Revisiting Expectations - World Cup

This World Cup. Oh my goodness.

Time to revisit the pre-tournament expectations as we are about halfway through the Group Stage.

Those of you surprised about Mexico's success - I told you so.I am not saying it was an incredibly deep insight, but most writing off Mexico did so due to a poor qualifying campaign, or a poor perception of CONCACAF in general. There is still work to be done in the final game and Croatia definitely have the talent to go through, and are feeling confident after punking Cameroon, but El Tri is full of belief after an amazing performance against Brazil, and rightly so.

As for Brazil, I think a game against those poor Indomitable Lions is going to be just the elixir they need to get their joga bonito going. I am not saying they will certainly win the tournament, but a good pasting of Cameroon will likely inspire them going into the next round.

I will admit - like most of us, I did not see the collapse of Spain coming, but I will take some credit for Chile. La Roja is inspired and talented. Not perfect, but with the passion they are playing with, they don't need to be. The game against Holland may or many not give us an indication about their hopes for the next round.

I am so very happy for my Colombian friends! And from a Dallas soccer perspective, FC Dallas has benefited from Colombia's love of the game and this country for two decades. How about them goal celebrations?  I still think Ivory Coast is the other team to come out of this group, especially after the Greece Japan snoozer. I doubt Japan will be able to beat Colombia and the Ivory Coast will break down what is an increasingly frustrated Greek team.

"Group of Champions"? Ha. More like Group of Costa Rica! I definitely didn't see this, but am very happy for it. Like Mexico, I think Costa Rica (and hopefully the US) will get a Home-Hemisphere boost not only from their fans, but also having to travel north south rather than east west. I still peg Uruguay to go through, but man, that game against Italy is going to be a fantastic Sports Drama moment either way.

Very tough result for Ecuador, but fantastic show of resolve and passion from the Swiss. I think we find out soon if France is going to boss this group or not. If not, it is wide open. I do think that Ecuador will get their mojo going against Honduras, and then we will see where they go with it.

Still Argentina and Bosnia-Hersegovina. Especially after watching Nigeria and Iran show little.

In the Group of Death, many were surprised with the way Portugal lost to Germany, but it seems there is some over-reaction to the game. Yes, there was a red card and injuries aplenty. Yes, it is worrisome. But Portugal SHOULD be deep enough to weather that storm. The real question is whether they can handle it from a mentality standpoint. The US is anything but an easy out at this point. Frankly, neither is Ghana. Both games are "the favorite should win, but..."

Belgium had to put some real pressure to get a win against Algeria. South Korea and Russia showed that they have talent but are flawed. (Goodness gracious, Russia, what a howler in goal....) It seems this is still Belgium to take the group. If Korea can get a win against Algeria, they could advance. Frankly, as shaky as Russia looked, even if Algeria wins they could break through.

Ought to be fun!

USA-Portugal - the reality check

So hopefully by now, the euphoria of winning the must-win game against Ghana has abated a little. Certainly, the rush of blood has to have dropped, but maybe the glow remains. And it is a good glow, to be enjoyed. Again, you have seen only one of eight USA World Cup wins in almost a century of play, and it was against the team that we had a score to settle.

But now, we are facing our next game, against Portugal, who, if you don't recall, actually has a score to settle with us. You know, for that 3-2 win in 2002 that basically scuttled their first Golden Generation.

But many are drooling over a few things, and while some are notable and will impact the game, others are nothing more than numbers. People are happy to see the 63% chance of advancing after the win, which certainly is an improvement. But it still is a statistic. A statistic that will mean absolutely zero on Sunday.

Let's look at a few other numbers. According to Norm Hitzges from KTCT The Ticket (yes, I love being able to cite local news media for accurate World Cup coverage) the line in Vegas is still heavily favoring Portugal to win. If I heard him right, -$150 Portugal and $300 for a tie or US win.

More to the point, he correctly pointed out that IF PORTUGAL DO WHAT THEY *SHOULD* DO - WIN BOTH OF THEIR REMAINING GAMES AGAINST TEAMS THAT THEY ARE BETTER THAN - THEY WILL ADVANCE.

