There are many wonderful things about the holiday time each year. One of the best practices during late December is the telling of stories that carry a positive outcome and often offer a meaningful lesson to accompany the tale. We see uplifting movies like “It’s a Wonderful Life”, “Miracle on 34th Street” and “Home Alone” that use the Christmas and New Year period to make us feel great and teach life lessons to boot. The Hallmark Channel devotes weeks to the telling of tales that end with problems that are solved through the learning of lessons that are important all year long.
In keeping with that tradition, the Soccer Yoda would like to tell a story, at this time of year, that like those mentioned above, has an important life lesson to teach and a positive outcome to make the reader smile. This tale is true and, of course, it’s a soccer story. What it isn’t- is a Christmas story- I decided to use the season as an excuse to relate a real-life happening that still reminds me of an important lesson I and a group of teen-age boys learned a long time ago.
In the summer of 1984 I was into my fourth year of coaching a team of boys living in Columbia,Md. The Soccer Association of Columbia was formed in 1971 and had grown into one of the stronger soccer clubs in the East, producing a number of Maryland State champion teams as well as several Eastern regional titleholders and a national championship team ( and more were to come in the near future). My team was a good team, we had risen from the Washington DC beltway league’s 3rd division all the way to the first and we were looking to continue that improvement. To that end, we decided that a trip overseas could have a great impact on the boys.
A word about team names – it is common practice here in the 20-teen years to name youth soccer teams by a specific process: the name of the club comes first, then the year of the players birth, then either a color or a level description (or both) or perhaps the coaches initials to indicate which particular team it is. So a team at the same level as our story team ( u-16, top team) would be named SAC 2002 Premier Blue at the present time. Under the present system we would have been SAC 1968 Premier Blue. But back in the 70’s and 80’s team names were different. There were fewer teams at that time and many clubs including ours used team names to inspire loyalty and pride. For while “SAC 1968 Premier Blue” might be descriptive, it certainly doesn’t raise any passion or identity. All SAC teams went by the name “Columbia” ( it helped that there were no competing soccer organizations in the city at that time) and had a nickname that was unique to that team in the organization. Therefore there were Columbia Eagles and Columbia Strikers and Columbia Comets and the like. We took the name of the top professional team in the country and thus were the Columbia Cosmos (it was a nice alliteration and the fact that I had an ex-player of mine on the actual Cosmos didn’t hurt the idea).
In that summer of ’84 our team went to Europe to play and learn from the best European soccer nations at that time , Holland and Germany. I had made this trip before with an older team and it was very worthwhile on many levels. We were going to travel through the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium, play 8 games and learn as much about soccer and Europe as we could. Our first stop was at the Dutch National Training Center at Papendal which is located just outside of Arnhem. There we would train for a short week ,play a game against local competition and then head out to Germany. I had been at Papendal before, it was (and is) a terrific facility which is used by many teams and clubs for training purposes and in the summer it is especially busy. On this trip we were joined at the facility by a first division Greek squad and a Dutch soccer camp consisting of about 200 boys ages 8-16.
We stayed in dorms and ate meals at a cafeteria used by all those using the center. We arrived in the evening and the next morning went to breakfast before our first training session. During the meal one of the boys came to me and said,”Coach, is it just me or are those Dutch kids staring at us?”. I glanced around quickly and remarked that I didn’t see anything unusual. Our sessions went well, the fields were perfect, the weather was great. But as each meal occurred, the boys became more convinced that the camp kids were staring and laughing at them. This bothered them far more than it should have and began to have an effect on their overall experience at the center. I tried to assure the boys that being Americans, they would normally attract some degree of attention in Europe and these were youngsters who had probably never seen an American at all. “They know the USA isn’t very good at soccer and they are laughing at us” was the general thought of the team though. Given that all were there to play soccer everyone wore the same general apparel and hair styles were no different from each other, so that the only reason the Dutch boys gave our team extra attention was a perceived ineptness on the field, or so my kids surmised. “Coach, they haven’t even seen us practice, how do they know whether we are good or not? Just because our national team can’t make it to the World Cup?” I still wasn’t aware of any extreme behavior at meals but the kids insisted that they were being disrespected and I did notice some added attention paid to them at times. As they were itching to play a match on those grass-carpet fields I decided to talk to the camp coaches about a game between us and their best u-16 campers.
