Gut Czech Time

OK, it was too easy. That post title wrote itself. Sorry for the bad pun. It probably won't be the last.

The US team lost it's first World Cup warm-up game 4-2 last night AT HOME in front of an unusually supportive crowd (unusual in that against many opponents, there are almost as many fans rooting for the opposition as there are for US). The Czech team took advantage of some terrible defensive lapses to earn a win. This is a Czech team that couldn't even qualify for the World Cup, and wasn't necessarily playing it's top lineup. The picture isn't entirely dire, however. First, it was just a warm-up friendly, and therefore doesn't mean much in the big picture. Second, we played almost entirely second-stringers throughout the lineup, so you can't take the result to the bank. Coach Bob Bradley was said to be using last night's game to help make final roster decisions, with an announcement later today of who is still on the team and who isn't.

Let's grade last night's performances and see if we can predict who coach Bradley will name at Noon today.

Starters:

GK -- Brad Guzan -- C-
You can't really fault Guzan directly for any of the four goals, but he also failed to stop them. He never really commanded the box and his positioning was obviously a little off. All that said, he did make a couple of stops and can't be raked across the coals for a result that really wasn't his fault.

D -- Steve Cherundolo -- B
Cherundolo once again proved to be a top-level professional. He linked up well with Stuart Holden to maintain possession and start some attacks down the right side. He was solid defensively and was never beaten (that I saw) off the wing. Cherundolo is a lock to make the roster, and could see time depending on where Spector ends up playing.

D -- Clarence Goodson -- B
His defense was generally good, and he made an impact on corner kicks and such. He made an outstanding play when he out-fought and out-jumped a Czech defender to head the ball back across the goal for Hercules Gomez to nod in. Goodson was even singled out for praise after the game by coach Bradley, so it looks like he punched his ticket to South Africa last night.

D -- Oguchi Onyewu -- D
To say Onyewu was merely rusty would be a kindness. He didn't completely fall apart, but Onyewu was mostly ineffective and a real liability on the night. Before his injury last fall, Onyewu had really improved his touch on the ball and had stopped making so many clumsy challenges. Combined with his strength and heading prowess, he was looking like a top-notch player. Last night, he looked like the clumsy Onyewu, minus his original heading prowess. He was cleanly beaten on the Czech's first goal, as he completely mis-timed his jump and was beaten to the header by the attacker. Onyewu also gave up some cheap fouls with clumsy challenges. Bradley faces a tough choice here. If he were the same player he was prior to the injury, Onyewu would be a slam-dunk addition to the team. But he's obviously not the same player, and we have a good number of capable central defenders with which to replace him.

D -- Jonathan Bornstein -- D-
Sigh.... haven't we seen this before? Bornstein simply isn't good enough to compete at this level. He had another poor outing last night, struggling to keep up with attackers and flubbing his own passes and dribbles. Bornstein keeps getting looks because A) we're woefully short of options at left defense and B) he owns compromising pictures of Bob Bradley from their Chivas USA days (allegedly). If he's on the final 23, it's a sad comment on the state of wing defenders in the US.

M -- Stuart Holden -- B-
Holden didn't set the world on fire, but he held his own and made some good things happen. He linked up well with Cherundolo on the right flank and started some promising attacks. He also showed good versatility when he switched to central midfield late in the game and still managed to hold possession. Holden has fully recovered from a broken leg suffered the last time the US team played (remarkably fast recovery, really...), and is a virtual lock to make the team, although he probably won't be a first-choice starter.

M -- Maurice Edu -- C+
Edu's "work-rate" and hustle earns him high marks, but his touch was mediocre. He does, notably, seem to have an affinity for being in the right place at the right time during goal-mouth scrambles. His goal was more difficult than it first appeared, as he had to spin around and lunge to reach the bouncing ball with his toe. Edu was much less effective as a central defender, a role he took over later in the match. While his personal one-on-one defending wasn't too bad, he didn't coordinate with Goodson and the other defenders as well as Onyewu did, and even his one-on-one skills let him down at the end when a Czech attacker beat him to bring down a high ball and race off for a clinching breakaway goal. Edu is probably going to make the team, but like Holden, it's unlikely he'll start.

