hey, don't be too harsh on team USA. The first match in World Cup tournament is more often than not the first real world test of a participating team, and sometimes it works, but more often it doesn't. It's surprising when a so-called lesser team works right from the get-go; I submit to you the case of "my" team, Spain...
First matches are like the last acid test for team, tactics and strategy, and if you look at the Big Names in World Cups you'll rarely see impressive matches upfront.
I think team USA is more than able to field a good team; getting 23 top players from a nation no less than 300 millions souls strong isn't the problem. I really don't think the low stature of football in the US (sorry, I'm no party to the s-word!) isn't much of a problem; just take a look at demographically small countries that do very well, with an impressive team.
I put the onus primarily on two factors: the head coach (sorry Mr Arena, you seem like a good egg, but...) and the national federation's policy to crib for a strong team. That's 0-2 I'm afraid.
Were I to volunteer solutions for 2010, I'd shake up the USSF and push for an aggressive fundraising campaign so as to scout out top candidates and massage a team together with and by, and here's the logical corollary step, a top-notch team-builder. I'd seriously look into poaching Guus Hiddink away from his Russian job (that's where he's headed after the World Cup) and let him do his team-building magic, building as usual on individual qualities to forge a strong team with a strongly attacking bent; it's the type of play that suits US players best, in my opinion, rather than "discipline" and "drilled-in combinations". Team USA ain't Germany or Russia (or Ukraine for that matter), and they won't ever be. It's not how they'd play comfortably.
A perfect fit of the head coach (with his team and staff of course) is the vital last step to obtain a highly motivated and strongly cohesive team of enthusiastically playing athletes.
Anyway... I commiserate. I live here in the States, and I just don't understand why it's taking so long for the beautiful game to break through - but it inevitably will.
I hope that the surge of enthusiasm will be honored by a better coached team - and that the team remains accompanied by strong supporters like yourself.
Team USA may be disappointed by dropping out, they did a heck of a job against Italy - I'd take that away from this World Cup run.
Next time better!
First things first--that recap was written in a way more beautiful manner than I could ever hope to type. And you're absolutely right--the first game of the tournamnet does not necessarily make the team (take Brazil and their 1-0 victory). Problem is, in a high pressure situation like the World Cup, every game is important. As a team, you don't have matches to waste to figure where you stand against "the rest of the world". Every team has to go through the learning process, but the good ones figure it out as they go (i.e. Brazil and Germany).
I like your sentiment about fielding 23 solid players out of 300 million--statistically that has to work. But they didn't beat Ghana, which population-wise is roughly the size of Rhode Island. How is this possible? Ghana plays football (I hate the s-word too, but here we are), and high school kids here have 3 different sports to worry about at the same time (on top of studies, getting laid, etc.) Is that Ghana's fault, our fault, or no one's? That's up for debate, as priorities here are different, sports-wise. Doesn't make for the best recruiting and developmental programs, unfortuneately.
Arena will be gone, Freddy Adu will be there to wreak havoc on the international scene, and maybe a couple of other gems will emerge. But will that be enough for 2010? I'm not sure. Let me know what you think, because now I'm really intrigued.
Two things.
1. Generaly speaking, people in the US don't like football (read: s word) becasue the average person doesn't have the attention span for it. Think about it , it's two 45 minute halfs of straight game play. There's no time outs, you can't throw a red flag and instant replays are minumum at best. This doesn't fit the sports mold Americans have come to expect from professional sports.
2. Even though that PK was BS in the US Ghana game, I don't think we would have won anyway. We lacked heart, Ghana wanted way more. Which is fine with me, we made it to the cup which is more that can be said than alot of other countries - we don't always have to be the best at everything.
What about team handball?
I know--I stole that line from you.
Patience my ass, Margus... people watch GOLF here more than they watch soccer.
I think the main reason is because there is no room for commercials. Really. With the commercials comes endorsements, which makes celebrities, which yeah. YEAH!
Good argument, Richard.
who the hell do you know that watches golf richard?
NO BODY!
Post a Comment
<< Home