Well, nevermind that previous post, I guess. Again, I don't hate Bradley. But I still find this annoying. I feel now that he's perhaps hit his peak, that the team under his direction has hit its peak. Don't we want more? And if we do, doesn't it make sense to make changes? I'll still support them of course, but...sigh. And now I want to find a little birdie to tell me what the hell went on in that discussion between Gulati and Klinsmann. I keep imagining it ending with a resounding, German-accented "I said good day, sir!"

(Hey look, I'm not dead! Aren't you thrilled?) Okay, they were probably in an office. And likely not kissing, although you know those Europeans. But whatever the environment and level of affection, ESPN tells us that Jurgen Klinsmann met with US Soccer President Sunil Gulati yesterday. Details, they are scant:

The source indicated Klinsmann, who turned down the Yanks' job after the 2006 World Cup, met with U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati and said Klinsmann is interested in the position, but gave no other details. A U.S. Soccer spokesman declined to comment. Klinsmann did not immediately return an e-mail message.

I've mentioned before that I am not a member of the Bob Bradley Is History's Greatest Monster Club, and as the article notes, his record since taking the helm at the USMNT in late 2006 is 38-21-8. Maybe I'm really nice (I'm kinda not) but that's not terrible. That being said, I do think after a World Cup is the most logical time to look into coaching changes. I think the team performed decently in South Africa, and obviously was much improved from four years earlier. I think Bradley has been overall a fine enough coach, but I also have come to think that perhaps he's shown us what he can do, the point to which he can take this team, and now it's an appropriate time to let someone else have a go. Klinsmann has been the obvious choice for a while for those wanting a non-MLS coach, and perhaps he's had a change of heart (and Gulati a change of brain) since 2006. My caution on this subject has always come from hearing people talk about Klinsmann in particular or foreign coaches in general as though they are all Footie Jesuses (Jesi?) who will forgive our sins of poor marking and endless long ball and save us from the damnation of embarrassing struggles against teams ranked miles below us. Foreign coaches can suck, too - if they didn't, every other country would be tied for first in the FIFA table - and we just need to be rational about the possibilities. I would expect that Klinsmann might be stronger in some areas of coaching than Bradley or other MLS coaches, but he'll also be working with the same player pool and within the same system. Limitations will exist, no matter who is pushing against them. So what do you all think? If Klinsmann does take over, what would you expect to see in the coming months? Improvements, restructurings, etc...where do you see US Soccer going if this meeting proves fruitful?

Ghana fought harder for loose balls the entire game. Ghana's keeper Kingson played up to Howard's level, arguably surpassing him in terms of confidence and decisiveness -- think about some of those plays off corners and free kicks where he came off his line and punched it away (the most memorable being him punching the ball away before it came to Howard's head late). Ghana's second goal was improbably excellent on a couple levels, starting with the long-bomb pass and culminating in the in-the-air finish that went past a delayed flail from Howard, who wasn't expecting it. I struggle to think of a claim the USA could have to deserving to get to a shootout. Both teams were inconsistent. Both teams made bone-headed plays, had communication breakdowns on defense, and were poor at developing plays in the final third. But Ghana had a few flashes of brilliance, occasionally rising to the moment in a way that eluded the US. This was a good run for the US - they drew England, won their group, and had the two most clutch performances in the group stage. Most days, they might be better than Ghana, but not this day. And really, until they resolve their slow start to halves, they can only expect to overcome so many deficits in a row. The US led opponents for about 2 minutes the entire World Cup, and we need to bump that number up a smidge if we're going to threaten to crash the late rounds. Uruguay, meanwhile, advanced despite throwing away the first twenty minutes of the second half. After not having given up a goal the entire tournament, they seemed certain that their first strike would put them through. Instead, South Korea scored yet another goal off a set play, and Uruguay had to push forward again. That suited Suarez just fine, who bent a ball at an impossible angle, especially in the rain, to put Uruguay through. The consensus seems to be that South Korea out-played them, but other than that stretch to start the 2nd, I felt Uruguay were more dangerous. Certainly the Forlan-Suarez combo has lived up to its billing. Wonder who will be paying Ajax for Suarez, and what they'll have to pay to nab him? Uruguay should beat Ghana, and they are a true dark horse to reach the final. But let's open this up to USA discussion as we eulogize their World Cup -- 1) What went wrong today? 2) What does the USA have to do to take the team to the next level? 3) Do you think this run will leave any lasting impact on US sports fan culture?

