FIFA's "I'm Keith Hernandez" moment

On Thursday December 2nd, FIFA (the world's governing body of soccer) announced their decision to hold the 2018 and 2022 World Cup Finals in Russia and Qatar, respectively. While the choice of Russia is not completely out-of-character for the event, choosing to place the finals in Qatar represents a radical departure from past precedent. Qatar is a tiny nation with virtually no stadiums, no soccer culture, a litany of human logistical concerns (average summer temperature over 100 F, Sharia law in full effect, dangerously close proximity to violent locations, etc.), and a population roughly equivalent to Milwaukee's. Short of divine intervention, nothing can be done to change these things in twelve years.

Why on earth did FIFA make this choice? On the surface, there is no logical reason to choose Qatar to host the world's biggest sporting event. But FIFA is no longer looking at the surface of things. The World Cup is no longer about soccer, parties, or even the crass standard of the past.... making money. Now, the FIFA selections are all about ego.

When it started, the World Cup was simply a soccer tournament. From the beginning, the decision of where to hold it was contentious. However, back then the decision usually boiled down to who could actually hope to at least break even on the cost of hosting. It is easily forgotten that the first world cup contained a mere 13 teams, largely because several nations balked at the cost of sending their teams to Uruguay. The locations of the '50, '54, and '58 tournaments were chosen mostly to avoid the mess that much of Europe found itself in after WWII.

After time, however, the tournament's growing popularity made it into the cash cow for FIFA, and the tournament was positioned in places to actually make a profit for organizers, rather than merely break even. Eventually, FIFA was starting to rake in cash from both the tournament and rights fees. That emboldened it to stretch out to even more potentially lucrative locations, such as the USA in 1994 and Japan/South Korea in 2002. But even then, there was always the foremost concern that the tournament be properly hosted, that the atmosphere matched the expectations, and that the sponsors were happy.

That changed with the selection of South Africa to host in 2010. There was simply no conceivable way that South Africa would match the atmosphere of the arenas elsewhere in the world. There were too many logistical issues to think that the tournament would be a money-maker. But FIFA was forced to pay some political capital back to the African federations, and they wanted the highest-profile event on African soil. They succeeded, but at the cost of the tournament itself. Generally poor soccer, half-empty stadiums and the incessant vuvuzela wail remain the legacy of World Cup 2010. But FIFA learned a lesson. Despite all the problems, the tournament still came off without any major disruptions, and they still made money. The lesson FIFA has taken to heart is that they can run a successful World Cup anywhere. FIFA now believes they can make ANY location work. The criteria for selecting sites is now about.... what?

To hear the Brits (denied the opportunity to host in 2018 by the Russia decision) tell it, the selection is all about back-room deals and manila folders full of cash. They may be right. It is no coincidence that the Russia and Qatar bids were the most expensive (by far). It is no coincidence that both Russia and Qatar have essentially promised FIFA to pay them for their troubles, regardless of how the tournament works out. But I think money was essentially secondary to something else.

A revealing item is the remark in the FIFA "technical committee's" evaluation of the USA's bid to host the 2022 finals. After exhaustive praise of the available facilities, infrastructure, and growing soccer culture, the committee dinged the US for the horrendous crime of "less than full government support." In other words, the US had not given FIFA a blank check to do whatever they wanted within US borders for the tournament. The US government had not knelt sufficiently at the FIFA altar. As it turns out, the same fate befell the British bid. They were supposedly neck-and-neck with the Spanish and Russian bids until British papers exposed some corrupt practices of a couple FIFA executive committee members. In apparent retribution, England was the first nation eliminated from consideration. According to many well-substantiated reports, "How dare they examine us!?!?!" was the theme expressed by many FIFA members. FIFA was more impressed by how well the various bid committees prostrated themselves before the almighty FIFA than by any other factor.

Which is where FIFA stands today. They're about FIFA, not soccer, and not even money. In the famous Seinfeld episode, Keith Hernandez encourages himself with, "I'm Keith Hernandez!". (See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%27m%20Keith%20Hernandez). FIFA just did the same thing. It could've given the World Cup Finals to countries where it was guaranteed to have fantastic tournaments with big crowds and good times. It could've guaranteed itself a huge payday and few headaches. Instead, it chose to put the World Cup in Russia and Qatar. Why? Because "We're FIFA, and we can do whatever the heck we want!" If FIFA decides that it can hold a tournament in > 100 degree summer heat in a small desert with no stadiums, then by golly... it CAN! And nobody will tell it differently!

There are some (especially within FIFA itself) who will applaud these decisions as "expanding" the scope of the game and trying to bring in new audiences. Others will portray the locations as opportunities to open up previously closed societies. Both reasons are irrelevant. The real reason that the World Cup Finals are scheduled to travel to Russia and Qatar is that the FIFA hierarchy is now a bunch of Godfather types looking for whoever will kneel down and kiss their rings. Flush with money and success, they believe they can do whatever they want. And mark my words, it will come back to haunt them. Russia may be able to pull off a decent tournament, but 2022 is destined to be a total disaster, the likes of which no World Cup finals has ever seen. Thank the hubris of FIFA executives, who apparently believe themselves to be divine.

SAH

Please don't "just vote"

Election day is today. Over the past 20 years or so, I have seen numerous public pleas urging folks to "just vote." The sentiment seems to be to encourage folks to voice their opinion in the most effective manner possible... at the ballot box. It appears to be a noble sentiment, and free of partisan leanings. It's also a crock. Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, do NOT "just vote."

Many people want to exercise their "right" to vote (we'll ignore the technical arguments about whether voting is a right or a privilege). Fine and dandy. Please exercise your rights intelligently. "Bearing arms" is a right. It is so fundamental that it was written into the initial passage of the constitution as the 2nd amendment (Quick history lesson: the original constitution was comprised only of the "articles." The "bill of rights", comprising the first 10 amendments, were added before the entire document was actually ratified. Those amendments won a lot of ratification votes).

But would you encourage your local teen to go grab a gun and start shooting "just to exercise his/her right?" Would you tell him or her that it's not important who or what you aim at, "just so long as you shoot?" Of course you wouldn't. So why would anyone tell folks to vote "just to exercise your right?" Why would you ever say "It's not important who you vote for, just so long as you vote?" In many ways, voting is more powerful than shooting a gun. The winners of these elections will be given positions of authority and responsibility that cover hundreds, thousands, potentially millions of lives. They will create laws and enforce them. They will confiscate money and property "for the public use." Words cannot do justice to how critical the need is for trustworthy, intelligent, and responsible folks to be making these decisions. Showing up at a voting precinct and randomly choosing names (or picking the name that somebody handed you on a flyer) will not do this.

Yet we still see too many campaigns designed not to educate voters or discuss the various issues of the day, but rather to merely enlist as many potential voters as possible and send them to the polls with only the vaguest notion of what they're doing (and yes, I'm speaking of MTV's asinine "Rock the Vote" series in particular.....). Doing this is irresponsible at best, and wantonly destructive at worst. It must stop.

It begins with you. You have the power today. Will you vote after researching the candidates, issues, and positions, or will you merely pick someone's name from a hat? Will you consider a candidate's background, voting record, and policy choices, or just look for the party affiliation (BTW, there's nothing inherently wrong in voting a party line...just so long as you know what that party stands for and want to align yourself with it)? Will you use your powerful right to vote to choose good people for important posts, or will you squander your privilege (and give the finger to the thousands of folks who worked and sacrificed through our nation's history so you c0uld have that privilege) by just picking the "cool" candidate or randomly picking names?

Voting is serious business. Treat it as such. Do your homework before you vote. If that sounds like too much to handle, then don't vote. Elections are far too important to be decided by ignorant rubes or slavish myrmidons. Please, please, PLEASE do not "just vote."

SAH

MLS Regular Season concludes

Long time since my last post, but I finally have something else to talk about. I've avoided talking about the crazy NFL season thus far, where a team that leads the league in total offense and defense has a record of 2-5 and the defending Super Bowl champs can be humbled at home by the sad-sack Cleveland Browns. The whole "Any Given Sunday" trope has to be trotted out yet again....

But instead of focusing on that, I want to talk about the just-completed MLS regular season. I think this year will mark a turning point in MLS history. One sure sign of this is the retirement of several league legends and a couple of original members. There were very few of those hardy souls left in the game, and now I'm not sure if there are any left. The biggest name belongs to Brian McBride, the first-ever MLS draft pick from way back in 1996. After a stellar college career, McBride slammed home 4 goals in his MLS debut that season and garnered enough interest over a few seasons in Columbus to earn a big payday in England. He became something of a folk hero at Fulham for scoring timely goals, and only returned to MLS last season to play out his twilight years ("twilight years" in soccer terms... meaning he's just middle-aged for life).