M -- Jose Torres -- B
Torres was much more active last night than he was against the Netherlands. Someone must have spoken to him about the pace of the game at the international level, and it was good to see Torres respond positively. He was able to maintain possession with solid skills on the ball even under pressure. He linked players together with good passes and was only rarely out of position defensively. That said, Torres doesn't give you a warm fuzzy feeling when he's defending, and while he controlled the ball well, he couldn't generate much offense with any attacking runs or deft through-balls. That wasn't entirely his fault, as both Buddle and Johnson were too often offsides in the first half, but results are results. I think Torres made the team last night, however, as he showed a much greater speed than I knew he possessed and more defensive muscle.

M -- DaMarcus Beasley -- C
Beasley looked spry and lively, but was starved of action during his half of play. The ball rarely seemed to come out left, and Bornstein often lost it when it did. Beasley therefore had a pretty quiet night. It's hard to say where he stands on the team right now. When he's on and involved, he can be a real weapon. He also brings experience from two previous cups and high-level professional action. But he's always an injury worry, and sometimes disappears from games for long stretches, much as he did last night. Hmmm......

F -- Edson Buddle -- B-
Didn't accomplish a whole lot on the stat sheet, but he hustled like mad and created the first goal by bravely going for a high ball among what seemed to be 6 players and the goalkeeper. He managed to get enough of the ball to knock it down where Edu poked it in for the first US goal, although it cost him a split lip and several minutes of time on the sidelines. Buddle clearly wanted to take advantage of his first action in ages for the national team, and he just may have done enough to get the call for South Africa.

F -- Eddie Johnson -- C
Eddie actually played a decent first half, but probably didn't do enough to earn a trip with the main squad. Johnson displayed his trademark speed a couple of times, but was always offsides when doing it. What was notably better from Johnson compared to past appearances was his touch on the ball. He was able to connect on passes and not give the ball away too cheaply. But he also failed to do much with those passes besides kick it back to a midfielder, and he never looked like scoring. I'm glad to see Johnson have a solid outing, but I don't think he should be on the final 23.

Subs:

D -- Heath Pearce -- F+
Ugh. Now you know why Bornstein keeps getting rolled out there. Pearce was even worse during the second half. He fell asleep and was simply out-run to the ball on the Czech's second goal. And Heath, turning the to the linesman and raising your hand for offsides only makes you look worse. The Czech player was most definitely ONsides. Later, Pearce was mostly to blame for the Czech's third goal, as he completely whiffed on a lunging, sliding tackle attempt and let the attacker dribble cleanly into the box from the left flank (left from the US-POV). Pearce deserves credit for hustling like mad, but he seemed to be out of control and rattled by the circumstances. He just couldn't make anything positive happen last night. He's young enough that he can still improve and try again in four years. This year, he should be staying home.

M -- Sacha Kljestan -- C-
Here's another guy from Bradley's Chivas USA days that must have some incriminating evidence against the coach. Unlike Bornstein, Kljestan has at least shown a few flashes of ability when he's put on the US jersey. Last year, Sacha went into a terrible slump and was playing so poorly that he almost lost his starting spot at Chivas USA. He has worked his way back into form over the past few months, but is still not showing anything that makes you think he'll be on the plane Sunday. Last night, Kljestan looked like Claudio Reyna.... the aging, ineffective Reyna that did nothing but pass sideways and occasionally get caught in possession. Kljestan is still young enough to get another shot in 2014. Good luck to him.

M -- Robbie Rogers -- B
To make the World Cup team, Rogers needed a strong performance. He provided one. Rogers was dynamic and involved from the moment he entered the game to start the second half. He raced around the left flank and started attacks with Brian Ching. He took a good shot that forced a fine save from Peter Cech. He probably should've made some better passes to Gomez, but their timing was a little off. Rogers also hustled back to help on defense and fed in some effective corner kicks. Rogers was on the outside looking in going into last night's game. He might be on the inside now.