The camp coaches asked if I could wait a day for their answer as they needed to talk to their director. The next day they told me that the director had decided that if any of their campers were hurt in a match with us, they would be liable for damages and parents would be very upset if that were to happen. I understood the caution but the team wasn’t happy. “They laugh at us but they won’t give us a chance to prove we can play.” As I ran a soccer camp myself I understood the caution and explained the reasoning to the boys. They calmed down but it was evident that they really wanted to prove that they (and therefore Americans in general) could play the game at least as well as an assortment of camp kids. This was bothering them to no end.
Finally the last day of our stay arrived and in the evening we were matched up with the best u-16 team in the area. Our team was very ready to play and out-hustled the opposition during the first 5 minutes resulting in a scrappy goal for us. This fired the boys up even more but the Dutch team started putting together some good passing moves and held the ball in our half for a few minutes. Suddenly we took possession and then put together as fine a counter-attack as one would see at that level… a fast series of three balls down our flank followed by a centering pass to a late running central midfielder who found the net with one well placed touch. The boys went crazy, the opposition slumped….and then the kids noticed the campers watching the game from the hill overlooking the field. If anything they were now even more energized than before and by the time it was over we had decimated our foe 7-0.
As we walked back to our dorm we passed the building housing the campers. They had disappeared after the game and frankly the boys were basking in their performance rather than worrying about what a bunch of Dutch youngsters thought (finally!). As we walked past the camp dormitory, I saw a boy looking out from the front door. When he saw us he yelled out in English,”Here they come boys!” With that the door slammed open and at least a hundred campers of all ages came streaming out, running up to our team , all of them armed with paper and writing utensils. In broken English they asked every player on our team for their autograph. My kids were astonished, at first unsure of what to do and then signing with the most bemused looks on their faces. They laughed, they signed, they tried to converse, they shook hands, they even hugged the younger campers. Nothing could have topped off that match effort like this reception. After a long while the campers gradually returned to the dorm. I noticed that the “lookout” who had hailed our appearance was among the campers still lingering. I surmised that he spoke some English and went to him and asked,” This is very nice, but why do you want our autographs?” He looked at me and said incredulously,”you are Cosmos!”
It took me a second or two……and suddenly it all fell into place …and I felt somewhat ashamed. My team and myself among them had totally misinterpreted the campers. Our own doubts and insecurity had allowed us to completely misread these children. European professional clubs, especially the larger organizations , have youth teams to groom potential players for the senior team. Many of these youngsters end up as stars, others don’t pan out. At present MLS clubs are developing youth teams like their European counterparts. In 1984 the Cosmos were a world-famous team. They had brought world renown players like Pele, Franz Beckenbauer, Giorgio Chinaglia, and others to New York in order to build a soccer organization that would provide a base for the growth of the game in the USA. Given the talent level of the team, any youth playing in the Cosmos organization would naturally be considered to be extremely talented and a probable future star. The campers were staring at the Columbia Cosmos in the mistaken belief that we were the NY Cosmos u-16 team ( which did not even exist at that time) and the rout of the local team that they had just witnessed convinced them that we were the real deal…..which we were not. A little communication during the week could have cleared up the confusion and perhaps forged some friendships, created some international understanding and, while costing my boys their moment of false celebrity, it could also have spared them their week-long anxiety. Communication can solve many misunderstandings, and once the barriers were broken down, even for just one short evening, we found that the love of soccer made for a great commonality.
During our trip we were treated like royalty by so many great people. I am happy to say that perhaps the experience at Papendal had an effect as the boys had a wonderful time, made many friends and found ways to communicate with citizens of three different countries. We also won almost every game , even defeating a German Regional Championship team who underestimated us badly. Our one loss was a fantastic game against a REAL professional u-16 team when we played Schalke 04. Schalke is a long time successful first-division German club and we were lucky enough to play their u-16’s in their former stadium, the Glückauf-Kampfbahn. The stadium held 34,000 people, we played before about 50. We lost 2-0, which sounds excellent considering the competition, but in all honesty, if we were awarded a goal for every time we got into Schalke’s defending third, we still would have probably lost. For a squad that considered itself a possession team, we learned what possession was truly all about. But that was fine, after all that kind of learning was the point of the trip.