Another legend retired this season. Jaime Moreno will leave MLS as the league's all-time leading scorer. It's doubtful that his record will hold up for very long (second-place all-time is Jeff Cunningham of Dallas, who is expected to return next season and only trails by a single goal), but Moreno isn't purely a "stats" guy. Moreno was with DC United from their inception in 1996 and was a crucial member of that team for all 4 of their titles (including the shameful 2004 title earned courtesy of a blatant Alecko Eskandarian handball... and yes I'm still bitter about it!). Moreno possessed a deft touch on the ball and lightning-quick reflexes around the penalty area. While never a speedster, he routinely surprised defenders with a quick short-distance burst and a calm head in front of goal. It says something (both in favor of Moreno and indicting this year's DC squad) that even at an advanced age (again... advanced for pro soccer players) and minus his youthful quickness, Moreno was perhaps the most dangerous player on his team. He will be missed.

That still leaves guys like Eddie Lewis, Mike Petke, Chris Klein, and CJ Brown out of the discussion, and quite frankly those players are all deserving of their own career epitaph. It's truly the end of an era.

But with the passing of the old comes opportunity for the new, and MLS is not wanting in those respects. After a handful of seasons that saw some underwhelming play and distressingly bland styles, competition and intensity has returned to the league. While recent years have seen teams of no-name young legs running around in support of a lone player of note, 2010 saw almost every team play a roster of quality players. Nearly every team had at least two or three players worthy of note and capable of making something happen. The number of goals scored went down (again), but that was largely due to a horrible run of games early in the season while teams were still trying to find themselves amidst the scheduling quirks of the World Cup year. Post-World Cup, teams added some significant players such as Thierry Henry, Geovanni, and Rafa Marquez. The overall quality of play jumped up appropriately, and the intensity rose as the pressure mounted.

Also, for the first time ever, only half the teams made the playoffs. With a full 16 teams, 8 playoff participants represent a mere 50%. Compare that to the early days of 10 teams, when all but a couple of teams made the playoffs, and you see why this season saw more competitive games through the summer.

Add it all up and you get a very promising picture. MLS now has more stars than ever, and the games mean more than ever. I'm not completely sold on adding even more teams to the league (Vancouver and Portland are already scheduled to join next season), but for now it's good. This year's playoffs will actually feature matchups of good teams, any one of which could legitimately claim the title, a direct contrast to past seasons when a sad-sack team could back into the playoffs and hope to get lucky against a real contender.

For now, I want to briefly recap the seasons for the 8 teams that failed to make the playoffs, in order of their finish. For them, the season is truly over and the thoughts turn to 2011. The 8 playoff contenders still have something to play for before we write their summary...

9th place -- Kansas City Wizards
Despite another year of missing the playoffs (and still possessing what is most likely the most boring team emblem in all of sports... go ahead and check it out if you want: http://www.kcwizards.com), the Wizards have to feel good about what they accomplished in 2010. They improved almost everywhere on the field, scoring more goals and giving up fewer than they did in 2009. They struggled early, but picked up after the World Cup break when coach Peter Vermes settled on a standard starting lineup. KC got some decent (if inconsistent) production from guys like Birahim Diop and Kei Kamara. Newcomer Ryan Smith could be a star on the left wing. There's hope up front with rookie Teal Bunbury and next year's addition of Mexican veteran Omar Bravo. Kansas City will also get a new stadium in 2011, only furthering the good vibes. There are still some questions on the roster, such as how the team can replace veteran leader Jimmy Conrad (who has clearly lost his edge), but Kansas City fans are looking forward to good things.

10th place -- Chicago Fire
It wasn't supposed to end this way in Chicago. They were considered underachievers the past two seasons when they lost out in the league semi-finals (although their classic semi-final against Columbus in 2008 was perhaps the best MLS game of the past three or four years). So what can you consider a team that flops all season long and ends up out of the running entirely? The loss of veteran Cuahtemoc Blanco was clearly much bigger than the Fire anticipated, as the team struggled to create opportunities without him. More damning was an inconsistent streak that saw them flatten opponents one week only to disappear the next. Collins John was a flop. Nery Castillo did little. In a desperation move, the team traded for Freddy Ljungberg, who was as frustratingly inconsistent as he was in Seattle. Chicago now faces some daunting offseason questions. Who will replace the legend McBride up front? Do they pony up the cash for John, Ljungberg, and Castillo after all three disappointed? Who stays and who goes? What about guys like Calen Carr that simply haven't developed? It's clear that the team needs an overhaul.

11th place -- Toronto FC
The season started with a new coach and a supposedly new attitude. MLS legend Preki had been marginally successful coaching an under-talented Chivas USA side, so he seemed like a good choice for under-achieving Toronto. Alas, he clashed with players and staff while experimenting with lineups and the season slowly slipped away. The front office fired Preki halfway through, but it made little difference. The truth is that Toronto's core simply isn't good enough. Dwayne DeRosario has rarely been better, but he can't do it all himself, and he's 33 years old. Julian DeGuzman was a big-dollar signing who produced precious little. Spanish import Mista also proved to be a waste of time. Young goalkeeper Stefan Frei leaked goals at inopportune times. At times, Toronto looked like a competitive team, but too many key contributors came up small. Like Chicago, Toronto must ask some tough questions during the offseason. What kind of style do they want to employ? Who can supplement DeRosario in attack? And even bigger... who could potentially replace him soon? He's no spring chicken.....

12th place -- Houston Dynamo
Perhaps we should've seen it coming, but it was still jarring to see the ultra-defensive former champs leak goals all season and wind up out of the picture even before the leaves started to fall. The team relied far too heavily on big Geoff Cameron, whose injury revealed a frightening lack of depth. Houston had to abandon it's traditional "10 men in the box" defensive style in order to score a few goals. While the team still managed to poke in a few goals thanks largely to veteran striker Brian Ching, the defense was left exposed. Adrian Serioux disappointed in yet another MLS stop. Veteran goalkeeper Pat Onstad committed some uncharacteristic gaffes. Eddie Robinson suddenly looked a step slow. Veteran midfielders Brad Davis and Richard Mulrooney couldn't maintain their production while the younger guys like Corey Ashe didn't look ready to step into larger roles. Big-money Mexican signing Luis Landin flopped so badly the team cut him. Houston still has some talented players, and it's entirely possible that this season will end up merely a blip on a larger run of success. But the Dynamo really need to address their stadium situation (they play at the University of Houston's football field), shore up the defense, and find younger options in goal and up front.

13th place -- New England Revolution
The Revs once again held out hope (and a roster spot) that forward Taylor Twellman could return to his goal-scoring ways, but he once again missed an entire season. He's battled injuries and concussions during his career and has now missed the past two years entirely. His absence forced the team to once again lean on goalkeeper Matt Reis, midfielder Shalrie Joseph, and a bunch of kids. It wasn't enough. Injuries shelved Matt Reis (and also his backup, Preston Burpo) for long stretches. And while youngsters like Sainey Nyassi and Zack Schilawski showed flashes of promise, they were too inexperienced to hold up over a 30-game season. The Revs made too many mistakes and gave away too many games. The good news for Bostonians is that this roster is loaded with young potential stars. Guys like Kenny Mansally, Kevin Alston, and the aforementioned Nyassi and Schilawski are all in their early-to-mid 20s. With the addition of a proven striker (whether that's a healthy Twellman or a new player) and a little more luck on the injury front, the Revolution should be right back in the hunt next year. There's hope for tomorrow.

14th place -- Philadelphia Union
As an expansion team, one couldn't expect too much from Philly this season. They didn't disappoint. That said, they were also usually competitive and featured some exciting games from forward Sebastian LeToux. LeToux was mainly an afterthought with Seattle in 2009, but he exploded for double-digit goals in 2010, with several of the highlight-reel variety. Perhaps LeToux didn't fit with the "speed" plan in Seattle, as nobody will confuse him with Usain Bolt; But he proved his nose for goal this season and Philly can build around him. Philly's downfall this season can be traced to some other names. Defender Danny Califf is a veteran of the national team scene, but his reckless fouling caused problems. Goalkeeper Chris Seitz was hailed as the keeper of the future, but his present was shaky at best. Not all is lost, however. Young Jack McInerney showed promise, and the team traded for the talented Justin Mapp during the season. If coach Peter Nowak can coax a little more from Mapp (an underachiever in Chicago), develop youngsters like McInerney and Seitz, and find a veteran piece to match LeToux, Philly could quickly morph into contenders.

15th place -- Chivas USA
At this location in the standings, things get ugly. Chivas was supposed to bounce back this season, not sink into obscurity. They crumbled early and never got things going in the right direction. Perpetually injured Maykel Galindo was let go. Enigma Sacha Klejstan was shipped overseas. Young Guadalajara loanee Jesus Padilla showed promise but wasn't ready for primetime. Veteran leader Johnny Bornstein made good at the World Cup but seemed distracted by an upcoming move to Mexico afterwards. The team quickly started rotating a bewildering number of players through their roster, and nothing really worked. It's safe to say that Chivas USA is starting over next season. They have no focal point (unless young Sal Zizzo can become one... he's only now getting back into form following a devastating knee injury suffered overseas), no names you'd recognize, and no established plan for the future. The one bright spot is the play of Justin Braun, who showed that he could be a top-notch target forward with just a little help. I'm not sure he's the kind of guy you build around, but Chivas has to start somewhere.....