M -- Alejandro Bedoya -- C
He didn't see as much time as the other subs, and didn't do much while he was in there. Bedoya has a nice touch on the ball and runs well enough, but I didn't see the coordination with other players that is necessary in the World Cup. I think he just ran out of time. Maybe in 2014.....

F -- Brian Ching -- B+
We've all given Ching grief about his numerous flubbed scoring opportunities, but you have to give him credit as a target man. He wins aerial balls, and does a really nice job getting other players involved in the attack by providing a passing target up front. He doesn't give the ball away easily, and last night he was making a lot of good passes into dangerous spaces. He really should've had an assist for a brilliant back-heel into the path of Gomez that the latter unfortunately hit directly at Cech. Ching was almost certain to make the roster anyway, but he eliminated any doubts about a lingering hamstring injury last night. Ching remains a poor man's Brian McBride, but we can use him.

F -- Hercules Gomez -- B-
He blew a clear opportunity as mentioned before, but he also hit a lovely header goal that tied the game at 2. Gomez also hustled around and tried to make things happen. He didn't always seem to be on the same page as his teammates, likely a result of such limited time with the national team, but he never looked out of place. I don't know if his style of play fits the US national team's style, but he may get a shot anyway. Gomez is clearly on the fringe, but scoring a goal always helps your cause.

Final roster prediction:
So where does that leave us? I think the following players need to have the passports ready for stamping (The "S" indicates predicted starter):
GK (3) -- Tim Howard (S), Marcus Hahnemann, Brad Guzan
D (7) -- Jonathan Spector (S), Jay DeMerit (S), Clarence Goodson (S), Carlos Bocanegra (S), Steve Cherundolo, Oguchi Onyewu, Jonathan Bornstein (sigh....)
M (10) -- Landon Donovan (S), Clint Dempsey (S), Ricardo Clark (S), Michael Bradley (S), Stuart Holden, DaMarcus Beasley, Benny Feilhaber, Jose Torres, Robbie Rogers, Maurice Edu
F (3) -- Jozy Altidore(S), Brian Ching(S), Edson Buddle

That leaves the following off the roster:
Heath Pearce, Chad Marshall, Alejandro Bedoya, Sacha Kljestan, Hercules Gomez, Eddie Johnson, Robbie Findley

If I had my way, I'd chuck Bornstein and put Gomez on the roster. Yes, that's pretty thin at defense, but it's not like Bornstein was doing a good job anyway. Edu showed he can play a little defense, and moving Spector over to left while Cherundolo plays right is always an option.

We'll have to wait and see what coach Bradley decides today.

NOTE: I can't help but think that this situation SCREAMS for a change in formation. Go to a 3 -5 -2, with the following starters:

Dempsey Altidore

Donovan Feilhaber
Beasley Bradley Holden

Bocanegra Spector
DeMerit

I'll admit that such a lineup leaves us a little small, with a possible weakness against aerial attacks, but it would provide much more cover against the flank attacks that are killing us right now, while putting Donovan and Feilhaber into more natural attacking positions. If a more defensive look was needed, then Holden could be swapped out for Cherundolo, Clark, or Edu. Beasley could make way for Clark or Edu. Spector could even be moved to either spot to put Goodson in defense for his height.

SAH

Soccer video games... a quick history from my perspective

It's practically all soccer all the time from now until the middle of July, when the World Cup ends (unless the Philadelphia Flyers manage to win the Stanley Cup, but SSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH..... don't jinx it by talking about it!!!!!). With the US starting their warm-up friendly schedule tonight, I plan to have blog posts with player grades and game reviews starting this week.