Members of the Columbia Cosmos have done well. Many were the nucleus of an undefeated state championship high school team. Members of the team played in such diverse colleges as Catawba College, Jacksonville St, UMBC, Dartmouth, U of Maryland, US Naval Academy (captain!). While ex-Cosmos have succeeded in many different careers, there are some still attached to the game, coaching in places such as College of Charleston, LSU, U of Maryland, Loyola College, U of North Carolina Greensboro. The Soccer Yoda (that’s me) likes to think that the lessons learned through the sport of soccer contributed to the lives and successes of these men, for in the long run, for youth, that is the purpose of the game.
It has been a month since the USA was eliminated from the World Cup to be held in Russia next summer. At that time the soccer community mourned the loss of a great chance to further the growth of the sport here in the United States and also the loss of the excitement of competing in the world’s biggest sporting event. There is also the feeling that every decent soccer country on the planet is going to a big party and we are going to be left out while the rest of the world is having a great time. And while nothing can be done about missing the Cup next year, as it turns out we will not be alone in our absence from Russia.
In the last several weeks all qualification tournaments for the World Cup have concluded and rarely has as many consistent world powers and World Cup participants been eliminated from the championship. Perennial powers like Italy and the Netherlands will be missing. Usual participants like Chile and Ghana failed to make the cut. It will seem rather strange to long time fans of the sport to view a World Cup without these nations being represented, while Americans might take some solace in the fact that unexpected defeat is not something unique to us. Lets take a look on what happened to these teams in their failed attempts to qualify for Russia.
The European qualifying tournament had 54 nations participating and were awarded 13 places in Russia. Rather than enduring many preliminary rounds, the European Football Association (UEFA) took advantage of the fact that 54 can be evenly divided by 6. They seeded their countries into 9 groups of 6 teams each. Only the winners of each group were guaranteed a spot in the Cup.. The eight best second place finishers paired off to home and away playoffs with each other and the 4 winners also made it to Russia. The fact that there are far more than 9 strong sides in Europe assured the fact that some excellent teams would be looking at playoffs and that there was a definite possibility there would be some surprise omissions from Europe.
Italy – The Italians hadn’t missed a World Cup since 1958 and have won four of them altogether. Their defensive style always makes them tough to beat in a tournament and they were still blessed with Gigi Buffon in the goal. While aging gracefully at 39 yrs old, Buffon was in the nets when Italy won it all in 2006 and he is still considered one of the worlds best. What the Italians were not blessed with was a kind draw in the elimination. They were put into the same group as Spain and the Spanish are once again looking like the super team they were a few years ago.
The Spanish ran away with the group and as good as Italy was, they weren’t as successful as Spain. Nevertheless the playoff was with Sweden and the Italians were confident they would qualify without having to win their group. In Sweden a deflected shot beat Buffon and the Italians lost 1-0. However, the real shock came in the return match in Milan when the Swedes played defense like they were the Italians and kept the home team from scoring. So the Italians miss out for the first time in 60 years and Gigi’s last game for his country did not reflect the successful impact he has had on Italian soccer.
Netherlands – The Dutch have been World Cup contenders since the 1970’s and have also been credited for innovating the game to its present standards. They have been a strong presence in virtually every World Cup for the last 45 years despite failing to win one. They have been considered the littlest country with the best players. But in the last few years their results have not reached the levels of past decades and their reputation as the best small country developer of talent has been bequeathed to Belgium ( or maybe Iceland). In the qualifying round they were in the same group as France, which was the favorite and a Sweden team that exceeded expectations. The Dutch had the same number of points as the Swedes but they failed to pour on the goals against the weaker teams in the same manner as Sweden did. As a result they missed out on the playoff round by goal difference. Of course, Sweden went on to knock Italy out of the Cup.
Other European teams that that failed to qualify but have been in numerous Cups in the past include nations such as Greece, Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary. Despite 13 places from their continent, there are many sad fans in Europe.
South America has far fewer nations than Europe, but the region has produced some excellent teams, particularity Brazil and Argentina, having won 7 World Cups between them. But there are other strong teams also and with only 5 possible places the competition was fierce. The qualifying round was played between 10 teams and the top 4 automatically made it while the fifth team participated in a playoff with the Oceania champion. When it was all done most of the favorites were in with one notable exception – Chile.