Another day, another group finished up and now we have the next set of Round of 16 matches: Germany's 1-0 win over Ghana today combined with Australia's 2-1 win over Serbia gives us England vs Germany and US vs Ghana. I believe both match-ups will be interesting, but I don't necessarily know how that interest will take shape. One would think a game between #6 Germany and #8 England would be rollicking...but England hasn't exactly approached anything resembling rollicking in their group matches. Of course, after their opener, Germany has also seemed a bit lackluster. The match today was fairly even - Germany had a 54 - 46 edge in possession, but had fewer shots than Ghana. Passing was decent on both sides, but there was a lot of turnover action happening midfield in both directions. Both teams saw some good chances wasted, and both teams had moments of good defense. The difference in the game was a beautiful left-footed strike from Mesut Ozil, but other than that there wasn't much to write home about. Is England a better team than Ghana? In general, I'd say yes, but as we've seen in this World Cup, that doesn't mean much. England certainly hasn't played up to their potential thus far, but neither did Germany today nor last week against Serbia. Having finished second behind the US, England may be driven to kick ass or they may be deflated by the negative press they've received and by their own disappointment. My feeling is that Germany is the stronger side right now and holds the momentum, but if the England Egos can be corralled and if all those stars can come together, it could be quite a battle. The US v Ghana match will be intriguing, what with the memories of the Americans' loss to the African side back in the 2006 World Cup, leading to a plane ride home for Donovan et al. Can this rather different US squad make up for that disheartening game? Looking at how they've played, I'd say absolutely, but knowing the troubles with consistency...I'll knock on wood and say probably. As mentioned, Ghana seemed to hold up decently against Germany but throughout the match seemed unable to keep up a constant flow - in the beginning portion they were slow and losing possession easily; the end of the first half saw them pick it up and become the more dangerous attacking side; in the second half they continued to push but not well enough, and couldn't seem to put much together when they did hold the ball. The US will need to exploit those soft moments, and they have the speed to do so, but does their defense have the strength to support it? As for Australia's tough win over Serbia, it sounds like a valiant effort and it's a result the Australians should be proud of, even if it didn't secure a spot in the knockout round for them. If not for the 4-0 stomping they took in the opener against Germany, it might be a different story, as second-half goals from Tim Cahill and Brett Holman weren't enough to overcome the goal difference. Their defense did well to hold off Serbia, who didn't find the net until the 84th minute, and a handful of tweets told me Marko Pantelic's shot came from an offside position. Going home on a strong finish still means going home, but fighting to the last minute means heads should be held high.

Call Landon Donovan one of the best players in the tournament thus far and most footy fans would have a tough time arguing with you. Call Bob Bradley one of the best coaches in the tournament thus far and you'd be far more likely to be laughed out of the room. Some USA fans unaffectionately refer to Bradley as "Robo Bob," which gives you an idea of his perceived flexibility. Yet his willingness to substitute aggressively and change formations on the fly have been crucial to the US group victory. Think back to the Slovenian game. First, he started Jose Torres in the game, looking for a creative spark after the dour offensive display against England. It turned out that the tiny Torres was a bigger boon for Slovenia than the US, and with a 2 goal deficit threatening to ruin his World Cup, Bradley inserted Maurice Edu. Edu, you might recall, struck the disallowed game winner from Donovan's free kick. Bradley also removed Robbie Findley for Benny Feilhaber, which pushed Clint Dempsey up front and gave the US more punch in attack. During the second half, Bradley went from a 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3 to a 4-2-4 as he sought every way possible to achieve the tie. Once he did, he pulled back a few bodies, but not so many that the game shouldn't have been won. Against Algeria, with the US coming off another scoreless first half, Bradley played the Feilhaber card again. This time, he removed Herculez Gomez so that Dempsey could move up front and make room for Feilhaber in midfield. Feilhaber was involved in several chances, and Dempsey had the most memorable close calls of the second half. Bradley continued to add offense from the bench and push players forward as time ticked on, maximizing his chances for a winner even if it left his squad more exposed at the back. England fans would love to see such flexibility from Capello. Arguably, the team plays so much better with Dempsey up front and Feilhaber in midfield that one might criticize Bradley for not starting with that lineup. However, while Feilhaber plays a good 45, he might not hold up for a full 90, and the US benefits from Dempsey's versatility in midfield as teams feel each other out in the early part of the game. Not only has Bob Bradley been shedding his "Robo" label with bold, offense-oriented game management, his decisions have played a significant role in the US comeback and victory over the last 2 games. Plastic Bob FTW.