Remember, nothing that happened in either game on Monday changed any of that statement.

It is sobering to think about - that we would have the joy of beating Ghana, but possibly nothing else, out of this World Cup. Let's not kid ourselves - we lose to Portugal and need a win against Germany to advance (a tie would only put us at four points, tied with Germany who would advance on goal differential), that would clearly be an incredible result.

I am not trying to be a Debbie Downer. I am just trying to accurately give a picture of where things stand.

In that light, though, let's talk about the things on Monday that WILL impact things on Sunday. The red card to Pepe, the injuries to Fabio Coentrao, Hugo Almeida, Bruno Alves and Rui Patricio - all will limit or eliminate their participation in the game Sunday. While the US has their own injr concerns, and with their lack of depth, those concerns will have a larger relative impact than just a missing player, you still have to give the injry report victory to Portugal - not something they want to win. Portugal is deep - not that deep.

You will notice I don't mention Christian Ronaldo. I don't think, based on what I have seen, that his injury concern is anything more significant than it was for the UEFA Champions League Final - and that guy was kinda good. No dice there, folks.

The other thing to take away from Portugal's 4-0 loss to Germany is that they obviously showed some buckling under stress, and that stress is only going to increase as we get closer and closer to game time. And once the first whistle blows, the longer they go without a goal, the pressure will increase exponentially.

Bottom line - there is reason for hope, and this team can do fantastic things. And there are definitely chinks in the Portugal armor. Let's just not forget the level of talent Portugal still has, or the fact that they have everything still in front of them.

Read HERE for the follow on article and what the US can try to accomplish on Sunday.

USA Soccer Development - or why isn't the US playing better?

I thought Bob Sturm said it well the other day when he told people to save the style discussions in his blog post. Some people either didn't read it or ignored the point, so much so that I feel the need to add some detail.

The argument is going something like this, "The US should attack more. That is what Klinsmann promised. This isn't beautiful soccer."

What are we now, Brazil?

In what world does the US go from being a third-tier team to being able to look down on ONE OF EIGHT EVER WORLD CUP WINS in four years?

But in the "everyone is an expert in the World Cup because that is what people are talking about" environment we are in, that is becoming the narrative. Well, it is an uneducated narrative, and some of you frankly know better...

Not to be mean, but to make the point - Did Chile beat Spain with open, fluid play? Oh, you funny guy. You funny guy.

Let's look at simple facts. Sorry, guys, I know. Facts, scmacts. Too bad - don't like 'em, go read something else.

Seriously.

Okay back to it.

Overview

Know that we need to really roll up the sleeves and dive into a lot of stuff. This isn't a simple question with a simple answer. I am going to go into the background of the team, talk briefly about player availability and then go into the discussion on tactics. Note that for brevity's sake, I am going to break out a lot of the player development stuff because that is a really long discussion in its own right.

Background

In 2010, the US team had a collection of hard charging, no-quit defenders and defensive middies, and a fantastic goalkeeper - basically, pretty athletic with some skilled players in a few positions. Bob Bradley, like Bruce Arena before him, took that collection of players and did the tactically smart thing to do - absorb and counter.

It is what the US has been since its re-emergence on the World Cup stage, with marked improvement since the 1990 team that was basically a collection of college kids sprinkled with some professionals here and there, and the development of the team has followed the development of the players, shaped in large part by the development of Major League Soccer - either directly (Donovan) or as a springboard (Howard, Dempsey, Bradley) for players.

I can hear the complainers now. "Now wait, we're talking about the tactics here, not players." But if you do not change the raw material you are working with, and that raw material doesn't have the tools to do different things, then how can the tactics be significantly different?

Player Development

This is definitely a longer post, but I will sum up with this - Klinsmann worked hard to develop the player pool both inside and beyond MLS, with failures and successes on both fronts. Beckerman, Besler and Zusi all came singularly from MLS and played significant roles on Monday. He also recruited players like Brooks and Johnson. Finally, he managed players already in the pool when he took over, like Bradley, Dempsey, Beasley, Jones.

Beyond that, though, we need to look at what will significantly change the pool of players - what will really grow the potential options the US national team coach has to choose from.

What is the US?

