Month: June 2010

that was way more exciting than it needed to be.

unlike most years past, the U.S. men’s national team is legitimately good. the team is easily in the top half of the countries participating in the Cup this year, and they have a class of players that (while not the super-elite) they are certainly regularly competing in the top tier of football/soccer.

so, while the U.S. advancing to the round of 16 is great … it’s also the bare minimum of what they should do this competition.

a united states draw against england would normally be a good result, but considering it was (at the time) the worst game england had played in the last two years, a draw just isn’t good enough for the talent that is on the U.S. squad.

they should have won, and won outright.

during the next match (against slovakia) they again fought for a draw against likely the 6th worst team in the competition. commentators can say all they want about the (wrongly) disallowed goal that would have give then U.S. the win, but that misses the point — they should never have been in the position to need that winner in the first place.

the coverage of the final match especially drove me crazy, the now “legendary” 1-0 win over Algeria (the 8th worst team in the competition). commentators referred to it as the U.S. “superbowl” of the Americans’ world cup, and landon donovan’s winner as the “greatest goal in the history of U.S. soccer.”

rubbish.

our “superbowl” at a minimum is the upcoming match with Ghana — even though our opponents’ are ranked worse than Algeria, they should have a strong home continent advantage being the last African team in the Cup.

our “greatest goal in the history of U.S. soccer” will be the goal donovan scores to win a (still hypothetical) next match with Uruguay or South Korea to send the U.S. to the semi-finals.

one of the things that drives me the most batty about U.S. Soccer, is that we always play down to our competition. we fight, we work hard, we run everybody else to the ground. but, in the end, we don’t think we’re good enough, and everybody else is all too happy to help make that come true.

don’t get me wrong — it’s good that the boys advanced through the group stage, and even better that they finished at the top of the group. but “top of the group” should have been with two (or even three) wins, and “advancing” is what we knew we should do way back in early June.

for the U.S., the “real” world cup starts now.

Why is this the ‘beautiful game?’ Two ties. No score in the second. They ran around in circles for 90 minutes. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

as the dutiful, soccer-educated elite in the relationship, i jumped to the world cup’s defense.

“they only call it the beautiful game if certain teams are playing it,” I said. “And France is decidedly not on that list.”

but, then i watched the rest of the weekend, and you know what? she was right. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

i watched most or all of seven matches this weekend (missed Ghana’s 1-0 win over Serbia) and while there was some great moments, by and large the matches were all ugly babies that only their mothers would love — with the possible exception of Argentina’s 1-0 win over Nigeria, whose scoreline sounded more boring than it actually was.

the world cup. less than perfect. suddenly, my life was without meaning.

i played soccer for most of two decades (keeper for all but a couple years in central defense) and have clear recollections of watching the last 6 or 7 world cups.

if the world cup isn’t the greatest sporting event ever, how could i have invested so much effort learning the game? what am i going to talk about on monday with the rest of my over-educated urban elite friends? how am i going to demonstrate my complete personal superiority over the great unwashed masses in the fly-over-states?

and so, in a vain attempt to deal with this loss of identity, i’ve come up with a couple theories about (a) why the opening weekend wasn’t the paragon of sport it could/should have been, and (b) why we all will have forgotten this crisis even happened by the time the cup is raised in four weeks time:

• not every team has played their first match — and the teams who haven’t played yet (spain, brazil, holland, portugal, italy) reliably give us a much better-looking brand of footy than even the best of the teams we’ve already seen (england, usa, france).
• no one wants to lose their first game — only 8% of world cup teams advance from the group stage after losing their first game, which means teams will do pretty much anything to avoid losing. fwiw, playing not to lose isn’t much fun to watch.
• a rash of last minute injuries — last minute changes in personnel means lots of teams are shifting players and tactics, and new people (or old people playing out of position) means crappy football until the new ‘plan’ becomes as familiar as the old one once was.
• top-shelf goal keeping — from what i can tell the goal keeping this far has been outstanding (from the usa and nigeria, in particular) and good goal keeping can turn potentially offense-laden showcases into nasty, defensive stalemates.
• the new ball — it seems like addidas can’t stop screwing with the ball (this one was called ‘horrible’, ‘rotten’ and ‘erratic’ by starting keepers in the run up) and while players can (and should) adapt, rewriting the rules of physics for the ball is going to take some real world, high pressure game experience to sort out.
• vuvuzelas — those #$%@ south african fog horns have got to be driving the players nuts, and there are plenty of complaints that the players can’t hear each other on the pitch. and while i never liked talking to *my* teammates, it seems (in hindsight) it might have been a good thing to do occasionally.

hollow excuses? maybe. complete and total bunk? probably.

am i going to bury my head in my pillow and pray for better games this week? most definitely.