And the Twitter servers screamed NOOOOOO All hail Donovan, a talisman if ever there were one. He had a bright few minutes to open the second half before drifting off into irrelevance as Altidore and Dempsey took center stage. But then there he was, right place, right time, to (conservatively) deliver the most thrilling victory in US soccer history and (more optimistically) transform the destiny of his sport in his home country. It didn't look too good for a while there. The frustration of another diallowed goal, this time with a poor offside call on Clint Dempsey in the first half, along with chances blasted over -- and sometimes into -- the bar threatened to sink the team. And the victors should tip their cap the the goalkeeping of Algeria keeper Mbohli, who kept several other strikes from reaching the back of the net with outstanding instincts and confidence. One meme I'd like to dispell that started making its rounds in the waning minutes was that Algeria was playing for the tie all game. That is false -- they had 16 shots in the first hour or so of play, and they pressed and countered with more bodies against the US than they did against England. Maybe they're a mess when it comes to finishing, but it wasn't from a lack of trying. Granted, they rely on those counter-strikes instead of trying to impose their will from the start, but it resulted in more than enough offense to steal the game (if they could ever finish). England, meanwhile, used a dominating first half to put the screws to Slovenia and advance. With the early goal and continued assault on the Slovenian goal, it seemed certain that England would crack the game open with another score or two. But despite chances from Rooney, Gerrard, Defoe, and Lampard all coming :thisclose:, the English could never rest easy in the game. At one point, a Slovenian looked cut down in the box without a call, but I couldn't tell on the stream if it was definitely a foul. Regardless, England looked vibrant and explosive for the first time in the tournament, something the Group D winner they'll play next will be less than thrilled to see. Had Slovenia scored at any point, the USA finish might've been anti-climactic. Instead, the trudge through adversity that was Group C was transformed into the first time the USA won its group since 1930*. And it was the first American clean sheet in a World Cup group stage game* since 1950. So how was your morning? *Thanks to James for the corrections!

Update: Okay, had a chance to take a deep breath and digest all of this, so let's begin sorting through the details, shall we? 1) The call After the game on ESPN, Landon Donovan claimed that the ref wouldn't tell him what the call was when he disallowed the winning US goal. After seeing the image Auguste posted below, it was clear the only proper call would've been any one of 3 penalties for the US... unless, of course, you simply allow play to continue and thus allow the goal. But as James notes in comments below, this is far from the most egregious mistake in World Cup history, both in terms of impact and quality of fail. England's loss to Argentina thanks to Diego Maradona's Hand of God goal in 1986 has always stood out to me as the most painful of losses that can be pinned on a single botched call, and unlike the losers of that game, the USA is still very much alive -- a 2 goal win over Algeria will certainly put them through. Now, if England and Slovenia draw, things can get tricky, but we go into our match against Algeria knowing exactly what we have to do to take matters into our own hands. This call was bad, but it hasn't ruined the dream. 2) Credit to Slovenia They had a great gameplan, and they executed it to perfection in the first half. They aggressively challenged US players for the ball and turned on a dime to launch counter-attacks. The US clearly had communication problems at the back, and the Slovenians were operating in tons of space, creating alleys for players to burst forward. Sure, their defensive unit had issues like the US, but there was a coherence and unity, not to mention quickness, to the Slovenians that the US could only admire. Perhaps if the Slovenian keeper had showed a bit more mettle against Donovan's strike for the first goal, we'd be writing the obituary on the US World Cup team today. England will have their hands full. 3) Jozy Altidore Is he a tease or does he have the makings of a great footballer? Yes. And that's always going to be the problem. You can't sit a guy who's that explosive, but he'll also waste a maddening amount of attacks by shooting straight at the keeper, or hesitating to shoot, or forgetting he's not Wesley Sneijder, etc. He's the total X factor in the US attack, and I don't know if he'll ever develop the kind of consistency the team needs. But I also doubt anyone else will come along with a better package of potential, either. 4) Donovan Continues to make history for the US, even if his outstanding free kick for the 3rd goal will never be an official part of that history. The team needed a goal ASAP in the 2nd half, and unlike Jozy (who shied away from a similar angle in the first to waste a possession with a crap pass), Donovan put the team on his back and, as he said, fired at the goalie's head. Our first modern national soccer talisman. 5) Bob Bradley Committed fully to attack when down a goal late, going from 4-4-2 to 4-3-3 to 3-4-3 as time wound down. His subs were right on the money, and Edu would've made him look even more genius if a certain World Cup virgin hadn't pooped himself at the climax. This was a roller coaster for the ages. All hope was lost, then there was a half hour of hope and fear swishing around like painful mouthwash, then elation at the tie, then enduring fury at the denial of the win. Something tells me the galvanizing, community-enhancing effect this game is clearly having on the US fans is happening to the team, too. Adversity brings people together, gives them an injustice to rally around, and I can't wait to see how the US comes out against Algeria. Discuss. ----------- Auguste adds:

The most important game for the US is behind us, and tomorrow we have...the most important game for the US. I came to the maddening realization this week that the second game of the group stage, no matter who your opponent may be, is the paramount one. After the opener, whatever the result, it's still wide open as far as advancement. Ten teams lost their opening match but no one is counted out at that point, at least not mathematically. But when it comes to the second game, while it still may not be definitive for most teams, it can certainly feel so for all intents and purposes. A bad result makes the third game suddenly enormous, while a good result can put a team largely at ease (all of this is depending on what the table looks like after these results, of course). And thus tomorrow morning's match between the US and Slovenia is already giving me heart palpitations. I didn't see Slovenia's opener against Algeria, but while they did nab three points from it, it sounded generally unremarkable from what I've heard. But that doesn't mean the Yanks should be dialing back, not at all. In fact, I'd say the aim should be to step it up even more from the good showing against England. Slovenia seems to be a well-organized team, so keeping things controlled will be a key - I'm specifically hoping for the passing to be more accurate. But in addition to control, they will also need to be energetic and try to push forward through Slovenia's compact defense. I wouldn't make many changes to the starting 11 that we saw last Saturday, but there are a couple of swaps I'd like to see: --------------------Altidore----------Buddle-------------------- Donovan---------------------------------------------Dempsey --------------------Torres------------Bradley------------------ Bocanegra-------Onyewu-------DeMerit-------Cherundolo ------------------------------Howard------------------------------ Buddle over Findley is not so much a condemnation of the latter but rather in support of the former. I know Buddle didn't do much in his substitute role last Saturday, but as shown in the warm-up match against Australia and in many MLS games, he is often strong right out of the gate and seems to relish throwing down an attack while the other side is still getting settled. Additionally, as partners on the L.A. Galaxy, he and Donovan work very well together - he reads Donovan's intentions clearly, and is often able to get himself into position to be on the fortuitous end of Donovan's smart play-making. Findley may have more speed, but I feel that Buddle has a better tactical mindset. Torres over Clark is not an opinion that would put me in the minority, I don't think. Almost everyone I talked to about it over the past few days has said the same thing. Clark wasn't completely awful in the opener, but he wasn't impressive and he did have a big silly lapse that helped lead to England's early goal. I am just not all that impressed with his abilities and I want to see a different plan of action on Friday. Torres may be less experienced with the national team - he has ten caps to Clark's thirty - but he is fast and agile and shows a lot more determination, in my opinion. He always seems eager whenever he comes on the pitch to get right in the mix, and is bold and spirited. A favorite memory I have of him is from the final qualifier last October: in the waning minutes of stoppage time while the US was still down 2-1, he chased a Costa Rican player into the corner, knocked him down (fairly), and snagged the ball away and took off back down the pitch, all with a "just another day at the office" air. I watched the highlights from that game (in this awesome video at field level with no commentary, just the sounds of the game and the crowd) a handful of times and that moment makes me smile every time. Other than those two, it's the usual suspects of course, and I think it's a strong lineup. What are your thoughts/hopes/worries/prayers?