Now that we have talked about it, let's take a closer look at that raw material and compare it to other teams. Use whatever metric you want - salary, level of play, whatever else you might come up with. All are subjective but if you work through where the roster of potential US players is relative to other teams, I think you will consistently find that we aren't in the top tier of traditional potential World Cup winners (Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy) or even the second tier of current potential winners (Colombia, Holland, France). They are in that muddy middle with so many teams, like Ghana, Switzerland, Ecuador, South Korea, etc.

They have for some time not been what they were in 1990 - the bottom tier. The success in 1994 proved that we had the potential to be in that third tier, although obviously 1998 showed that it was just that - potential - rather than "where we are." The break-out of 2002 showed that we could be even more than that, and had the potential to get into that second tier, but 2006 showed we were still mucking around in that third tier, dependent on performance and opponent to decide how well we played and whether we went through.

Where was the US on Monday?

Which brings us to where we are today. In the Group of Death. All four of these teams advanced in 2010, with Portugal and Germany going out to eventual champions Spain, the US losing to Ghana and Ghana losing to semifinalists Uruguay. And nothing that happened on Monday changes any of that. Portugal is still good enough to win their remaining games and advance. Germany is in the driver's seat and can end Ghana Saturday, but Ghana won't go out like Cameroon did.

Specifically, on Monday we were playing Ghana, a team that like the US is long on athleticism and has usually resorted to absorbing pressure and counter-attacking to get results at higher levels.

Tactics

So with that raw material to work with, and with that landscape to deal with, what is the best way, the most realistic way, to get results on this stage? What do you do in any situation like this? Evaluate your strengths and weaknesses, compare them to your opponents strengths and weaknesses, and then go with the tactics that will play to the best tactical situation possible.

In the case of Ghana, we are talking about a team that didn't have a strong forward presence, and a team that could match and probably exceed the US in terms of athleticism. A team with not as good of a goalkeeper, but player for player probably better in the field, especially in terms of where those players played professionally. Against that kind of a team, with the strengths the US has, the best bet was to force them to attack on the wings, stay organized in the middle, and score when you have the opportunity.

And that is exactly what the US did. It may not have been super comfortable - I know I was on pins and needles, even though I understood the logic and thought it sound - but if you have to decide whether you are going to rely on Tim Howard to save a shot from distance or Bedoya (or any other set of US wingers) to attack and defend at pace, I know which set of abilities I want to put my faith.

Obviously, the early goal helped. And it was a great piece of situation awareness and killer instinct, wasn't it? Early on, a throw in 50 yards from goal, on the side line. But the team smelled hesitation, Beasley played a high ball to Jones to used a very skillful tough to get the ball to an onrushing Dempsey. Clint then used some real class to skin the Ghana defense and finish before their keeper knew what was coming.

What would have happened if the US had not had that moment, but had started out sitting back? Probably a tie game.

Another thing to consider in the flow of the match - injuries. Dempsey, Altidore, Besler - all with injury concerns in the first half. That is going to temper your eagerness to get forward, especially when the tactical situation actually calls out for patience.

This, unfortunately, is where all the clamoring for pretty soccer dies, because it is a results based world. In fact, it is why beautiful soccer is so appreciated - because it is so hard to get to a level where you can win with style and panache. The US isn't Brazil, it is a team that is hamstrung by its limitations in players and what their capabilities are. In fact, Brazil isn't "Brazil" either. The levels are different, but everyone dreaming of the return of the 1970s Brazil are not going to find it in the 2014 edition.

And the US limitations mean that no matter what Klinsmann wanted to do, what they did do on Monday was exactly the right thing to do.

Oh, and against Portugal, a team that certainly is better than the US in terms of player for player? Now you want the team to open up and play more pretty soccer? That is a longer discussion, but I think you know the direction I will be heading.

As to Klinsmann's promises of more open play, it is all a sliding scale, isn't it? I think if you look back at all of the games the US played, especially over the last two years, you will see a lot more open play in situations that under Bradley and Arena, the team had played more conservatively. Probably the best example was against Mexico earlier this year. Very rarely did we play open, attacking soccer against Mexico, yet just a few months ago, we were out of the 4-2-3-1 or similar variation we had used for over a decade and into a traditional diamond 4-4-2, and in the first half, it worked well. Second half, not so much, but subs had something to do with that.