Chile – Over the last several years Chile has established itself has a team to be feared if they are healthy and motivated. They have a number of world class players and when fired up to play their best they have accomplished much. They won the Copa America tournament which decides the best team in South America in both 2015 and 2016 while last summer they finished runner up to Germany in the Confederations Cup which is considered the warm-up to the World Cup. But in the qualifying round they were neither healthy nor motivated and their results showed it. However, were it not for an appeal the Chileans filed over an illegal player they would have qualified. Chile played to a draw with Bolivia but the Bolivians used a player who did not have the needed residential time in their country. Chile appealed and were awarded a win and the 3 points that go with it instead of the one they got for the draw. But Peru had also played Bolivia when the player in question was used and they had lost. The Peruvians were also awarded 3 points instead of the zero points that a loss earns. So Peru received one more point gained by the appeal than Chile did. Chile had one point from their game with Bolivia but ended up with three while Peru had none from their match with the Bolivians but were given three also. And going into the last game Chile and Peru were vying for the last playoff spot. That should have been enough motivation for the Chileans but they lost 3-0 to a Brazil squad that had nothing to gain having already qualified. Those goals cost Chile the spot as they lost to Peru by 2 in goal difference. In the playoff matches Peru defeated New Zealand to make it to their first World Cup in 36 years.
In Africa there were surprises also. World Cup regulars Cameroon and Ghana were eliminated while Senegal and Egypt qualified. Morocco and Tunisia made it while Nigeria might be ready to make a successful run in the senior cup after much success in the younger competitions.
While all these upsets might make Americans feel better about the failure of the USA to qualify, when one examines the job required to make it to Russia in these other competitions compared to the needed finish in CONCACAF, well, it’s not so comforting. European teams needed to win a group of six or finish second and win a playoff. South Americans needed to finish fourth out of ten, fifth earned a playoff. But the USA only had to finish third of six or fourth to get a playoff and in a weak region at that. Yet the Americans couldn’t manage the comparatively easy task.
But wait! Perhaps all is not lost in regards to the USA playing against good teams from around the world next summer. No, not the World Cup……that experience is gone….. for this time anyway. One aspect of American sports is inclusion in “big win” events, even if the participants aren’t good enough for the main event. College football has enough bowl games to include most any team that can win as many games as they lose. Professional playoff systems have grown to include more and more teams as the years go by ( example:once the only teams that played in baseball’s post season were the two league winners). And college basketball has a secondary tournament – the National Invitational Tournament – for teams that missed out on the big prize NCAA tournament. So, with so many quality sides sitting it out next summer…..how about a soccer version of the NIT? We could call it the WIT (World Invitational Tournament) and host it right here in the USA. Imagine an event with Italy, Holland, Chile , Cameroon, Ghana (and the USA, of course). In order to include nations from all over the globe, New Zealand, the Oceania champion, could be invited and perhaps Canada or Honduras or Greece could make it to fill out an eight team tournament. There are certainly enough good teams left over from World Cup qualifying to make for some very interesting matches if the entrants took the tournament seriously and fielded their best teams. Rumor has it that the USSF is actually looking into such a competition. But even if that hypothetical tournament doesn’t happen, soccer fans from the USA can join fans from so many other nations in watching the World Cup and thinking, “we would have beaten THAT team! ”
In 2013 the USA men’s national team worked hard to qualify for the 2014 World Cup. When the job was accomplished, the American soccer community adopted the mantra “We’re Going to Brazil!”, well… except for Landon Donovan who was famously cut from the squad by then-coach Jurgen Klinsmann. Donovan was cast in a well watched commercial in which he slyly mumbled,”I’m not going to Brazil.”
After last weeks incredulous series of events the entire USA soccer community now must join Landon in not going to Russia. It’s the first time since 1986 that the USA will not play in the world’s most watched athletic event and the lack of numbers of soccer participants in the country cannot be used as an excuse any more as it was during the mid 20th century. Actually, if one were to DOUBLE the ENTIRE population of Trinidad and Tobago and then give EVERY single citizen a soccer ball, there would still be 400,000 MORE YOUTH soccer players in the USA than ALL of the soccer players there. And we still couldn’t find 11 players who could defeat Trinidad’s 11 when it counted.
