Wow, what a tournament. A day after the US loss and I'm flabbergasted by the attention that the US team is getting. Soccer mania is spreading in the US, and I'm happy for it. It might be that unlike other areas (the Olympics, military might, world economic supremacy) soccer is hard. It's the happenin' party that the American public wants to attend, but just can't get invited to. It's that itch that is just a little too far to scratch. This is the sensation that turns bystanders into soccer nuts.
So the US lost. Unlike most commentators (especially ESPN - get rid of those jerks and get real commentators ... also please obliterate your stats and info-boxes that crowd up the screen - soccer is for watching not a statistics lesson) I believe that the US did very well. In their last two games they played aggressively and they managed to tie Italy. Despite all the ramblings that in previous World Cups the US played better (and yes I know they beat Portugal in he last World Cup) a tie with Italy is a new high. And on top of that, they barely lost to the rising stars that are Ghana. The US team's main problem? They are inexperienced inside the last 20 yards. Despite playing well in the midfield, the US managed only 4 shots on goal the whole tournament. They only scored one goal, but it was a great goal.
As for ranking 5th in the world?
Give me a break, those ranking are obviously faulty. Italy who hasn't lost a match in almost 2 years wasn't in the top 10, while a mediocre Mexico was. Yes the US played well four years ago. But the last tournament was held outside of Europe, and that makes a huge difference. Many great powers tumbled in that tournament (some called it the World Cup of the Underdogs). Japan played well, Korea played well, Turkey made it to the semis. European teams do not play well out side of Europe, but play well on European soil. Whenever the tournament is held outside of Europe, it has been won by non-European teams. When the tournament was held in Europe, non-European teams have won the tournament exactly once. And this tournament is no different. Every experienced European team, with the exception of France, has crushed the opposition. The only non-European teams who are playing well are the African countries (we'll see if South Korea can rise to the occasion today).
Another fact that Americans do not appreciate is the rise of Africa. The Ivory Coast gave both Holland and Argentina a run for their money, Ghana dominated the Czechs. Sooner or later a team from this continent will win a World Cup. Since 1990 when Cameroon stunned the world by defeating the defending champs Argentina, African teams have been playing great soccer. Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal ... Ghana is only the latest. Yesterday the Americans played hard, but in the first half Ghana owned the midfield. But that's OK. Individually Ghana may have the most gifted players in the tournament. And yes, the Americans got an unlucky break, but this is soccer. The Gods of soccer like to throw in curve balls and every country in the world has experienced referee "injustice". Just ask the Italians or the Spanish in '02. Or the English in '86. But the Americans played hard in the second half and gained control of the midfield, and that was impressive. (Well OK Ghana stopped attacking) McBride almost scored what would have been a great goal except for the post. So yes they probably deserve a tie. But they gave a great gift to the American public, and I'm glad that the US supporters don't have a back scratcher.
- Log in to post comments
Good analysis. I would say that the US could have won against Italy. If McBride wasn't adjudged to be offside, Beasley's goal would have counted.
"The only non-European teams who are playing well are the African countries (we'll see if South Korea can rise to the occasion today)."
Hmmmmmmm....
Well, I ever knew that everyone from Argentina thought they were europeans... but Brazil an european country?
I know, we brazilians are absolutelly crazy about our soccer. But I think we played well against Japan yesterday, we won 4 X 1. Two goals made by Ronaldo...
By the way, there are some non-european teams playing well that come from latin america... and latin america soccer isn't european soccer, we have other play style, we call it "futebol-arte".
Australia's been playing well too. You have to analyse the team with respect to the squad, in my opinion. The USA's got players (Lewis for instance) who plays in the 2nd division of English football while Australia's got players playing in lower-quality football leagues as well.
Brazil did play well against Japan, I must admit. But it goes without saying that Argentina and Brazil always do well. And both look in good form.
As for the Aussies, I've only seen part of the Brazil-Australia game, they looked good (but Brazil didn't look so hot). We'll see how they fare against the Italian squad.
BTW I'm getting a copy of the Italy Czech game - I'm hearing conflicting stories with Italy's performance. Has anyone seen it?