16th place -- DC United
Following last year's debacle in New York, a team would have to be astoundingly bad to get much attention. DC United wasn't up to (or down to... I should say) that level, but they made it interesting for a while. United started the year with Curt Onalfo as head coach, but he lasted only a few weeks as the team looked confused and disinterested from the get-go. Santino Quaranta tried to lead the group, but he's really more a role player than a playmaker. The team tried bringing back striker Luciano Emilio, but his mojo was clearly gone. Designated player (read: BIG $$$) Branko Boskovic was so quiet most people (even soccer fans) never even knew who he was. DC United was so starved for talent that castoffs like Kurt Morsink and Adam Christman saw major minutes. Shining through all the dregs was Andy Najar, who looks like he could be a dynamic player in years to come. United could do a lot worse than to try to build around him and Quaranta. It's time to get rid of high-priced disappointments like Danny Allsopp and Boskovic. DC fans deserve better than this.

SAH

NFL Preview 2010!!

It's here! I've just completed the 2010 NFL Preview, which marks the 21st year in a row I have produced such a tome (sad, isn't it?). But I can't help myself. I love watching NFL football, and I love to think I know something about it. Making a preview is just a natural extension of that. Goto http://home.swbell.net/captsah/nflpreview to download the full pdf file. In the meantime, here's a taste of the incredibly thorough research that went into this year's edition:




Enjoy!

SAH

Kansas City, Here We Come!

Lacie and I were able to visit Kansas City this past weekend to see the Wizards host Manchester United. As you can see from the picture, the stands were packed and the game was intense (and hot!). Kansas City surprisingly won 2-1. The result was a surprise on many levels, but most basically because the Wizards have stunk so far this season in MLS, and Manchester United is one of the biggest and most successful soccer teams in the world.

But you can't read TOO much into the game. United was relying heavily on their backups as many of their normal starters are still resting from World Cup duty or dealing with other ailments during what is for them the offseason. It was a good victory for KC, but nothing more. It doesn't count in the standings.

One exciting part of seeing Manchester United is the opportunity to see some world-famous players live and in-person. Ryan Giggs is a long-time stalwart of the team and has been hailed as a great player for years. He has never been able to make the big splash on the World Cup scene because he plays for Wales, but his achievements with Manchester United are fantastic. Even now at age 37, he plays with skill and flair.

You can see a couple of pictures of him here on the right.

He played for the full 90 minutes against KC. Although he had his moments, Giggs wasn't really a big factor on the day. In fact, the Wizards really annoyed the heck out of him with constant little pushes and bumps. Michael Harrington in particular got under Giggs' skin, leading to this exhange in the box (see picture on the right, look for the two guys tussling in the middle with arms outstretched). Giggs was given a yellow card for this dust-up. He probably thought (and perhaps rightly so) that all the niggling taps and bumps were out of place during an exhibition game. But then the Wizards don't get to play a big team like Manchester United very often, and they wanted to give it everything they had, so.....

After staying overnight in KC, we were able to get some Fiorella's Jack Stack Barbeque for lunch on Monday. If you know the KC barbeque scene, there are three very well-known chains. Arthur Bryant's is the old-school diner-type option. Gates is the fast-food franchise. Fiorella's Jack Stack is the upscale restaraunt version. All three serve good BBQ, and each tend to excel at one specific option or another (Oklahoma Joe's is another BBQ spot in KC that is getting rave reviews, and it's a crime I haven't eaten there yet, but...). My personal favorite is the Jack Stack, and it's mainly for their burnt ends. Here are the burnt ends as they arrived at our table:

And here they are 5 minutes later....


Succulent describes it best. These tasty morsels are just perfect. I've been to different Jack Stack's around KC probably a dozen times. I've never regretted the choice. This time, however, something unusual happened. As it was my first time in the Plaza Jack Stack location, I was looking around at everything like a rubbernecking tourist. A kitchen manager spotted me and invited Lacie and I to come back and take a look at their gear. He gave us a very short but fascinating look behind the scenes of the restaurant. I learned some of their basic techniques that I will be trying out the next time I try to smoke a brisket in my backyard grill. Of course, they have a little more "extensive" smoker.....

This beast was but one of three wood-fired industrial smokers this location employed. A note to the uninitiated: Real BBQ uses wood. Period. There should be no ovens at a BBQ joint, unless they're used for side dishes like cornbread. No gas, no electric... just pure Hickory wood.

So yes, Lacie and I had a great time. 'Til next time.....

SAH

Irony can be pretty ironic...

I'm getting down to business with regards to previewing the upcoming NFL season, but first I had to comment on a local political race here in Wichita.

The radio ads for a couple of candidates have been flooding the airwaves. Without naming names (If you're local, you already know who is who, and if you're not, then it doesn't really matter), let me give a brief paraphrased recap of the ads in the order they've aired:

Candidate A ad#1:

(Two un-named women having a discussion) Candidate A is the kindest, most sincere and intelligent person of all time. Candidate A is NOT a typical politician, but a genius businessman. Candidate A even signed a no-negative ad pledge, the only candidate in this race to do so. Candidate A will never run negative ads. We should all vote for Candidate A

Candidate B ad#1:

(Voice-over with muted music and sound effects background) Candidate A is a slick huckster who will say anything to get elected. Candidate A is not pro-life. Candidate A is likely to abuse any position of power he obtains. We should all vote for Candidate B, who is truly pro-life and conservative.

Candidate A ad#2:

(same two women as before...) I told you this would be a nasty campaign. Candidate B is a mud-slinging scumbag. Candidate B runs negative ads against his opponents. Candidate B is a political hack who lies all the time, and his negative ads prove it. Candidate B wants to send all our money to Mexico and start factories there while firing American workers. Candidate B is lower than dirt. We should vote for Candidate A.

I mean, maybe it's just me, but does anyone else see the irony here? Regardless of what you think of Candidate B, how can you take Candidate A seriously at this point? His first ad pledged a positive campaign...a pledge he broke with his very next ad. And what is the heinous crime he's accusing Candidate B of committing? It's running an attack ad, which is exactly what he's now doing himself!

Needless to say, I will not be voting for Candidate A in the primary.

SAH

World Cup of Crap saves the worst for last

The year was 1990. The World Cup was in Italy. After a sour, defensive tournament filled with fouls and flops, West Germany took the title after an ugly "win" over Argentina, in a game noted more for ugliness than soccer. The winning goal came from a penalty given after what looked to be a complete flop by Jurgen Klinsmann. But nobody outside of Argentina really complained too much, because the Argentines had done nothing but foul and complain all game long.

20 years later, we had a virtual deja' vu. After a sour, defensive tournament filled with fouls and flops, Spain took the title after an ugly "win" over Holland, in a game during which more time was consumed by fouls and out-of-bounds than actual play. The winning goal came moments after a missed offside call, but nobody outside of Holland is complaining too much because the Dutch didn't really do anything besides foul and complain all game long.

After the 1990 tournament, FIFA made several minor rules changes in an effort to clean up the game. For a time, they worked. It's time for new measures to be taken. The current state of affairs is unacceptable. Yesterday's game highlighted the worst aspects of the "modern" soccer tournament.

First, let's look at the Netherlands, who apparently thought they could foul their way to a title. Prior to yesterday, the Dutch were mostly badgered about Arjen Robben's flopping and rolling on the ground after any challenge. After yesterday, the Dutch look like the dirtiest team in the world. Defensive midfielders Nigel DeJong and Mark Van Bommel, already known as "physical" players, seemed intent on trying to one-up each other with crazy rough tackles. During the first half, Van Bommel came flying in late on Spain's Iniesta and wiped him out from behind without getting anywhere near the ball. He received a yellow card, but the play really deserved a straight red. It seemed as if the Dutch were looking to take advantage of referee Howard Webb's understandable reluctance to toss anyone out of the final. Over half the team picked up (deserved) yellow cards for incessant fouling, and yet the men in orange also kept haranguing Webb for supposed favoritism. It was despicable (and Van Bommel deserves a category of his own. How he managed to avoid getting tossed is the greatest mystery of this tournament). When they actually tried to play soccer, which was rarely, the Dutch showed some sparks. Robben had a couple of prime chances himself but he couldn't finish them. Too bad the team was more interested in playing rugby than soccer.

But what about Spain? Normally, this is the point when pundits (like me) would praise Spain for being noble champions, deserved winners against negative soccer. But I can't do it. Spain was lousy. When the Dutch came out fouling, Spain responded by.... you guessed it, fouling and flopping. Just to show that the Dutch weren't the only ones capable of ugly ball, Carlos Puyol wiped out Robben on an early slide from behind. While they didn't maintain the same kind of fouling pace as the Dutch, the Spanish certainly did more than their fair share. Poor Howard Webb's arm almost fell off from showing so many yellow cards. And then came the flops. Andres Iniesta, who also scored the "winner," deserves an Oscar for his performance. He duped Webb into giving Dutch captain Giovanni Van Bronckhorst (one of the few Dutch players who was actually trying to play soccer) a yellow card by launching himself into the ground (with a half-pike and double twist) after brushing against the defender's hip at speed. He then "earned" a second yellow (and the associated red) for Dutch defender Johnny Heitinga by plunging into the turf after the latter man touched his shoulder for an instant. Greg Louganis never topped that dive. The lasting image of this final game is that of players surrounding referee Howard Webb and complaining about something or other. The players spent more time trying to play the referee than play soccer.

