USA in a Must Win; or a Draw and some Help - Seriously, just WIN
by Dave Clark on Jun 23, 2010 5:00 AM PDT
in US National Team and the World Cup
54 comments
Just after 7 AM Pacific Time the USA will take on the supposed minnow of Group C for the opportunity to advance into the knockout rounds of this World Cup. To do so they will face a team with a very clear identity. The Algerian National Team is French, and Arab, and African. Its best players play in Europe with many plying their trade in Algeria as well.
The Algerian side does not have a home continent advantage, as the Sahara separates the North of Africa on cultural and footballing levels. Oddly enough it also has not gathered support from the Arab world as some sort of pan-Arabian anti-Americanism. With Algeria's biggest rivals being Tunisia, Morocco and of course Egypt it just wouldn't make sense for those nations to root for a nation that so often is in opposition.
In some ways the Algerian Green remind me of the Sounders. They control possession well, take plenty of shots, but not enough are on frame. But they of course are different. These Desert Foxes have been quite inconsistent over the past two years. They dominated their Group in African Qualifying and shot up the FIFA rankings beating Egypt two of the three times they faced off including that playoff in Sudan. In the Africa Cup of Nations they struggled against Malawi, and then went on a run again, beating Cote d'Ivoire in the Quarterfinals before losing to Egypt in the Semis. They then finished by losing to Nigeria in the Third Place match.
World Cup South Africa has seen similar inconsistency. Against Slovenia they had a man sent off and struggled to a 1-nil loss. When facing England they played well and managed a 0-0 draw with a young highly inexperienced keeper. I expect M'Bolhi to start against the USA as they ride the hot hand.
We all know the USA's problems. We all know its strengths.
To borrow from Pitch Invasion it is time for the USA to cowboy up and declare themselves not just favorites in this match, but a footballing nation that demands its deserved respect. I expect Maurice Edu to start alongside Michael Bradley in a central midfield role, but up top so many things could happen as a change will be forced.
Right now, the proper choice would be to select Edson Buddle. He and Landon have the communication and knowledge of each other that can not be gained in training, but only in hundreds of minutes on the pitch in competition together and so our USA match card has him as the starter. There are plenty of other choices that Bob Bradley could make though.
No matter those choices the USA will be the stronger team in a positional breakdown, and a victory would be the sweetest way to advance. It is time for a little history writing, it is time for the Desert Fox to be defeated by an American again. Eisenhower did it in the 40s, who will declare themselves today?
USA Team Card
Consider this the gamethread for the match - 7 AM ESPN
0 recs |
54 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Richard Farley's SBNation.com/Soccer Preview of the Match
Is HERE
How The Match Turns: In a contest of evenly-match teams, the United States’ ability to elevate their game when needed becomes a tiebreaker of sorts. If the U.S. can find another gear in the second half against Algeria, this match could turn into a very open affair, as Algeria pushes back at the U.S. while searching for a win.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Some Lineup Changes, one a surprise
Word is out that former USL Sounder Gomez will start up top. He lead the Mexican League in scoring during their last season.
Edu does get the start in the midfield.
Bornstein starts intead of Gooch on the backline. Likely on the left with Boca moving central.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
The Gods must be mad at the USA
They had the goal taken away against Slovenia and then today in the first half Dempsey gets called offisdes on a goal that he wasn’t.
Run DMB enters
Looking for a little bit of speed and scoring.
USA or SLV score and our nation advances
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Looks like its gonna be US and England advancing
Us gonna face Germany most likely and their out. Ghana they have a better shot, but most likely out as well.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.-1984 George Orwell.
USA win the Group if resutlt stands
You expect Germany to finish 2nd?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
If Ghana gets a result, and Serbia beats the Soccerroos, Germany doesn’t even make it through.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
"Turner, at midcourt...inside it, at the buzzer, GOT IT!!!!"
We're the Big Ten, who the F@*# are YOU??!?!?!
by Andrew Tolliver on Jun 23, 2010 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Im saying Ghana and Germany tie
and the Aussies winning. Serbia is the dark horse in making it, but who knows? these games matter to every team execpt AUS.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.-1984 George Orwell.
I looked at the group D standings
It’s impossible for Germany to finish 2nd (I think). They either finish 1st or 3rd, so we will face one of the other 3 teams. Ideal scenario:
Ghana wins, Australia wins, we face Australia.