One thing that I wanted to talk about was soccer video games. This came to mind as I have been spending quite a bit of time recently playing the new FIFA World Cup 2010 soccer game by EA sports on my Xbox 360. I have yet to find that "perfect" soccer game, although a few variations have come close (at least with the limitations of the technology at the time). So here's a non-comprehensive, completely personal and subjective look at soccer video game history:

Pele's Championship Soccer for the Atari 2600 was the first soccer video game that got wide play here in the US. My brother and I spent a good amount of time on this title, but it had major flaws. Playing the game was almost as tiring as actual soccer, since the "players" (they were blocks with extra sprites representing legs as they ran or "kicked") ran at a snail's pace and it took several seconds to progress up the field. To "make up" for this deficiency, players moved twice as fast when retreating towards their own goal, meaning that games usually devolved into arduous tests of joystick stamina around midfield (hey... that sounds a lot like many actual soccer games I've seen... maybe this game was ahead of its time?). Teams consisted of three players forever linked in a triangle formation, plus a goalkeeper permanently trapped within the goal (but able to keep the ball out of it). Needless to say, real soccer movement was left to your imagination. All this is not to say that the game was without merit. There was a very cool fireworks graphic (cool for the Atari 2600 timeframe) whenever someone scored, and there was true sense of accomplishment associated with scoring goals because it could be so difficult to do.

GOAL! for the NES was the first soccer video game that really made one feel like he or she was playing a soccer game. There were many soccer games in the arcade that looked like soccer, but were unwieldy to control and horrendously difficult (unless you knew THE MOVE, which was the case with most sports video games back then). Goal! actually looked AND played like a soccer game. It had an innovative angled field, rather than just straight up and down or left-to-right, although the controls were such that moving left or right moved you left or right relative to the field, not the screen, so that it was still intuitive to play. Even better, your teammates moved like actual soccer players. Players would make random runs into open spaces for you to pass to them. Passing consisted of two forms, a "touch" pass with the B button which could be directed via the gamepad or left on auto-direct for funky tricks. This sounds tricky, but it was actually incredibly intuitive and made it easy to link passes together and even lead your teammates with a forward pass. At the time, this was almost unheard-of for a soccer video game. The second form of passing was an alteration of the shooting (button A). All shots and long kicks were performed in the same manner, but your players (regardless of their individual skill) had the greatest trapping ability known to man so that it was possible to combine short "B" passes with hard, long "A" passes to move all over the field in a completely controlled and skillful manner, as if your entire team was made of 10 Gersons.

Just as impressively, the game included 16 national teams that were arranged to be played in a World Cup. While this wasn't entirely accurate, it was closer than anything else at the time. And each team truly played differently. Spain, for example, was inexplicably slow. Russia had a player that was slightly faster than anyone else. There were somewhat distinctive players on nearly every team. My personal favorite was the Danish #10, who I called Elkjaer. My brother and I wasted many glorious hours on this video game.

FIFA International Soccer was the first attempt by EA Sports to take on the soccer genre. Having made their name with the original Madden and "Celtics vs. Lakers" NBA titles, EA sports branched out and dominated the SNES and Sega Genesis with their very fun NHL franchise. They next went after the soccer market with this game. As you can see even from the screenshot here, the graphics of this game were light-years ahead of anything else on the market. Even arcade soccer games (the Neo-Geo had some entertaining soccer games at the time) couldn't beat it. True to what would prove to be their form, EA went all-out on presentation, adding fantastic crowd sound effects and animations. The game even added some coaching options such as formations and tactics. In terms of "feeling" like you were part of a real soccer match, this game was a huge step forward for the genre, and firmly established EA sports' FIFA series for the future. Unfortunately, while the game was awesome to look at and listen to, it played rather poorly. In terms of actual control, it was a step BACK from the simple NES titles that preceded it. Games nearly always disintegrated into kickball contests with too many goals scored from midfield, even against human opponents. Trying to pass your way up the field and organize an attack (or a defense, for that matter) was nearly impossible. This gave the FIFA series an "All-flash, no dash" reputation among hardcore soccer fans that has only recently started to wane.

It's worth noting that EA started a policy of releasing a new version of the game on multiple platforms each year, much as they did with their other franchises. Each year brought improvements, and the PC version in particular became a pretty good game. By Fifa 98, the control issues had been worked out, the graphics were excellent, and the game was one of the most fun soccer experiences you could have off an actual field. It was still far too "arcadey" for most grognards, but it was a blast to play and had features galore.