Some of you may be asking, "but what about the goal? Didn't Spain at least attack and win the game?" Yes, Spain scored, but they rarely attacked (at least in the soccer sense). As usual, Spain tried to win the game by putting everyone to sleep. They sat back and played a billion lateral passes around midfield. They only rarely pushed forward trying to score (and were immediately fouled whenever they did... sigh... can you tell how upset I am by the magnitude of this wretched disaster of a final?). At one point in the second half, Spain had passed the ball around just inside their own half for about a minute, and I counted how many Spanish players were still in their own half of the field. A full SEVEN Spanish players were back in their own half. Let me say that again. With the ball, and with good possession (I mean, it's not like it was a goal kick or something way back near their own goal), Spain still played with SEVEN men staying in their own half of the field (not counting the keeper). That's not "patient buildup," or "clever passing," it's cowardly crap defensive soccer. Had the Dutch been pressuring with more guys up front, maybe there's a reason to have 7 guys there. But the Dutch never pressed with more than a couple of guys up top. Spain was simply content to pass the ball around midfield with 7 guys against two. Whatever happened to trying to win the game?

And what about the winning goal? Iniesta (you can't say he wasn't prominent in this game) was clearly offside as the initial cross came into the box. It was aimed at him, and his presence obviously bothered the defender who whiffed the clearance. Yes, it's a judgment call as to whether he's considered "involved in active play", but I think it's pretty clear that Iniesta was "interfering with an opponent" and "gaining an advantage by being in that position." I don't blame Webb for missing the call, as the poor guy had a tough enough job on the day, but I think it should've been called just the same.

So the "Dirty Dutch" had no business winning this game, and the "Simulating Spanish" failed to show that they deserved the title... is there any way we can go back and declare the wildly entertaining and positively-played Uruguay/Germany 3rd-place match to be the retroactive final? No? Oh well.....

So what is to be done? If the lasting images of the 2010 World Cup are those of players screaming at an overwhelmed referee, surely there is something that can be done to make things better. Well, there are some things that can be done, if FIFA has the guts to do them.

CAPT. SAH's OFFICIAL SUGGESTIONS TO FIFA:

1. Create a new official position, that of the goal judge. Too many times we've seen hugely controversial decisions whether or not goals have been scored being determined by referees and linesmen who are 30 yards away. Take a tip from hockey and use goal judges. One official should be added next to each goal, with the primary purpose being to flag whether or not the ball has crossed the goal line. That takes some burden off the linesmen, who can concentrate more on the tricky offsides calls, and gives the referee a pair of eyes right next to the goal so he doesn't have to make judgment calls from 30 yards away. Just having goal judges would've almost certainly eliminated the controversy from the Germany-England game in this World Cup. Also, the goal judges could be another pair of eyes to watch for the increasing off-the-ball nonsense that goes on, particularly on free kicks and corner kicks.
2. Use instant replay. No, not during the games, as has been such a point of contention with folks, but after them. The biggest problem with the rules of soccer is that they expect the participants to have at least some sense of honor. Sadly, that is no longer the case (if it ever really was). How many times during this world cup did we see guys rolling around holding their faces after getting nicked on the foot? How many times did we see guys flop to the ground after getting brushed? And conversely, how many times did we see guys callously plow through opponents with nothing more than a (possible) yellow card resulting? How many times did we see wrestling matches on corner kicks that made the WWE look tame? Even the best referee of all time couldn't possibly detect all the faking, all the cheap shots, and all the ... well... CHEATING that is going on in the modern game. It's a terrible shame that it has come to this, but when players are more concerned with screaming at the ref than playing soccer, something has to change. The answer is to get a little draconian, and TV instant replay can be the tool. After every big match, there should be a review of the game by officials, looking specifically for dirty play. Any time a player is caught faking something (and I'm talking about the obvious stuff, like holding your face after getting a bump in the chest), he must be immediately suspended for two games. Players that consistently violate the rules with violent play or incessant fouling should be suspended for two games. Yes, it's impossible to make this completely objective, but I think a decent attempt could be made. I fail to see how any independent viewer could watch footage of this World Cup and not believe that Nigel De Jong and Mark Van Bommel deserve an extra two-game suspension. They obviously have little concern for the rules of the game.

Obviously, there is no 100% solution, but these two additions could make a tremendous impact if properly executed. And for us fans, what is needed is to hold the rascals responsible in our own way. Teams that play crappy defensive soccer should not be supported. Teams that feature cheats should not be subsidized with our ticket money. Eventually, only the bottom line will make a difference with the powers-that-be, and then perhaps we can have tournaments and titles featuring soccer, not performance art.

SAH

Just not good enough

And it's over. This might have been the best US team from front to back that we've ever seen at a World Cup. But they weren't good enough. For the second straight cup, the US was eliminated thanks to a 2-1 defeat at the feet of Ghana. The US team showed a lot of heart, skill, and talent at this World Cup, but at the end of the day, they just weren't good enough to compete for a prize. Rather than grade individual players (sorry for the lack of grades after the Algeria game... I've been pretty busy at work), I'm going to discuss the state of the team overall.

The loss to Ghana means that the US exits the tournament with a record of 1 win, 1 loss, and 2 ties. In other words, they were a .500 team. They scored 5 goals and allowed 5 goals. Again... a .500 team. That's much better than they did 4 years ago, obviously, but no better than they did in 2002.

Speaking of 2002, let's take a look at that "glorious run" to the quarterfinals, the furthest advance by a US team in the modern era (post-WWII). In that tournament, the US had a record of 2 wins, 2 losses, and 1 tie. They scored 7 goals and allowed 7 goals. Sound familiar? It should. Really, that 2002 squad was also a .500 team that managed to get to the quarterfinals only because they got a fortunate break during group play (the late Korea goal that eliminated Portugal) and had the equally good fortune of playing Mexico in the second round.

What it means is that the US soccer team is treading water. They're capable of beating anyone on a given day, but equally capable of losing to almost anyone on any other day. That's been the case for a decade now, and quite frankly for 15 years (anyone else remember the US beating Argentina 3-0 en route to a semi-final berth in Copa America '95?). The US team is good, but not great. Only great teams win titles.

What's holding us back? Is it the coaching? No. While Bob Bradley choosing to start Ricardo Clark against Ghana won't go down as his finest moment, he actually has done a pretty good job with this group of players. They were giving 100% and Bradley's in-game moves nearly always were for the better. Sure, you can argue that a better coach gets more out of the players, but it's unlikely to be much. And besides, coaching at the international level is overrated. There isn't much time to work with the team, the opponents are often unknown until a few days before the game, and you can't just buy players to fit a certain system. Coaching at the international level is about motivation and attitude. There was (and has been) nothing wrong with the American's motivation and attitude.

That leaves the players. Our players are not good enough. Check that, our players are good enough, but we still don't have that ONE player that can make something special happen. Take Landon Donovan as the ultimate example of this. Donovan is almost certainly the best US player ever. He's the team's all-time leading scorer and has consistently found success within MLS. But he's not an "elite" player. Yes, he (finally, according to many critics) came through with the big goal against Algeria (shown right), but that was just a hustle goal. There was nothing special about it except for the timing. Think about the past four games. At what point did Donovan do something that just made you go, "Wow!"? It didn't happen. Donovan is a fine player, and could be a big part of a World-Cup contending team. You can say the same for Clint Dempsey, Michael Bradley, and a handful of other US team players.

But where's the superstar? Where's the player that can raise his game to that elite level and make something special happen? He doesn't exist (at least not yet). World Cup champions feature players that seem to do something amazing through the entire tournament. In 2006, Fabio Cannavaro seemed omnipresent in defense, and Italy marched to a title. In 2002, Brazil's Ronaldo was virtually unstoppable. In 1998, Zinedine Zidane was awesome. That's what makes the difference at a World Cup. The traditional powers bring talented teams of good players to every tournament. The US is getting to that level, but we won't be a real contender until we can produce that superstar that makes a difference.

Think about it. The US has had a host of "good" players in recent years. These guys have been productive (at least for short periods) in foreign leagues and international games. Eric Wynalda...Claudio Reyna.... Brian McBride.... but never a superstar. American superstars still end up playing football, baseball, and basketball. I'm afraid that until we get that superstar, the US will never be able to reach the highest levels of soccer. But the appearance of those players are seemingly acts of God. You can't predict who it will be or where he will come from. In the meantime, what are some practical improvements that need to be made on the US team?