Someone let me know if there’s a scenario I’m missing where Germany finishes 2nd.
Tweeting via @jtkimbell
Everyone draws? Ghana would have 5 pts, Germany/Serbia 4pts, Australia 2. Germany would have 2nd by goal diff.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
"Turner, at midcourt...inside it, at the buzzer, GOT IT!!!!"
We're the Big Ten, who the F@*# are YOU??!?!?!
by Andrew Tolliver on Jun 23, 2010 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep
That was the one. Well, it didn’t happen, but I’m OK with Ghana, they will be tough, but they aren’t Germany.
Tweeting via @jtkimbell
not best but certainly exciting
not a game id want to watch on couch
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jun 23, 2010 9:14 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
I watched it at work. Had several heart attacks. None of which were minor.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
"Turner, at midcourt...inside it, at the buzzer, GOT IT!!!!"
We're the Big Ten, who the F@*# are YOU??!?!?!
by Andrew Tolliver on Jun 23, 2010 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Congrats guys, well done
Fightin’ to the end, I love it. Pool ended as I’d hoped it would.
Not a very good game. I don’t know if the US declared itself as “a footballing nation that demands its deserved respect”. But you are getting a lot of love from our commentators as scrappy underdogs who don’t stop fighting.
undrdogs?
we r definitely not elite but we have to be in the same tier as the denmarks, mexicos and guays of world, right?
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jun 23, 2010 11:11 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You're underdogs going into the next round, I'd say
But perhaps a lot of pundits will disagree. Ghana isn’t the most intimidating of billings.
I was more saying that I don’t think anyone in your Pool even remotely impressed anyone in or out of the press, but you are playing like one of those teams that gets far on willpower. There’s always one every WC, and the fans and pundits at large generally embrace them.
I think the Ghana - USA match is an even match that any team can win
I disagree about that the USA has not impressed. Now don’t get me wrong, the USA is still not one of the top teams in the world and at the most will win one more match. But, coming from two down and getting a draw when the whole world knows that they were a bad referee call from winning is impressive. Winning yesterday in the 90th minute is impressive, especially considering when they had another good goal taken away.
You also act like will power is not an important thing.
This is the World Cup we're talking about, willpower should be standard
And it is only distinctive if it is lacking – like with France and Italy.
The USA managed to barely qualify out of a very poorly playing group. It certainly didn’t impress with its quality of play at any point during this World Cup. When you go down 2-0 to Algeria you’re not playing well, and while the comeback is a nice story, the need for a comeback at all is a lot more worrisome.
I disagree with your entire premise
It is the World Cup and it should be standard, but it NEVER is. You would think that all teams would play at their absolute best at all times because it is the World Cup, but then we know that never happens. Ask the defending Champion Italy or runner up France.
No, the USA scored 5 points which should have been 7 if not for an outrageous call by the referee. Yes, they started slowly in the Algeria game, but unlike Germany who lost to Serbia, the US came back. Unlike Spain who lost to Switzerland, the US came back.
A goal scored in the first minute or 90th minute still counts the same. This is the World Cup we are talking about, it is not supposed to be easy.
I'm not talking about it being easy at all
I’m talking about quality of play. The USA’s quality of play has simply not impressed at any point in this World Cup. Moreover, the USA is exactly at the point where people expected them to be before the World Cup. There’s nothing impressive about what they’ve done.
And willpower isn’t the same as playing at your best. Players play poor games and they play good games, and the same goes for the USA and has been true for the USA this World Cup as well. Willpower is never giving up, and that’s something the USA does very well, but that isn’t distinctive. Only France and Italy could have been accused of lacking willpower, so with 29 other teams having that willpower why would the USA be impressive?
And yes, you’re entirely right that a goal counts whenever it’s made. Which is exactly why the USA performance against Slovenia wasn’t impressive: going into that match, a 2-2 result would’ve been seen as disappointing by most analysts.
Again, I disagree with your entire premise
The USA was not expected to be the top team out of Group C, so they are not where they were supposed to be or else they would be playing Germany.
You write as if a team doesn’t dominate a full 90, then somehow they are not impressive. No team in the Cup has done that yet, not even Brazil. But, Team USA has shown flashes of brilliance, which is enough. Going forward as the competition gets better, they will have to increase their play. But, you can say that about every team.