Ever find yourself frustrated by the lack of scoring in a game? Ever struggle to share your joy of the game with American cohorts? Maybe this will help. Prior to the Germans casting off their tradition of dourly efficient footy and gallivanting about like a coked-up Barcelona, none of the results from the first 3 days of World Cup soccer were particularly inspiring. I'm sure hordes of Americans tuning in to see what the fuss was about were turned off by scores like 1-1, 0-0, 1-0, and the uneven, nervy draw against England. Major American sports are defined by a never-ending stream of recordable micro-events: balls and strikes, first downs, rebounds, completed passes, double plays, blocked shots, and so forth. Box scores for every sport regularly spawn additional columns to satisfy our stats- and fantasy-obsessed fans. From this perspective, watching soccer can seem boring or frustrating - without a bunch of tangible events to track in-game, how can we even be sure something is happening? I used to think about the sport this way, too. Scoreless soccer felt like watching a chef chop vegetables but failing to prepare a dish. Then, one day, a British announcer tossed off a phrase commonly used across the pond but totally unknown to me over here and everything changed.

Read All...

Title courtesy of my coblogger, Auguste. I doff my hat to you, sir. As exciting as it was, as proud as I am of the team, as pleased as I am with the result...dang, am I ever glad that's over with. My nerves were frazzled to the point of a near-dissociative state and I felt like I'd drank a pot of coffee on an empty stomach...coffee mixed with oven cleaner and shards of glass. It's exhausting being a soccer fan! BUT! At times it is also rewarding, and while of course I was hoping for a US win today, I will gladly take a 1-1 draw. Overall, I'm happy to say that the US was the better team for good portions of this match. It didn't start that way, with England's goal coming in just the 4th minute after Steven Gerrard easily got away from Ricardo Clark. This was worrisome not just because of the obvious but because the US tends not to recover well when they allow an early goal, whether in the first or second half. But rather than getting deflated and coming apart, the team buckled down and responded very well. The defense, including Oguchi Onyewu in his first full game since his knee injury last October, gave one of the best performances we've seen from them in a long time. It wasn't without blunders here or there of course, but was much stronger and more cohesive than usual. In fact, Capello's reason for subbing out James Milner in only the 31st minute was that "he was having trouble with [Steve] Cherundolo". Tim Howard was unsurprisingly great, making several key saves even after taking Emile Heskey's boot to his ribs. I do not ever want to see this again:

Read All...

James Stevens at MLS Talk has a post up today called "Why Beating England Might Not Be Good For Soccer In The US". Sigh. Before even reading the post, the title made me shake my head, because whatever was to follow it would never convince me that the USMNT beating a more well-renowned team that is above them in the rankings would be in any way bad for soccer in the States, from the right perspective. By that I mean - those of us who follow the game, who care about it, who understand it (and I don't just mean "know the rules", I mean understand it intuitively and emotionally, i.e. people who don't say it's boring because there aren't enough goals or whatever) would see any victory like that as amazing and a great thing for US soccer. Every time we best an opponent generally considered to be better than us, it infuses a bit more confidence, a bit more assurance, and maybe a bit more respect from other countries. Sure, to people who know little and care even less about soccer and are only tuning in to the World Cup because their coworker won't shut up about it or they heard that kid Messi is pretty cool, the win won't mean as much and it may very well lead to unrealistic expectations. Stevens says that the "commentary following a US win over England would be grossly out of proportion compared to what the result means and will combine with the win against Spain in 2009 to create a line of drivel from know-nothing American sports commentators claiming the US have the potential to lift the Cup this year." If some newcomer thinks that beating England means we've got a likely shot to win the whole thing, well...yeah, that's dumb and uninformed. But it in no way means we should be worried about it as a potential outcome of a US win. We should be thrilled without reserve about a win, and then patiently explain to our non-footie friends the concepts of managed expectations and non-U.S. supremacy. (This will be fun, I promise, especially if they are Tea Party folks.)

Read All...