So there were improvements on the field in terms of style of play. It just wasn't on the biggest stage in the world, in the most important tournament in the world, in the toughest group in said tournament, in the most winnable game in said tournament.

Seriously - at what point do we get to take a break?

This World Cup.

Goodness gracious, it is intense.

Without referencing specific games, just to be safe to anyone who might not have seen a game or two just yet, let's just say that there has to be something in the water down in Brazil because every game is so incredibly crazy, so wild and unpredictable.

Very few games have gone according to Hoyle. Ok, so Nigeria-Iran was a boring 0-0 match. And France-Honduras wasn't terribly surprising. But other than those, we have seen some amazing soccer. From the fantastic finish of the Switzerland-Ecuador match to the heroics of Mexico's keeper in their game against Brazil. USA scores in 34 seconds. Costa Rica upsets Uruguay, putting the "Group of Champions" on notice that, well, they really don't care what you won, when.

If you are reading this, odds are you are already deep into the tournament, so this is more of a mutual commiseration. But if not, yet you like sports at all, then you better start watching each and every game because the sports drama is only going to ratchet up mathematically for the next week, then geometrically for the week after that, and then exponentially all the way through the final.

And how about them CONCACAF teams, huh? Sorry, Honduras, but props to Mexico, the US and Costa Rica for starting off so well! It is only four games, but you have to like the way every team but Honduras have started the tournament. Mexico is now smelling advancement, while the US and Costa Rica have significant hurdles to overcome, but each has made their mark on this World Cup so far.

And for 90% of you, let me remind you that in no uncertain terms should you ever blink during the World Cup. Dempsey's goal being Exhibit A. Sports Happens, and in this World Cup, it is happening at break-neck speed. Keep those eyes glued to the game, and take in all you can. Push yourself to learn more, see more, understand more, and enjoy the payoff!

USA-Ghana - a bit more

It has only been 24 hours (yes, Jack Bauer reference there), yet we're deep into the next layer of analysis of this massive game. And it makes sense, as the World Cup happens every four years. As Bob Sturm pointed out in his blog, the USA has a TOTAL of eight wins in almost a century of World Cups. Of course it doesn't help that we didn't make a World Cup between 1950 and 1990...

But even looking at things since the US soccer renaissance (1990 to present), you only have five in 24 years. None in 1990, 1998 and 2006, one in 1994 and 2010 and two in 2002. Then yesterday's win. Let that sink in - twice we have gone EIGHT YEARS without a victory in the World Cup. Ugh.

So while I am the last one to say yesterday's win had much aesthetic beauty to it outside the goals, remember that England, Uruguay, Spain, Portugal and Greece would all trade results with the US in a heartbeat. Not in order, those teams are 1, 4, 7, 10 and 12 in the FIFA World Rankings.

Oh, and Ghana. The team that advanced the farthest from Africa in 2010. They would DEFINITELY trade places with the US.

That is how desperate things are, so when you see the US playing desperately rather than beautifully, bear that in mind.

Lineup changes

In general, the performances of Brooks and Zusi give me confidence that they can step in on Sunday and contribute, especially with the way Portugal is going to have to attack. As was pointed out by Megan Nix on Facebook, even Johannsson probably suffered more from the midfield struggles to hold the ball and maybe I was a little hard on the guy. Again, five days to prepare for Portugal ought to give the team a chance to make sure Aron is more integrated and effective.

What to expect

We will probably need to take a closer look at the match-ups against Portugal in more detail later, but from a 10,000 foot vantage point, we know a few things that we can discuss in a little more detail now that the initial rush of blood from yesterday's game has subsided.

Portugal is hurt and desperate. Yes supremely talented. FIFA rankings may not be an exact science, but you don't get to No. 4 without having a little talent. And yes, the red card and injuries won't help.

But there still probably is more raw football skill and talent on the bottom 11 for Portugal than there is for the top 11 for the US. Not being dramatic - take a look at it in more detail. So a few injuries aren't going to automatically put us on par with them.