Going into the match against the US, Slovenia was leading Group C. I don’t know anyone that thought the USA was so much better than Slovenia. Slightly better yes, dominating better no. So, if Slovenia would have won, it would have been a mild upset here, but the rest of the world would not have thought so. Also, if they would have scored the first two goals in that game and gave up two later, would that have been better? It sounds like that is what you are saying.
I never said that willpower is the same as playing your best. But, it is a quality that Team USA has that when things are tight, can get them a result. We have seen it twice. Will that quality mean anything when they play a superior team? Of course not.
The USA is second because of England's unexpected weakness, not because of its own strength
Which is why it is where it was projected to be before the start of the tournament: qualifying for the next round with 4-6 points.
And again: I’m talking about quality of play. The USA has not shown those flashes of brilliance, and they haven’t shown anything special. Their quality of play has been pretty much exactly what was expected of them, and they looked worse than that quality of play against Slovenia.
The USA was seen as better than Slovenia before that match. Just look at the foreign press. If Slovenia would have won it wouldn’t have been a major upset, but it would not have been expected. And I’m not saying that had the scoring been reversed that the US would’ve looked any better: the problem is that they even allowed those 2 goals, regardless of the order in which those goals came.
And again: that willpower is not distinctive. It’s a quality you need, but almost every team (with about 2 or 3 exceptions) has that willpower too.
I am saying it doesn't matter. No matter how it happened, Team USA did better than expected
Do you think it matters four years ago that Italy beat France in the final on PK’s? No one remembers (I had to look it up). What matters is the final result. Scoring three second have goals (yes, they did score three) is impressive against anybody. They also should have had two yesterday.
I said that USA was the better team, but it is not like the New York Yankees playing the Kansas City Royals better. Don’t forget to get here, they had to beat a quality Russian team. To make your point, you are really selling Slovenia short .
Let me ask you this question, which teams have been impressive so far?
A couple of clarifications
The USA scoring three goals…….
Slovenia beat Russia to qualify…….
Look, again, the USA hasn't been impressive compared to the status they had coming into the cup
The teams that have been impressive beyond what was expected have been Chile, Paraguay, Switzerland, North Korea, Japan and a few more. Certainly not the USA.
Huh?
Do you mean the North Korea that has been outscored 9-1 in two matches?
How can you pick two teams from the same group? Is Chile playing over their heads or is it Switzerland? Chile was supposed to finish second in their group. So if they finish first, they will have beat what they were supposed to do, just like the USA. Was Chile playing over their head when they could only beat Switzerland by a 1-0 score when they played with a man up for 60 minutes?
If Spain beats Chile tomorrow, which is a distinct possibility, and then Switzerland beats Honduras, which is likely, Chile doesn’t even make it to the round of 16.
Paraguay has won one match and tied two, the same as the US. So how can they be so impressive when they have the same record? Plus we all know the US really won two matches except for an awful call.
Japan has two wins and a loss. The US should have two wins and a loss. I agree that Japan has played well and I picked them to win against Denmark. But, if they have been impressive, so has the USA.
Again: look at the quality of play, not the results
North Korea was seen as a terrible side, perhaps the worst in the Cup. Instead, they managed to keep a strong Brazil side to 2-1 and were extremely competitive against Portugal for the first 30 minutes, until they got a goal and had to abandon their counter-attacking strategy.
Chile has surprised by playing fresh, good attacking football. Switzerland has surprised by playing extremely solid defense and beating a strong Spain. New Zealand has surprised by not getting waltzed over but even tying their three games. The USA has not surprised or impressed with their basic play at or slightly below the level we expected of them coming into the cup.
that's quite a curve you're grading on
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on Jun 25, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
It's not absolute
It’s relative to the expectations coming into the World Cup. The Netherlands waltzing through their group can’t be impressive, because that’s exactly what people expected coming in. North Korea actually showing some competitiveness is impressive given their pre-World Cup status.
Look what you are doing
You are giving credit to North Korea for playing 30 minutes of football in the entire tournament, but you will not give credit to the US for playing 45 minutes of brilliance against Slovenia. North Korea has now been outscored 12-1. That is an awful showing.
Chile was supposed to be the second place team in their group, so again how does doing what they are supposed to do rate so high when it doesn’t with the US in your book? Furthermore, they were outplayed by the Swiss the first 30 minutes and could only score one goal when they played a man up for 60. They have only scored two goals this tournament. The USA have scored 4 and had 2 taken away by dubious referee calls. That is attacking football.