With the advent of the Playstation 2 and the Xbox, Konami expanded their Pro Evolution Soccer (Winning Eleven) series to the US to satisfy players who were looking for the most realistic soccer game available. Unlike the FIFA series, Konami focused on gameplay from the start, with a heavy emphasis on realistic player movement and control. Their graphics weren't quite at the same level as the FIFA series, but most everyone agreed that a PES game was the closest thing to watching a real soccer match as was possible. The PES series also gave players a huge number of options to customize their experience. They could even create their own teams with uniforms and such via the "Master League" feature. The drawback of the PES series was always the licensing issue. While EA Sports owned the FIFA license, Konami had to try and sign individual clubs to support their game. This led to all kinds of confusion when the game featured teams like Arsenal playing against "East London FC." This is still the greatest handicap the Konami series faces.


Which brings us to the game I'm currently playing, FIFA World Cup 2010 by EA Sports. They basically took their FIFA 10 game engine and added a bunch of extra presentation features, such as a bewildering array of national teams. The usual FIFA games featured the most significant national teams, but focused more on the big-name club sides. This edition has ALL the FIFA member national teams, and no clubs whatsoever. The tradeoff is that you can play complete qualifying campaigns and such, even as tiny nations such as Grenada. The World Cup presentation itself includes all the South African stadiums, complete with "fanatical" team followers and incredibly detailed representations of the coaches of most sides.

The modern state of soccer video gaming has EA Sports' FIFA series ruling the roost. Their licensing and presentation values, coupled with an increasingly sophisticated game engine and unique features such as the "Be a Pro" mode, make it hard to choose any other title. The PES series has not adjusted well to the PS3 or Xbox 360, and is virtually the same game that it was 5 years ago. It is probably still the most realistic game in terms of soccer action, and its "Master League" mode is still awesome, but it's getting harder and harder to recommend it over the FIFA line. As a soccer video game junky, I hope that Konami can get their act together and put out a real upgrade next year, something that will let me justify diving back into Master League mode for hours on end.

SAH

World Cup Predictions

The World Cup is officially one month away. On June 11th, the host South Africans will take on our "amigos" to the South, Mexico, in the first match of the finals. For most of the past few cups, the defending champions were given the "honor" of kicking off the finals. But Germany changed that in 2006 and the resulting contest was far more entertaining than most openers, meaning that it's a good move to have the hosts hit lead-off.
Of course, the question on everyone's mind is, "Who will win the cup?" I'm here today to answer that question.

You may be laughing right now. After all, there are 32 teams in the World Cup finals, the same as in the NFL, and my recent record predicting that has been abysmal of late. But it's a completely different beast. While many teams have won Super Bowls, only 7 nations have lifted up the World Cup trophy in victory. And of those 7, it is fairly easy to eliminate four of them based on history and circumstances. With the World Cup, you don't even need to know who is playing, what the schedule is, or what kind of form teams are showing. History says that the winner of the 2010 FIFA World Cup will be Argentina, with Germany the next best option.

Walk with me through this exercise. Below are the 32 teams that qualified for these finals. They are grouped into 8 pods of four teams each. Each group is a round-robin mini-tournament, with the top two teams from each group advancing to a knockout round. It is tricky to predict the exact order of each group. Nobody knows, for example, just how group A will shake out. The South African team is by far the weakest of the four on paper, but they are hosting the tournament and no host team has ever failed to at least advance to the second round. Mexico has some talented players and a long World Cup history, but traditionally falter early. Uruguay is one of the 7 nations to have hoisted the trophy, but that was over half a century ago and this year's edition was the last team to qualify for the finals. France has also tasted the ultimate glory, but its current squad qualified by virtue of an uncalled handball in their penultimate game against Ireland. Their best players are past the sell-by date, and the team has played poorly in recent outings. Every team in this group has a valid reason to expect advancement, and an equally valid reason to expect failure. I'm not touching it (at least not with any official prediction).