First, we need more speed on defense. The US team has some good soccer players, but not the greatest athletes. That's a side result of the American sports scene, where the best athletes end up chasing the money in other sports. Ghana was able to burn us largely because Jay DeMerit is a scrappy defender, not a natural athlete. Oguchi Onyewu is a better athlete, but he was gimpy coming back from knee surgery and may be too old next time around. We need fresh blood in defense, and it needs to have good genes.

Second, we have to find a real goal-scorer. The incredible dearth of American forwards was never more clear than in this tournament. None of the 5 US goals were tallied by a forward, and none of them were even created by one (although Altidore played a big part in the second goal against Slovenia). It wasn't for a lack of chances. If only we could've transported the 2002 Brian McBride through time to play in this cup.... Maybe Jozy Altidore can become a great forward, but he's not there right now. And the really scary part is that anyone who watches MLS can tell you that talented young American forwards are almost non-existent. The US need is so crying that we called in Edson Buddle and Herculez Gomez, a couple of journeymen forwards who happened to be in good form. The US need is so crying that lots of fans were seriously hoping we'd call in Charlie Davies, who hasn't played a single game since a horrific car wreck a few months ago. Yikes... do we ever need a forward.....

At least the midfield looks good. Both Donovan and Dempsey will be on the wrong side of 30 by the time the World Cup kicks off again, but both could still contribute. Also, the US has a large number of good young options right now that should be even better in 2014. Michael Bradley and Maurice Edu are still very young. Stuart Holden shows a lot of promise. Jose Torres can get a lot better. Benny Feilhaber isn't too old. That's not even counting guys like Robbie Rogers and Alejandro Bedoya. Also, while Tim Howard wasn't at his best in this tournament, he is still solid and the US never seems to lack for good goalkeepers.

I'll have some more opinion on the rest of the World Cup, including the crazy officiating that hurt England and Mexico, at a later time. All I'll say for now is that as bad as the calls were, they didn't decide the games. Germany were better than England for 80 of 90 minutes, and it wasn't the officials that gifted Gonzalo Higuain the ball right in front of goal.

Until next time....

SAH

Just when the games were getting good....

The first full set of games, up to the point where every team had played one game in the World Cup finals, was probably the worst series of matches I've ever seen. I've seen AYSO games with more flair. Perhaps 3 or 4 out of 32 teams actually TRIED to score and win. The rest were perfectly content to sit back and defend, holding out for a scoreless tie. It used to be the case that a tie was like kissing your sister. The way most of the teams in the World Cup are playing, their sister must look like Scarlett Johansson. I've never seen so many teams anxious for a tie.

Sadly that indictment also applies to the US team, which basically defended for 89 minutes against England (minus the one minute when Ricardo Clark fell asleep and let Steven Gerrard run into the box for a simple tap-in goal). Today in Johannesburg, the US tried something new, an attacking mentality against Slovenia. But once again, the US looked nervous and jittery for the first 15 minutes or so, and let a Slovenian attacker have all kinds of time on the ball just beyond the penalty area, which he used to crack a nice shot that blew past Tim Howard in goal. The US came into the game after that, but were punished again for some sloppy defense just before halftime when the Slovenes nicked another goal on a counterattack.

It is greatly to the credit of the US players' character that they fought back in the second half to tie the game, and deserved a victory which was stolen from them by amazingly incompetent officiating. It is to the detriment of the World Cup finals that both the US and Germany were ruined on the same day by atrociously bad officiating. I'll grade the US players below, but first I want to comment on the referees today.

The average goals per game (that includes both teams scores for a given match) was 1.6 following the first set of games. That is insanely low, and reflects the ludicrously conservative and defensive tilt of the tournament thus far. As the second set of games started, the scoring went up ans teams started to realize that somebody had to actually WIN these games to advance to the next round (an aside: It's amazing how much better the sport of soccer is when teams are actually, you know...TRYING TO WIN rather than playing defense for a tie). The second set of games have averaged (as I type this) a robust 3 goals per game. Therefore it was with glee that I tuned in this morning to watch the Germans, the first round's most impressive team after a 4-0 demolition of Australia, play the Serbians, an underachieving team that desperately needed a win. Alas, just as the games were getting good, the refs fell apart.

The Germany-Serbia game started brightly, with the Serbs actually causing some concern for a German team that had never been threatened by Australia. The Germans righted themselves quickly, however, and resumed the same siege of goal they showed in their first game. All this time, the referee (from Spain) decided that he was going to enforce the rules with extra vigor. A series of relatively ticky-tack calls earned yellow cards. The most egregious example was a card given to German striker Miroslav Klose. Yes, he had tripped a player from behind, but replays showed that he barely touched the guy, and was certainly not guilty of any "violent or serious foul play." He just happened to get his legs caught up with the other guy. Some later, more physical tackles also resulted in yellows.

The players should've gotten the warning and taken it seriously, but maybe they couldn't believe that the referee was REALLY going to keep dishing out cards at the same rate. About half-an-hour into the game, Klose tried to poke the ball away from a Serbian midfielder and caught his shin instead. Klose was running up behind the player at the time. Without any hesitation, the referee reached to his pocket and delivered the second yellow card, and subsequent red card ejection. Again, while at least this time Klose actually did foul the player, it was hardly the sort of play that warrants a yellow card. Well, at least the ref could say he was consistent.

Stunned, the Germans let Serbia score a scrappy goal a minute later, and the entire game changed. Rather than a back-and-forth affair, it became yet another "park the bus in front of goal" effort by the Serbians. With a man advantage, they made it count and held on for the 1-0 victory.

You can't say that the referee "cost" the Germans the game. After all, it wasn't the referee who missed half a dozen sure scoring chances in the second half (that would be Lukas Podolski). It wasn't the referee who tamely hit a penalty shot just next to the keeper for one of the easiest penalty saves you'll ever see (Podolski again, looking like he'd completely forgotten how to score goals). But had the referee shown even a little discretion at the start of the game and not started throwing around yellow cards left and right (particularly the first one to Klose), the game would have almost certainly been better for it. I'm all for strict refereeing, and often times I find myself calling for yellow cards when they're not delivered. But you simply can't come out of the gates and start carding players for ticky-tack fouls, even if some of them are from behind.

Which brings us now to the US game. While the referee in the Germany-Serbia contest marred the game, you would have to admit that he was technically correct with most of his calls and didn't directly decide the outcome of the game. Sadly, the same cannot be said in defense of the referee in the US-Slovenia match.

It started early, and continued through the match. Koman Coulibaly from Mali was the referee, and he looked completely in over his head. He called phantom fouls (mostly against the US, but not entirely). He seemingly ignored actual fouls. During a first-half sequence when the ball was bouncing around in front of the Slovenia goal, he called play to a halt to issue a yellow card to Robbie Findley of the USA. It was supposedly for a handball. Replays showed that the ball had never touched Findley's hand or arm, and even if it had, the ball was going around like a pinball, and without waving your arms about you could hardly be adjudged to have purposely handled it.

In the second half, the oddball calls continued. After the US bravely battled back to tie the game with some thrilling goals, they had a free kick from a little ways outside the box. Landon Donovan curled in a chip that Maurice Edu prodded into the net past a stranded goalkeeper. It looked like a remarkable winning goal, but the referee had already blown play dead before the ball even reached the area. Incredibly, he annulled the goal and gave Slovenia a free kick for ... what? Nobody knew. The Americans asked, and were waved away. The TV announcers speculated, but absolutely nothing made sense. Replays shown over and over showed absolutely nothing by any American player. If anything, the Slovene defenders were guilty of some terrible holding and grappling on the play (holding and grappling that, it must be said, usually occurs on nearly every corner kick or free kick near the goal these days, much to the detriment of soccer). The referee never explained the call.

So a terribly wrong decision by the referee actually cost the US a sure victory. The referee didn't "decide" the game, but he came as close as you can without being obviously corrupt. He was incredibly incompetent. The only reason for the foul that has been suggested which has even a whiff of logic was that the referee had thought better of the foul he had just called against Slovenia and had already decided in his head to call a "make-up" against the US as soon as the ball was played. You see this in basketball all the time. If true, this theory absolves the referee of any corruption charges. But no matter how you cut it, an honest observer could not call the referee anything but incompetent. Phantom handballs, phantom fouls and make-up calls that decide outcomes have no place in any level of soccer, let alone the highest-profile level of the game.

OK, that's enough whining for now. The US is hardly the first team (nor the last, sadly) that will be screwed by lousy officiating at the World Cup. There's a long and sordid history of bizarre or simply incompetent refereeing jobs that have killed many a World Cup dream. The US still has its destiny in its own hands. They simply must beat Algeria, and if they do it by at least two goals then they are guaranteed a spot in the next round.

Let's hand out some grades:

Starters

GK -- Tim Howard -- B-
He was statuesque on the first goal, and couldn't make a play on the second despite coming out to challenge the attacker. Neither goal was a mistake on Howard's part, and he played generally well, but you'd like your goalkeeper to make at least one big save in a game like this. Howard did it against England, but he didn't against Slovenia.