New Zealand did surprise by tying three games, but they did not by any stretch play brilliant football. Moral victory yes, but moral victories and 5 bucks will get you a cup off coffee at Starbucks.
I agree with Switzerland being impressive so far, but the Swiss being impressive at times and the US being impressive at times are not mutually exclusive.
Yet again: quality of play
The USA has not impressed with their quality of play relative to the status they had coming into this tournament. You keep saying that what the USA did is better than what some other teams I’m praising did, and that’s entirely true. But that’s missing the point: those teams have exceeded their expectations in either result or quality of play. The USA has not done that.
What you are saying is illogical
You have so narrowly defined what is impressive. A beautiful sunset is impressive. A shooting star is impressive. Graduating Suma Cum Laude from Stanford is impressive. Winning a set in tennis 70-68 is impressive.
Impressive is just not one narrowly defined arbitrarily chosen idea, it has many faces.
By your definition, Spain and Brazil cannot be impressive if they meet in the finals because they are the two favorites to get there. That just doesn’t make sense.
Also, Chile has not exceeded the expectations yet and if they lose, they will finish below expectations.
You're stretching the argument until it makes no sense anymore
That’s too easy.
Look, I think Sander and I both get that you’re happy with the results, and you should be supportive of your team. But with even a slightly more unbiased view, like we have, it’s pretty easy to say your pool was the weakest of the World Cup, and you did not dominate it, instead having to struggle your way out (albeit with the refs against you).
I’m not sure what the point is of debating little points of how you define expectations and impressiveness. You’re not one of the best teams going into the knock-outs. You got out of the pool as most pundits expected you to, England’s terrible play doesn’t change that. So what’s to debate? The meaning of the word impressive? Who cares.
Obviously you do because you commented on it
Read the entire thread before you get your knickers in a snit. I never said that the US was one of the best teams going into the knockouts. YOU are making things up. What I have said is that the US has been impressive at times. A lot of teams have been impressive at times. I have said the US will power is an impressive quality. Saying that does not mean that other teams do not have the same quality, but not all teams do.
It is impressive that the US has overcome two horrendous referee calls and still made it to the knockout stage. It has nothing to do with how I feel about the US. I appreciate football and am a fan of the EPL too.
What is the point of debating any of the World Cup if that is your view? I think the debate is worthwhile. Are you somehow the arbiter of all things now? Talk about a Godlike complex. If you don’t like this thread, then don’t read it or comment on it. If you feel you have to comment, at least don’t be a jerk.
I think US stands out in willpower, that's what I said initially
Read the entire thread before you get your knickers in a snit. ;)
Now easy there, I never said it’s pointless to debate things, I said dancing about the meaning of the word impressive is pointless, which this seemed to be devolving into.
It is expected that the US reached the knockout stage, which to me means it’s not impressive. Everyone gets bad referee calls, you had bad luck, but you were expected to reach the knockout stage, and that’s what you did.
I haven’t seen anyone write about the US playing impressive at any point. Some were impressed you tied England, but we’ve all seen since that they just aren’t very good. Still, if you wish to believe the US has impressed anyone outside of the US with its quality of play, then please do.
Again. that is not what I wrote and again, who made you God?
What is important to each of us is not the same. What is important to Bill Gates is not likely to be the same thing that is important to you and I. Football is important to us, but there are more people living in this world who could not care any less.
You expected the US to reach this stage, I never expect anything. Don’t forget that 2006 was an embarrassment. On paper the US was the 2nd best team (but not by a huge amount over Slovenia), but the game is played on grass, not paper.
Yes, everyone gets bad calls. I think the straight red for the Swiss against Chile was too much. But, they still had a chance to play. The goal taken away left the US without a chance to play as it occurred with time about to run.
I have read and heard the 2nd half against Slovenia was an impressive showing. Getting to the knockout stage is not impressive, winning the group is (no matter if England underperformed).
Yes, we Americans know our standing in football. Team USA is not a world football power and there are more Americans that don’t care than do. If that is the point you are trying to make, then I do agree.
I'm sorry, what?
All I did in my initial reply was ask for the value of debating detailed definitions, I didn’t personally implicate anyone nor insult anyone. You then swung in accusing me of not reading the thread and accusing me of having a God Complex. And now you actually have the gall to accuse me of insulting you? That’s…quite uncool. And that’s as insulting as I’m going to get.
This entire post or yours is belittling
" You’re stretching the argument until it makes no sense anymore
That’s too easy.