But the tournament overall is a different matter. No matter the circumstances, in the past 10 World Cups, a span covering 40 years, the winning team has always been a former champion. There are two exceptions to this rule. Argentina won their first title in 1978, and France won their lone title in 1998. In both instances, they were hosting the tournament. In fact, one would need to go all the way back to 1958 to find a team that won the title for the first time while on foreign soil. That was Brazil's first title, when a young 17-year-old by the name of Pele captured the public's imagination by scoring big goals in the final against Sweden. That was a long time ago. Basically, the champion of the World Cup will either be a repeat champion, or possibly the host team if that squad is a traditional contender.

As South Africa is hardly a traditional contender, we can eliminate them from the discussion, and focus on the previous champions. The 2010 FIFA World Cup champion will almost assuredly be one of these teams: Uruguay, Italy, Germany, Brazil, England, Argentina, or France. The real question is which one will hold this year's hardware.

We can easily eliminate Uruguay. While they've won the title twice, their last victory was 60 years ago and the team hasn't been a legitimate contender in ages. They still produce some great players, but the nation itself simply isn't large enough to produce a whole team's worth of world-class superstars. We can also safely eliminate England and France. Both of those nations field consistently competitive teams, and are always among the betting favorites, but neither has been able to win a title on foreign soil. France came as close as you can get four years ago in Germany, but it's also worth noting that France is next-door to Germany on the map. They won't feel nearly so comfortable South of the Equator. England hasn't even been very close since they won it all in London back in 1966. They usually make the knockout rounds, but always get tripped up sooner or later.

That leaves us with four "legitimate" contenders. Brazil is always a threat to take the title, having won the most with 5 trophies to their belt. Italy has 4 titles, Germany 3 and Argentina 2. Based on current players and team "form", Brazil is the easy favorite. But as I said earlier, history seems to weigh more than current players and form when it comes to the World Cup.

We need another method to determine a winner. First we can eliminate Italy. No team has repeated as World Cup champion since the Brazilians way back in 1962, a lifetime ago. Like most defending champions, the Italians look like they'll bring mostly the same guys to this tournament that they brought four years ago...only they'll be four years older.

That leaves three options, any of which would make for a historically accurate champion. The usual final determiner is the "home hemisphere" rule. In addition to host nations performing well, it happens that every single champion has won the title on "home hemisphere" soil, with two notable exceptions. For example, Argentina not only won the title at home in 1978, but also in Mexico (like Argentina in the western hemisphere) in 1986. Italy won its first title at home in 1934, in France in 1938, in Spain in 1982, and in Germany four years ago. Always, they won when close to home in the eastern hemisphere. The two notable exceptions are when Brazil won in Sweden in 1958, and when Brazil also won in South Korea/Japan in 2002. But before we give Brazil the title, note that South Africa is actually in the eastern hemisphere and has virtually the same time zone as Germany. That would give the edge to the Germans. But Germany has never won a title away from the continent of Europe, so that would give the edge back to Brazil.

Which leaves Argentina. They're "due" to win a title. Since Argentina took the crown in Mexico, Germany won in 1990. Brazil won in 2002 (and 1994). The Argentines are due. Not only that, but Argentina will feature the tournament's most visible player in Lionel Messi. It's not a coincidence that such stars tend to carry teams to titles (if given enough support, of which Messi has plenty). No matter who wins this year, some small precedent will be set simply because this is the first time the tournament has been hosted in Africa. My prediction is that Argentina will be setting that small precedent by winning their third title overall, and their first since 1986. The safe money will also be on Brazil and Germany. If anyone besides those three teams wins the tournament, it would be a major shock.
Of course, I can already hear some of you throwing out teams like Netherlands and Spain. Sure, they're loaded with talented players and are usually competitive, but history says that both will falter before the final on July 11th. I can also hear some of you screaming about how Diego Maradona will ruin Argentina's chances because he is an inept coach. That may happen, and if you believe that then by all means put your ducats on Brazil or Germany. I don't think he can screw it up that badly.

What about the US? I'll save that for another blog, but I can tell you that I'm hopeful we can at least get out of the first round.

SAH