They will have to attack. The only question is whether they will pick their spots or go full out. Considering the injury issues we all saw yesterday afternoon, I would say pressing for as much of the game as possible is very likely.

What is the goal

If the win is there to be had, by all means, the US should take it. But let's go back to the desperation of winning in the World Cup and remember that if a tie serves us, let's grab it. I haven't run all the numbers and back-checked them, but initial evaluation sure looks like a tie combined with anything other than a Ghana win and the US is in fantastic shape to advance, especially considering that a Germany loss to the Africans would be a very surprising result. If Ghana is on one or no points after two matches and the US can keep Portugal from a win, then Germany and the US can take a tie in the final game to the bank.

What does that mean

The guts of the Americans - cited often in 2010 as a strength, and on display again yesterday  will be front and center. Tactical acumen, emotional intelligence and football IQ will very necessary. And as talented as Portugal is, we will most likely have to score one if not more. A 0-0 draw is highly unlikely.

So let's be watching the injury information, and hope and pray that all the studying of the Portugal team and their game against Germany pays off.

USA-Ghana - post game

So - that happened.

Wow, what sports drama! Such an amazing start, such a run of necessary toughness. Then, a late goal from Ghana and an even later goal from the US for the final result of 2-1. A ton of positives out of that, to be sure, but also some concerns and some negatives, as well as a few questions. Let's discuss, shall we?

Positives

The emergence of John Brooks. Amazing what a goal will do for you?

The crowd - y'all did yourselves proud, folks. I bet you knew that, but it is always good to hear that it was apparent to those watching on tv as well.

What a fantastic goal by Dempsey, with good work with Jones and Beasley. And props for taking a shot to the nose and continuing on.

Jermaine Jones, well done. That was a fantastic game for you, sir, and it was great to see.

For much of the rest of the squad not reference below, they did well enough to get the result. Beckerman, Cameron, etc. - well done.

Overall mental toughness. That took a lot of focus and concentration to get that result, and for 99 of 100 minutes, it was good enough to get the win. Unless their bodies let them down, that should be a good sign for the rest of the tournament.

The Bottom Line - three points is three points, and we got them, and Ghana didn't. And we did it showing a resolve that really should start to scare opponents. When dialed in, the USA is never an easy out and always dangerous.

Negatives

Injuries. I sure hope that the staff are working extra time to find out why we had a rash of hamstring and other musculature issues. The biggest was to Altidore, and that could be a massive loss. But Besler, Cameron and Bedoya all were struggling. That is a LOT of injury issues in only the first game.

Johannsson. I will give a pass to the first half as that was totally unexpected. But surely, make the necessary halftime adjustments to figure out what will be required in the second half, no? I am not at all confident that he can step in and be a starter against Portugal. Maybe time working on some things will give him a better chance to succeed on Sunday.

I never thought I would say this about this game, but Bradley seemed to struggle at times. Here is hoping it was just one game. Considering the athleticism of the Ghanians, maybe it is a bit more understandable. Then again, Portugal and Germany aren't going to be easier to play against.

Questions

Brooks - some looseness at the back at times. I feel good that the confidence he will take from the goal, as well as the time to plan on starting against Portugal, will improve his performance. This assumes Besler will be held out of that game.

What is Next

On Sunday, June 22, the US takes on Portugal in a rematch of the 2002 opener for both teams, a shock 3-2 win for the Americans. I doubt that they will have time to think about that as the 4-0 shellacking they took at the hands of the Germans today will leave them no room for anything other than blind focus on winning their second game. They simply have no other choice. Tie or lose and they can likely kiss any reasonable hopes of advancing out of the group out the window.

Brooks will likely replace Besler, Johannsson will probably replace Altidore. Wondolowski might - possible, but unlikely, in my opinion, unless after film review, the staff feel that Johannsson played so poorly that they have no choice. Zusi for Bedoya?

Either way, this is a massive game. A win and the US is basically assured of advancement unless Ghana beats Germany and then Portugal - not likely. As discussed above, though, a tie or a loss and Portugal is in even more trouble than they are in now, which is a lot. So even though they picked up a red card and two injuries of their own, Portugal surely is deeper than the US and will be able to bring someone of quality. Then again, they have to be shaken. Question is how will they respond, and how does the US come out.