Look, I think Sander and I both get that you’re happy with the results, and you should be supportive of your team. But with even a slightly more unbiased view, like we have, it’s pretty easy to say your pool was the weakest of the World Cup, and you did not dominate it, instead having to struggle your way out (albeit with the refs against you).
I’m not sure what the point is of debating little points of how you define expectations and impressiveness. You’re not one of the best teams going into the knock-outs. You got out of the pool as most pundits expected you to, England’s terrible play doesn’t change that. So what’s to debate? The meaning of the word impressive? Who cares."
Again, and no disrespect, who makes you the arbiter of what is important and what is not? Who makes you the arbiter of what is impressive and what is not? Why are you more objective than I? Just because you say you are?
You're not looking at this objectively
And I suppose that’s natural given that you’re a supporter of Team USA.
But, look at it this way. There are two ways to be impressive, either you show very good form in absolute terms or you outperform your expectations. The USA has done neither.
They weren’t good in absolute terms, as two tight draws against mediocre teams and a very close win against another mediocre opponent isn’t good in the context of this World Cup. They haven’t played particularly well either and there’s nothing distinctive about their play.
And they have exactly met the expectations people worldwide had of them. So how would that be impressive?
Feel free to be personally impressed by the US team, but they haven’t impressed the world in any way.
Do not say that it is because I am a fan of Team USA
If you are not a fan of a particular team, does that mean you are not being objective in the opposite direction? It is not a fair argument for either of us to make.
If I gave the impression that their overall play has been impressive, than that is not what I meant or ever said.
Team USA has had flashes of impressive play (and you already set the standard that flashes are fair game by including NK). The second half of the Slovenia was impressive. Winning in the 90th plus minute is impressive. Winning a group stage is impressive no matter the circumstances, especially for a team not named Germany, Brazil, etc.
I don't trust myself and my other co-fans to be 100% objective about the Netherlands, no
But I do trust myself to be objective about teams I don’t have many ties to, like the USA.
And again, NK was impressive compared to the expectations for that team before they started the World Cup. Keeping Brazil to 2-1 and playing decent football throughout, to then put on another good 30 minutes against Portugal is impressive for North Korea. It wouldn’t be for the USA.
And again: winning in the 90+ minute isn’t impressive at all. That happens all the time in soccer, just as comebacks do. Winning a group stage is not impressive given the expectations of the team and the opponents they faced. You can’t just ignore circumstance because it fits your argument.
If Team USA had NOT have made it out of the Group Stage,
would you really have been surprised?
Then that is where we are different
I would not have been surprised if they had not made it out of the group stage and neither would most Americans. And you accuse me of not being objective.
Team USA is OK, but they are not an elite squad by any measures. Look back only four years and you can see that.
Tell me then, why do you think they are one of the worlds best teams that were guaranteed to make it to the knockout stage. Their history in World Cups doesn’t suggest this. Again, thanks.
I never said they were one of the world's best teams
All they had to do to qualify for the group stage was beat Algeria and Slovenia. I thought they were comfortably better than both of those teams.
Again, why you think that Team USA was so much better than Slovenia
Stating it without reasons does not give understanding to the thinking. I am just curious how/why someone outside of the US thinks that Team USA is better than we think they are.
Lots of things
Recent results, the way I’ve seen them play before the World Cup, the fact that most players play in Europe and that the level of play in the MLS is much improved compared to a few years ago. Even the FIFA World rankings support this. Plus, Slovenia and Algeria have never looked good.
The USA isn’t one of the top teams at all. But Algeria and Slovenia are pretty poor teams themselves and beating them should hardly have been a tough mission for the US.
That is the real difference our way of thinking
and why we think differently in regards to impressive.
Not many here in America expected Team USA to be a “guarantee” to make it through and we have watched all the matches. Did we “think” or “hope” they would go through, yes. But, that is much different than “expecting” it.
We also think that you are underselling Slovenia. Don’t know if you actually are or not, but we think so. I think that if the USA played Slovenia 100 times, they would win 55-60 times. Not dominating by any measures in our way of thinking, so it would not have surprised us if it were England/Slovenia that went through.
Plus, like I said, Team USA has no real and long World Cup history to draw on to say they should be automatic to go to the round of 16.
Anyway, that is it for this discussion today for me. But, I do think it is interesting and will be back in this thread tomorrow after the two matches. Thanks
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