D -- Steve Cherundolo -- C+
This may be a bit harsh, but Cherundolo simply didn't get involved like he has been doing in other games recently. His defense was sound, but his forays into the attack were toothless. He struggled to connect passes and didn't make any telling crosses into the box. The good part was a hopeful pass towards Donovan that the latter turned into a goal.

D -- Jay DeMerit -- C-
In a reverse of his recent form, DeMerit was rock-solid when defending man-to-man but lost when having to cover in space. His communication and movement was not in concert with Oguchi Onyewu, and could be at least partially to blame for both Slovenian goals.

D -- Oguchi Onyewu -- C-
See: Jay DeMerit. Onyewu's terrific showing against England was a distant memory. He looked like the rusty, clumsy Onyewu against Slovenia.

D -- Carlos Bocanegra -- B-
He was never toasted, and his defensive movement was sound. He also provided some good passes from the back. All that said, at no point did he really control his flank or jumpstart any attacks from the rear line. He was solid, but nothing special.

M -- Clint Dempsey -- C
Slovenia apparently marked Dempsey as the danger man for the US. They surrounded him all the time and more or less took him out of the match. To his credit, Dempsey kept hustling all game long and did some good work up front after halftime, but couldn't make much of an impact on the game.

M -- Michael Bradley -- B+
There might be an argument that Bradley shouldered some of the blame on the first Slovenia goal. But other than that, Bradley was terrific. He was all over the field and even wore his passing shoes. He made some excellent passes through the middle, and was really the only US midfielder to consistently maintain possession. That's not to say he morphed into Gerson, but at least he made a positive impact all game long. His tying goal was an excellent effort. He sprinted into the box and poked a bouncing ball past the keeper, a situation that probably sees more misses than makes, even by world-class players.

M -- Jose Torres -- D-
A lot of us (me too) have been hollering for Torres to get into the starting lineup. He looked superb in the warm-up games and offers far more offense than Ricardo Clark. But Torres looked overwhelmed by the situation. His play slowed back down to the Mexican league rate. His passes were off and his defense negligible. He was probably most to blame for the first Slovenian goal, and was nowhere to be seen when Slovenia countered for a second. His lone highlight was a solid shot on goal from a free kick.

M -- Landon Donovan -- A
Donovan has to be the man of the match for the US. He, like everyone else, looked out-of-sorts early on, but he started to get aggressive with the ball during the first half and it snowballed into the second. Donovan tormented defenders throughout the second half and buried his goal with a virtually unstoppable blast from an extreme angle. He was the main instigator of the US attacks for the last 45 minutes, and his curling free kick deserved a goal from Edu (The goal that was wrongly called back).

F -- Robbie Findley -- D+
He ran hard, but looked like the Findley we've come to expect in international matches. He didn't show much composure on the ball or skillful touch. His yellow card (an absolutely atrocious call by the ref, but.....) will knock him out of the next game. The US attack was much more dangerous after Findley left the field.

F -- Jozy Altidore -- B-
He didn't do much at all during the first half. He couldn't hold onto the ball nor could he beat any defenders. But in the second half, the light came on and he started playing like a younger Brian McBride. He won numerous headers and played a fantastic header to Bradley for the tying goal. Now if only Altidore could start finding the goal himself.....

Substitutes:

M -- Maurice Edu -- B-
He started poorly, but worked his way into the game as the second half wore on. His defensive coverage was far superior to what Torres was offering, and his offensive effort was at least as good. He scored what should have been the winning goal, but I think we've beaten that dead horse enough for now.

M -- Benny Feilhaber -- C+
It's telling that the US overall showed more attacking teeth in the second half, after Feilhaber came on at halftime. However, he was largely an invisible man. Nearly all the US attacks were either through Donovan, or simply direct balls to the forwards.

F -- Herculez Gomez -- NG
Made a late cameo and did fine while he was in there, but I can't grade him for 9 minutes of play.

The US can still advance, and they should be proud of today's effort, even if it was flawed by some bad defense and horrible officiating. Until next time....

SAH

US - England tie... and the World Cup of Crap

We're 8 games into the 2010 World Cup finals as I type this, and with the notable exception of Germany, there hasn't been much good soccer. The highlight of the first weekend was of course the titanic clash between the US and England. Both teams played fairly cautiously, and to be honest it wasn't the prettiest soccer you'll ever see. The US concentrated on taking Wayne Rooney out of the game, and succeeded. England concentrated on not getting caught on a counter-attack, and they also succeeded. Fans hoping for an exciting game with back-and-forth were disappointed.

But actually the US-England game was the most entertaining of the tournament's first 7 games. Of the other 6, one was mildly engaging, and the other 5 were colossal bores. Not only were the games poor from an entertainment perspective, but they were simply awful from a pure soccer perspective.

For proof, consider the goals that were scored (and they're easy to recall, since there were so few of them). South Africa opened the tournament with a smashing goal from the edge of the box, a real gem. But the next goal (to Mexico) was the result of a horrible mis-communication on the South Africa backline. Uruguay and France then delivered a sure cure for insomnia with a defensive, chippy affair where neither team hardly sniffed the goal. South Korea did manage to get a couple past Greece, but only because Greece was absolutely putrid, showing absolutely nothing on the day. Argentina managed to get several chances against Nigeria, but squandered all but one, a header from a corner kick. Nigeria rarely threatened. The England goal was the result of a complete brain fart by Ricardo Clark, who let Steven Gerrard run completely free in the box. English keeper Robert Green simply gave the US the equalizer by fumbling a rather simple shot into his own net.

The next morning (US time), Algeria and Slovenia played 90 minutes of kick-ball without the slightest hint of skill. The lone goal came only after Algeria was reduced to 10 men (after a pair of idiotic decisions by an Algerian substitute), and then required an even worse goalkeeper gaffe than the English's Green (after all, at least Green got his hands on the ball). Serbia and Ghana played a cautious, dull affair with squandered half-chances that was decided in the end by yet another brain fart, this time by a Serbian defender who blatantly handled the ball in his own penalty area.

To sum it up, there has been precious little good soccer on display. Germany's demolition of Australia was the first time all tournament that any team has really shown both an attacking attitude and the skill to make it count. It's entirely possible that the dearth of good soccer is due to early tournament nerves, but I fear it's more the result of ultra-cautious coaching and mentally fatigued players.

Oh well, there's always hope for better. Back to the US-England affair. The US played reasonably well, again minus the huge defensive lapse that led to the early England goal, and minus the last 15 minutes or so, when the US basically just played for the tie and bunkered in on defense. Let's grade the players.....

Starters

GK -- Tim Howard : A
Howard could do nothing to prevent Gerrard's goal, but he stopped everything else. He survived a hard collision with Emile Heskey, and stoned a couple of English breaks on goal. England didn't have many clear chances on goal, but they did have a couple. Howard came up with huge stops.

D -- Steve Cherundolo: B
He gave us exactly what we expect to see from him: solid defense and respectable passing with nothing spectacular. Cherundolo was never caught significantly out of position, and his one-on-one defending was good. He failed to generate any offense from the flank, but that was partly a natural result of the US' defensive posture.

D -- Jay DeMerit: B-
DeMerit got lost a couple of times, and his one-on-one defending was dodgy. But he scrapped and hustled and battled all day long, winning more battles than he lost. It should also be noted that four years ago in Germany, the US defense seemed over-awed by the stage and panicked after giving up an early goal. DeMerit's experience showed in that he never looked overwhelmed and he picked up his play after the early goal.

D -- Oguchi Onyewu: B+
Onyewu finally looked healthy again. He played the full 90 minutes and rarely put a foot wrong. He still made some clumsy challenges and committed unnecessary fouls, but he positioning and awareness was 100%.

D -- Carlos Bocanegra: C+
Bocanegra had his weaknesses exposed when he had to contain Aaron Lennon on the wing. Bocanegra simply doesn't have the quickness and speed to defend the world's best wingers by himself. It's to Bocanegra's credit that he played to his strengths and used his defensive help. Carlos was careful not to get caught out of position, even though it meant that the US never had much attacking pop down the left flank.

M -- Clint Dempsey: B
Dempsey can't claim too much glory for his goal, as it was 95% keeper blunder and only 5% hard shot. But Dempsey did play a solid game and made a few chances with almost no support from the back. The US was technically in a 4-4-2, but it was really a 4-2-2-2, with Clark and Bradley in a purely defensive role. And with no support from the flank defenders, who were staying at home all day, both Dempsey and Donovan ended up moving to the middle of the field to start attacks. Due to the narrow nature of this form, the US rarely opened up the English defense or threatened to score. The good side effect was that this packed center kept Frank Lampard at home, and forced Steven Gerrard to come back and play more defense.

M -- Michael Bradley: C+
Bradley contributed little offensively, but his defense was solid. The biggest concern was how he seemed slow to track back on the very few occasions he tried to get forward. Bradley is supposed to be the fittest member of a highly-fit team, but he looked gassed during the last 15 minutes as England overran the midfield.