Well, THAT was much better! 2-1 US after a good fight back in the second half and goals from Altidore and Dempsey (both set up by Donovan). I don't know what Bradley said to them, but they had a lot more energy and focus, and I think a good portion of that is thanks to the subs. Jose Francisco Torres came on for Ricardo Clark, and I strongly feel Torres should be the starter. He has great determination and is almost feisty - he goes after opponents much more than most of his teammates do, and his passing is consistently strong. Robbie Findley came in for Benny Feilhaber and made me think maybe his inclusion in the roster wasn't so odd. It wasn't an all-around amazing performance but it was strong and poised, and included an awesome chip shot pass to help set up the US's first goal. The defense looked better - it could hardly have looked worse - but was still a bit uncertain at times. It almost seemed like the the speed of the Turkish team was too much for our back line, and that's really not acceptable. They should not be so easily thrown off and should be able to adjust as needed as they watch how the other team is playing. But there was much more physical defending in the second half and more tracking back from the midfield as well, and it worked. They need to jot that down in the book and make it a staple of every game. So now they head to South Africa on a good note. Let's keep that going, guys? Please?

This friendly game ain't so friendly to my blood pressure! 1-0 Turkey at the half, and it could easily be worse. The USMNT defense is looking very troubled and scattered today, and Turkey knows it - they may only have one goal but they've pushed through with rapid counter attacks numerous times. Our passing has been amateurish at times, with flashes of strength that seem to dissipate within moments. It's one of those matches where it seems like the opposing team has three or four extra men on the pitch. There was a golden opportunity near the end of the first half, when Altidore ran up the flank with Dempsey right in the middle of the box, but the pass seemed just beyond his reach and rolled right along the front of goal, snickering as it went. They need to tighten up every aspect of the squad right now and start communicating better, which is sadly the same thing you could say at nearly every USMNT halftime. I keep my faith, but being a soccer fan sure is hazardous to your health.

Bob Bradley announced the final 23-man roster for the World Cup this morning, whittled down from the preliminary 30. The group of men shouldering the hopes and dreams of a nation (no pressure, guys!) is: Goalkeepers: Brad Guzan, Marcus Hahnemann, Tim Howard Defenders: Carlos Bocanegra, Jonathan Bornstein, Steve Cherundolo, Jay DeMerit, Clarence Goodson, Oguchi Onyewu, Jonathan Spector Midfielders: DaMarcus Beasley, Michael Bradley, Ricardo Clark, Landon Donovan, Maurice Edu, Benny Feilhaber, Stuart Holden, Jose Francisco Torres Forwards: Jozy Altidore, Edson Buddle, Clint Dempsey, Robbie Findley, Herculez Gomez After watching the disappointing-but-not-all-that-meaningful 4-2 loss to the Czech Republic last night, there are a couple of inclusions I'm happy to see and a couple that have me confused, though not wholly surprised. (I say not meaningful because, of course, many of our main starters were not on the pitch but rather in a sky box looking down and, in the case of Bocanegra at least, eating. Like, the whole time.) Gomez made a strong case for himself, coming in as a second-half substitute, scoring a goal and looking sharp overall. Buddle didn't look overly dangerous but did show his speed and quick-thinking at times. Beasley was a pleasant surprise - he had a lot of energy and focus, and looked much more confident than the last few times I'd seen him with the national team. I'm happy to see all three of these guys get the call and am hoping this will only increase their determination to prove their worth. I'm at a loss to explain Findley's inclusion, mainly because he didn't even play last night (though he was on the subs bench). I can only assume he's done well in camp - well enough to knock Ching out of the final squad. (I'm back and forth on my opinions of Ching, but I didn't expect him to be left out.) Bornstein really showed no reason at all last night why he deserves to be a mainstay on the team, except for the fact that our defense pool is about as deep as a petri dish and beggars can't be choosers. But there's not much to be said now, and overall it's not like we didn't know what 90% of the roster was going to look like, so now the focus is on making this group work together and getting everyone comfortable in their roles. Seeing Dempsey noted as a forward is promising, as he's seemed to be much happier and to play better up top rather than on the wing where he has to think about defense in addition to scoring. Now that we've seen Donovan play on the right with Everton and knowing Torres can move around the midfield, including to the left wing, we have the option of letting each man settle in where they feel most able and dangerous. But at the moment, I'm awaiting the game against Turkey on Saturday and hoping for a good result. What we saw last night was not a precursor to what we'll see in South Africa; what goes down on Saturday very well may be.