Now we get to play the injury list watching game, and the waiting game. Sunday all of a sudden is a long way away, isn't it?

But a gutsy, clutch 2-1 win over a team that has knocked you out of the World Cup twice ain't a bad thing to replay over and over until we get there. Enjoy!

USA-Ghana - Pregame expectations

Quick and dirty, here we go.

Motivation and What Is At Stake

It doesn't get any clearer than this. Ghana has ended the US World Cup effort twice in a row. Add on to that the result from this morning (if you know it, you know why, if you don't, then you are avoiding the result to watch the game or . . . why are you reading this article again?) and it is very very simple - win this game and you have a clear path to advancing.

Not necessarily win and you are through - far from it. But win and you have two opportunities to cement your advancement. Tie and the road is tough. Lose and you are most likely done barring some really oddball results.

The Opponent

Ghana is one of the better African teams, generally as athletic as any, with European players, and the organizational and tactical development that comes with that experience. Usually considered with the Ivory Coast as the two most likely to succeed in the World Cup generally, they are like the US in that they realize being in the Group of Death means there is no tomorrow, especially today.

They were a surprise in 2006, but their success in 2010 was not beyond expectations. The fact that they were the African side to advance the farthest was, on the other hand, a bit of a surprise.

But how are they now? Four years and a lot can change. Considering their play in recent African competition (Continental championship and World Cup qualification), they do not seem as strong as they were in 2010. Then again, a lot can change even in the eight months between their last competitive match of note and today.

Big questions for them - how will they handle the heat, and how will they handle the moment? Word has it that there will be a sizable US presence at the game. The heat will probably not hinder them any more than the Americans, and it might even be an advantage. But will nerves get the most of them? This could in fact be a game where the US fan support could make a difference.

Our Lads

So we know the following: Altidore, Dempsey, Bradley, Howard. Most likely Cameron, Jones and Beckerman. Probably Besler or Brooks, Johnson, Beasley? And then the open question - Graham Z or Bedoya.

What I really like about that lineup is the lack of experience. Wait, what? Yes. Lack of experience. Other than a few, none have the weight of losing to Ghana on their conscience, but all know that Ghana kept the US back and will still be motivated to avenge those losses.

I think the biggest question really comes down to unity as a team, and organization at the back. With Howard in goal, if the back six can stay organized and not make the Big Mistake, then it will be up to the attack to get a goal or two. A shutout is not impossible, and if the right defenders play well behind Beckerman or Jones, even likely, so even one goal could be the match winner.

As for unity, here is where I think Klinsmann has it right on the Donovan decision - there is zero question in my mind that the XI that will take the field today will be so motivated, so dialed in, and so ready to excise eight years of frustration with Ghana that it will take the game of the Ghanians lives to win today. Donovan has at times been unfocused, and that is something that simply cannot happen today. Simply put, the entire tournament hinges on a win today.

In the attack, it is hard to put too much on one performance, but that last goal for Altidore against Nigeria has to give you goosebumps. What a striker's goal, no? Get that moment of brilliance today, with an organized defense and the crowd support that we expect, and the US chances have to be good, even without a contribution from Bradley or Dempsey.

I also like Bradley and Dempsey, though. Clint has no fear of Ghana, and he has to take confidence from his goal in 2006 - in a lot of ways, his coming out party for the US. And Bradley seems to have take on a bigger and bigger role for the US the longer he has played for Klinsmann. I almost want to say I guarantee a goal from Bradley today, and I certainly think a goal or an assist from him is a very good bet. (Not that I condone that sort of thing, mind you...).

Bottom Line

I have not wavered from this since December - this is a must win if we want to advance. This game is the tournament. Not that if we win, we are through - far from it. There would still be yeoman's work to be done even with a strong win. But any chance of advancing hinges on three points today.

Give me the right defense, and if they have a good game, it is all there for the taking. I really do have faith that rested, fresh and prepared, we will find a way to score today. Howard will make the Black Stars earn it from the defense, so there you have it. It is on you, Geoff and Co. Do us proud!