M -- Ricardo Clark: D
Take away his rec-league level concentration lapse that resulted in the England goal, and Clark wasn't too bad. But as the old joke goes, "other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the theatre?" Clark simply fell asleep on the England goal, which was doubly strange since it was clear that his lone responsibility on the field was to cover Gerrard man-to-man whenever the latter ventured into the US half. At least he got his head back into the game right away and never fell asleep again. His defending was very good for the rest of the match. Offensively, Clark is rarely a positive. Saturday was no exception. The question must be, would the US have fared better with a Feilhaber or Torres in Clark's spot? Neither bring the same defensive muscle to the table, but both (especially Torres who has looked very good lately) add a lot more offensive ability. And since Clark was mainly to blame for the England goal, would we really have been any worse off defensively with someone else?

M -- Landon Donovan: B
"Landy-cakes" was much better than he was four years ago against the Czechs. Donovan hustled hard and got involved all game long, despite (like Dempsey) often toiling by himself as the only true "midfield" player on an entire half of the field. Donovan made the English defense work, but wasn't able to crack it open.

F -- Jozy Altidore: C+
He had one powerful run into the box when he abused Jamie Carragher and saw his shot saved off the post by Green. He also did an admirable job trying to hold up the ball and wait for help from the midfield that was only rarely coming. All that said, he failed to score, and really only made the one opportunity. While he certainly worked hard, he couldn't generate any goals and was held in check rather easily by the English defense.

F -- Robbie Findley: C
In the first half, his speed caused the English some concern, and his touch was good enough to keep possession in most circumstances. But Findley tired badly in the second half, and he blew a couple of chances to get in on goal with bad touches. He was a liability until he was substituted late.


Substitutes

F -- Edson Buddle: C
He didn't get a lot of time, and he was mostly invisible while he was out there. Bradley waited too long to replace Findley (and make subs in general, actually), and the US was under siege from the time Buddle entered the game.

M -- Stuart Holden: NG
Holden made only a late cameo appearance. Coach Bob Bradley was too conservative with his decisions in this game. He started Clark and instructed the team to play an ultra-defensive style. In the second half, he was afraid to risk making a change, even as his midfielders and forwards were tiring badly due to having to cover too much space.

Overall: C+
To tie England is no small feat, but this English side didn't play that well, and we are capable of being much more threatening than was seen in this match. The US didn't play badly by any stretch, but we'll have to generate a lot more offense against Slovenia and Algeria. Bradley should be less conservative now that the tournament is underway and we have at least one point on the board.

Until later,

SAH

Finals Finally here

Well, it all starts Friday. The US team played its last warm-up game on Saturday against Australia. I won't be offering grades for what amounted to a glorified scrimmage, but I would like to hit some of the good and the bad from the game.

The Good:

Edson Buddle was a beast! The guy is on fire right now. You can't help but wonder if he should be playing instead of Jozy Altidore against England, regardless of Jozy's ankle health. That said, we have to remember that Edson has been oustanding against what is really 2nd-tier opposition. MLS is where Buddle is currently shining, and Saturday's exhibition was very much like a MLS game, down to the smaller field (like KC and San Jose currently suffer with) and smaller crowd. This is also a good time to address the ridiculous comments being made about the World Cup ball.

On the left here you can see the Jabulani, the official ball of the World Cup Finals. As is now a time-honored World Cup tradition, it was unveiled by Adidas back in January and hailed as mankind's greatest technological achievement since putting a man on the moon.

As the finals have neared, all national teams were given a score of these balls to use during practices and warm-up games. As is also now a time-honored tradition, all non-Adidas sponsored players have publicly ripped it for being a crappy, almost unplayable ball. Guys have apparently engaged in a contest to see who can make the most outrageous statement about it. Maybe they're getting prize money from their equipment sponsors for the most ridiculous put-down they can imagine. The winner thus far, for efficiency and the inability to disprove, is the comment that the Jabulani "is like a ball you buy in a supermarket."

On the right you can see a picture of the ball MLS has been using all season long, with hardly a word said against it. If it looks familiar, it's not a coincidence. Adidas sponsors all the official team wear and field equipment (excepting the goals and cones, etc.) for Major League Soccer. It uses its latest ball design every year in MLS. This year, that design is the Jabulani. Apart from the color scheme, it is exactly the same ball as will be used in the World Cup finals starting Friday. There has not been a flurry of criticism towards it. Quite the contrary, nobody even seemed to notice it.

So why is there such a sudden surge of crazy insults to the ball right before the World Cup? The cynic (me, in this case) would point out that disparaging the official MLS ball back in March would not make nearly the splash as slamming the official World Cup ball right before the tournament. And if you were getting money and support from say.... Nike, you would be far more interested in publicity than in the actual soccer ball. Having the official World Cup ball is a marketing coup for Adidas, and has been for many years. All the griping about it just before the tournament is just a marketing move by all the other equipment manufacturers, simply done through proxy.

Edson Buddle brought this up, because he certainly doesn't seem to have any problem with the ball, either in MLS or in friendlies against Australia. If Edson Buddle can look good with this ball, surely Ronaldo and Rooney can work with it. When the games start, the ball won't be an issue. For all the hype, the ball hasn't been a significant issue since the 1950s, when they finally made balls without the laces on the outside.

The Bad:

The US defense is SLOW. Jay DeMerit struggled to keep up with Australia's forwards on a small field. How will he manage against England? Oguchi Onyewu is still not 100% and Clarence Goodson is merely adequate. Out left, Carlos Bocanegra is solid and reliable, but he cannot be expected to hang with speedy wingers like Ronaldo, Messi, or Fabiano? The good news is that neither Slovenia or Algeria is blessed with speedy attackers, and England left a couple of their fastest players off the roster. While the lack of speed in our defense is a big weakness, we may be able to skirt by anyway, at least for the first round.

Official Prediction:

I've already given my overall prediction that Argentina will win the cup, with Germany and Brazil as the backup choices. The question now is how will the US team fare? Historically, for whatever reason, the US has been competitive in World Cups played outside of Europe. This World Cup is clearly outside of Europe, so I think the US will give a good account. I predict a 1-1 tie with England, a 1-0 victory over Slovenia, and a 1-1 tie with Algeria. That modest record would probably see the team through to the second round. At some point, I expect our defense to be badly exposed, but I don't think it will happen in the first round. I predict that the US will make the second round, but lose to either Germany or Serbia (ironically, there is a chance that the US could meet Australia in the second round, in a rematch of this Saturday's exhibition). Let's hope I haven't just jinxed the team.

Enjoy the games!!

SAH

Turkish Delight

The US team bounced back from its disappointing performance against the Czechs on Tuesday to prevail 2-1 over a high-quality Turkish side on Saturday. Like the Czech team, the Turks just missed out on qualifying for this year's World Cup finals, but they are always a competitive and dangerous opponent. In 2002, the Turks finished 3rd in the World Cup, so there's no doubting their pedigree. This was a good test for the US team, although it did seem like Turkey quit on the game as the second half wore on.

For the first time in a long while, coach Bob Bradley filled out the US lineup with an eye on what the starting lineup could look like in South Africa. He went with his standard 4-4-2 featuring two defensive midfielders in Michael Bradley and Ricardo Clark. The variation was that Clint Dempsey played up top with forward Jozy Altidore to make room in the midfield for Benny Feilhaber. At halftime, Bradley changed things up by replacing the strictly defensive Clark with Jose Torres in the middle, moving Dempsey back to midfield, and bringing on Robbie Findley up high. This second look was more effective than the first, primarily due to Torres' ability to distribute the ball.

The two goals the US scored in the second half were well-taken. There were no flukes here. Let's hope that we can get similar results in South Africa. On to the grades!

Starters:

GK -- Tim Howard -- B
Perhaps he could've stopped Arda Turan's goal, but it would've been a spectacular save. Howard was in the right positions most of the day, and he made a couple of good saves. Really the only negative on the afternoon was how he spent too much time cussing out his teammates. As a defender, you appreciate an intense goalkeeper who wants to command the penalty area. But when every single shot on goal becomes a stage for your keeper to lambast you with profanity, you actually start defending LESS because A) you're afraid of doing something wrong and stop doing anything and B) you start to actively dislike the guy and don't care if he gets beaten. Tim, shout when it's appropriate, not after every shot on goal. Even the best defenses are going to give up a few openings to a team as good as Turkey. At least Howard did also offer lots of moments of encouragement alongside the tongue-lashings.

D -- Jonathan Spector -- D+
It wasn't a good day for Spector, who seemed a little out-of-sorts during the first half. Spector struggled badly against Arda Turan on the flank, and made a couple of mis-steps that led to clear Turkish opportunities. He also failed to get very involved in the attack, although part of that was a lack of inventiveness from the midfield to get the flank players more integrated. Ironically, it was just after Spector's best effort of the day that the Turkish goal came. Spector embarked on a nice dribbling run deep into the Turkish defense. He reached the top of the Turks' penalty area before he was finally dis-possessed. However, he had a couple of chances during the run to flick the ball outside and failed to use his options. The really damning part was that nobody on the team covered back for him. That is simply inexcusable at this level of soccer. Even high-school teams know that if a defender charges forward with the ball that somebody has to drop back to provide cover. Nobody did, and it left Arda wide open for the breakaway that led to his goal. To Spector's credit, he sprinted all the way back from his dribbling run in a mad effort to defend the break. His teammates let him down. That sums up Spector's day. He failed to add any significant positives, and when he showed flashes of it, his teammates abandoned him and it turned into another negative.

D -- Jay DeMerit -- C-
DeMerit was bamboozled a couple of times by Turkey forwards with the ball. His one-on-one defending was suspect throughout the match. However, his positioning was usually great and he contributed enough headers and tackles to hold the fort. I don't think the goal was DeMerit's fault. It should have been a midfielder dropping back to cover for Spector, not the central defender who was already covering the deep middle. DeMerit lacks speed and can't be left to fend for himself against tricky wingers, but in the US system he can do his job adequately.

D -- Clarence Goodson -- C+
Coming off a solid performance against the Czechs, Goodson again produced a quality effort. Clarence was solid in the air and held up well on the ground. Like his counterpart DeMerit, Goodson does not excel at one-on-one defending, but as a covering central defender he reads the game well and is strong on the tackle. While he didn't do anything special, this performance should give coach Bradley the confidence to use Goodson in the finals if Onyewu is still dodgy coming back from injury.

D -- Carlos Bocanegra -- B
The captain hustled all over the field and was effective. He was the one defender that seemed capable of consistently passing the ball to a teammate. He had a fairly quiet afternoon overall, but that's a good thing, especially considering that our flank defense has been spotty at best in recent months.

M -- Landon Donovan -- A
Donovan started the game on the right, switched back to the left, then finally seemed to abandon any set position and roamed where the action was. In the end, he made the actions. Donovan looked a bit isolated in the first half and struggled to get involved. He looked dangerous when he got the ball at his feet, but that happened too rarely. In the second half, he kept swapping places with Dempsey on the flanks and the Turkish defense lost track of him. Donovan seized the opportunity that provided with a couple of devastating assists. His first assist was pure skill. He dashed into the box from an angle (to avoid offsides) and deftly tapped the ball (lofted over from Robbie Findley) around the onrushing goalkeeper. He had a chance to shoot himself but instead wrong-footed the defense with a perfectly controlled roller back to Jozy Altidore at the top of the 6-yard box. Altidore's virtual tap-in was so easy a 6-year-old could've scored it. The second goal was less about pure skill and more about determination and good luck. Donovan hustled his way onto the ball in traffic (I think Bradley made the initial feed to him), and then spun around and flicked the ball in the general direction of Clint Dempsey, who took it home for the score. Donovan's pass wasn't beautiful, but it was effective in that it avoided the defender and yet was soft enough for Dempsey to play. In the second half, Donovan was the best player on the field Saturday.

M -- Michael Bradley -- B-
He may be to blame for the Turkey goal when he failed to cover back. But other than that (which is conjecture), Bradley played a very good game. He wore his passing shoes on Saturday, and provided effective link-up play between the defense and the attack. His hustling defense was as good as always. He should've had a goal late in the game when he broke into the box with the ball at his feet, but he got indecisive and tried a weak pass back towards Dempsey instead of just shooting at goal.

M -- Ricardo Clark -- D
Ugh. Clark was simply poor Saturday. His touch, never the greatest, completely abandoned him and he sprayed balls around the field without any direction. He couldn't connect with teammates and needlessly lost the ball. Even his defensive work was sub-par. Usually Clark is a reliable ball-winner, but he looked decidedly average in that respect against Turkey. Hopefully this was just a bad day at the office.

M -- Benny Feilhaber -- C-
He looked more enterprising on the ball than most players, as usual. But Feilhaber was ineffective during his half of action. He seemed to be thinking of moves that nobody else was envisioning making, and his passes lacked bite. He also played an absolutely brain-dead cross back in his own end that turned into a scoring opportunity for the Turks. If Feilhaber was a more effective defender then perhaps he still could've rescued this performance. While he tried, it's just not his game. Benny had a disappointing day.

F/M -- Clint Dempsey -- B+
As is his wont, Dempsey faded in and out of the action through the 90 minutes. But when the pressure was on late in the game, Clint made a goal out of the barest opportunity. He received a tricky pass from Donovan with his hip, and was able to direct it in front where he could run at it. He out-fought the defender who was hanging on for dear life, and managed to poke the ball past a diving keeper for the game-winning goal. There are times when Dempsey looks like he's trying to be too cute, or that he's going through the motions. But nobody else on the US team has such a knack for pulling rabbits out of hats. It seems like Dempsey always makes at least one great play a game, and that's why he's always on the field, whether in midfield or up top.

F -- Jozy Altidore -- B-
Despite its low difficulty rating, Altidore still deserves credit for his goal. We've all seen (and perhaps even suffered ourselves) guys inexplicably choke away those "gimmes" in the past. Jozy also hustled hard and made the Turkish defense nervous with his runs. He had a particularly inspired run in the first half past a defender that nearly resulted in a goal when his cross towards Dempsey was just inches out of reach. You'd like to see your top forward do that sort of thing more than once or twice a game, but at least Altidore CAN do it and sometimes does.

Substitutes:

D -- Steve Cherundolo -- B
Cherundolo has given Bradley something to chew on. Steve has more experience than Spector, and is playing better soccer at the moment. He doesn't have Spector's height, nor does he have the same skill on the ball. But Cherundolo is very good at getting into positions that help his midfielders open the field and he plays simple passes that don't give away possession. He's an effective outside defender with just enough speed to keep up with play. He may have a limited upside, but he also has the lowest downside. Cherundolo is usually very consistent and could play against any opponent without fear. He might get the call in place of Spector.

D -- Oguchi Onyewu -- B
Fortunately, he had little to do after replacing Clarence Goodson at halftime. It's clear that Bradley is putting Onyewu out there in an effort to get him back into game-shape by June 12th. Mission accomplished on Saturday, as Onyewu looked far less rusty than he did on Tuesday against the Czechs. That said, the US was controlling the action during the second half and Onyewu was rarely tested. He did make one key shot block late in the game, and was never out of position that I saw, but we still don't really know if Onyewu is back in form or not.

M -- Jose Torres -- A
This was simply the best performance I've seen from Torres. We all saw the skill he possessed a few months ago, but the pace of the game seemed to elude him. On Tuesday, and again on Saturday, Torres showed he can keep up, without losing his touch on the ball. Torres was far more effective than Clark (whom he replaced at halftime) because he provided simple passes to teammates and gave defenders an outlet for their passes. He didn't give the ball away easily and he hustled hard to win it back. His defense will never remind anyone of Franco Baresi, but he at least gave it an effort. Basically, Torres and Feilhaber are the same player. Both can generate some offense and maintain possession. Both are merely try-hard defenders. But right now, Torres is in good form and Feilhaber looks a little off his game. I think Torres is almost certain to see some time on the field in South Africa, especially if the US is trailing a game and needs more offensive potential. Quite frankly, he should be starting if he can keep playing like this.

F -- Robbie Findley -- B
Findley changed the complexion of the game when he replaced Feilhaber at halftime (Dempsey dropped back to Feilhaber's midfield slot and Findley stayed up top). His speedy runs opened more seams in the Turkish defense as they ran to keep up with him. He did an admirable job of accepting passes and getting other teammates involved. His pass to set up the first goal was simply beautiful. It was a delicate chip that pulled the keeper out of position while setting Donovan up for his move. Findley was fearless in taking on defenders and putting pressure on the goal. Unfortunately, he reverted to his poorer form late in the game, charging towards the endline and losing the ball rather than trying to find teammates in the box. Findley has always had the natural talent, as evidenced by his play in MLS last season. The questions have been about his touch on the ball and his decisions with it at his feet. On Saturday, his touch was great and his decisions (at least at first) were good. He showed why Bradley selected him for the squad, but one good showing doesn't mean he's turned the corner.

D -- Jonathan Bornstein -- F+
It may seem harsh to grade Bornstein thus, seeing as how he only played 15 minutes after replacing Bocanegra at left defense. It may also seem harsh considering that the US defense was not breached during his time on the field. But if you watched the game, you saw the Turks abusing Bornstein almost from the moment he stepped on the grass. Bornstein was turned inside-out on one run that the US was fortunate to survive. He seemed to always be a step behind the play and was unable to provide any offensive threat of his own. Turkey actually changed their game to get the ball more on to Bornstein's side of the field, and it created more openings for them. Our team may be built around Donovan, Dempsey, and Bradley, but nobody is more important right now than Bocanegra, because only he seems capable of playing left back with any competency.

M -- Stuart Holden -- NG
Holden only saw a handful of minutes, and can't be graded for a cameo.

The US looked good Saturday, primarily in the second half. The key was the insertion of Torres into the lineup in place of Clark. He was able to give us more attacking options and involve the flank players more often than Clark did. That (along with Findley's running) slowly pried open the Turkey defense and we managed to grab a couple of goals. Against defensive teams like Slovenia and Algeria, we'll need that ability again.

SAH