Of course the fallout has been enormous, thousands have opinions as to the causes of the debacle. Among knowledgeable comments the range runs from Coach Bruce Arena’s “there’s nothing wrong with what we’re doing” to many calling for complete replacement of every person attached to the USSF . While it is true that while Omar Gonzelez’ misplay of a Trinidad cross was an error that a 10 yr old would be ashamed of, the way it managed to loop just over keeper Tim Howard’s outstretched hands and into the USA goal was rather shocking. Add Alvin Jones shot that he has never hit before and never will again AND both Honduras and Panama defeating Mexico and Costa Rica at the same time…..and the proverbial cold day in hell would be a common occurrence compared to the odds of all these events conspiring to knock the USA out of the cup.
But the problems leading to this failure of American soccer have been noted by many long before this past week. While many critics are just jumping on the bandwagon now, others , including the Soccer Yoda, have been discussing issues that hurt our soccer performance for many months. So….rather than add to the new uproar, here are a number of problems that I have noted before in this blog, some going back a few years. These are issues in my opinion, many will not consider some of these to be problems at all…..others will say that some are so minor as to not to be worth discussing. But, after watching and participating in soccer in this country for decades and observing the sport at all levels first hand in more successful countries like Belgium and Germany, I believe I have legitimate insight into concerns ranging from very major problems to admittedly very minor ones. But they all add up to the failure of USA soccer to provide 15 players who could finish above Panama and Honduras, much less Mexico and Costa Rica while losing to the worst team in the tournament to drive the final nail in the American coffin. So here goes … from very large to very small…the Soccer Yoda’s major issues with USA soccer…all having been talked about in this blog previously:
Pay to Play – In order for developing American soccer players to join large clubs and experience the game in an organized manner plus gain experienced coaching ( more about the coaching later), parents must hand over thousands of dollars to those clubs. I do not have anything against club directors for wanting to make soccer into a full-time job. I would have loved to have been able to support my family with soccer back in my employment days. But, there are a couple problems with this setup that combine to limit the development of youth players as the clubs drive to increase income. 1) What happens to the youth whose parents cannot afford to place their kids in these programs? Some clubs have scholarships but many have no form of financial assistance and others offer only token aid. This leaves tens of thousands of potential superstars without the means to develop their game. 2) In the attempt to increase the income gained from the sport, it is common for club coaches to work with two, three or even more teams at the same time. Coaching multiple teams absolutely diminishes the personal attention needed by coaches to bring each player to his/her full potential. If a club can’t find enough coaches for a “one coach – one team” philosophy, that club could reduce it’s number of players. Of course, that would decrease the total financial income and THAT would strain the full-time adults in the club. 3) In order to attract more families, clubs adopt a win-at-all-cost-now philosophy since unknowing parents don’t understand that developing players to top levels takes time and the willingness to endure possibly poor win-loss records while the caliber of play gets better.
Coaching Knowledge and Practices – Despite the increasing number of youth coaches who have played the game, the training practices of a major number of those coaches fails to provide their players with the means to become better players, both in their ball skills and in their tactical knowledge. Too many coaches employ practices like “agility training sessions” in which players don’t even touch a ball. Running laps does nothing to increase a player’s development…..also the amount of time spent waiting in line during practice is often is much greater than the time spent with a ball.
Other countries find players who have developed their craft in the streets, USA soccer hasn’t developed a “street game” similar to other countries or to our own basketball culture, but we could imitate it and even improve on it in our formal training. At this time though, the number of coaches who understand that players must have the ball at their feet and in situations that simulate the game is far too small to build a base of young quality players. Our organization itself hindered youth development for years with it’s idea that technical ball skills must be developed before youngsters learn tactics. This failed to promote the learning of either in our kids. The fact is that young players can learn where to be and where to play the ball at very young ages and as they play with those “tactics” they repeat the needed ball skills over and over. Repetition is the means to ability and to confidence in that ability and it can be gained at surprisingly young ages. And speaking of tactics:
The game is played in more than one direction – American youth soccer generally neglects to teach youngsters the value of possession, of vision, of movement to support teammates and confuse defenders. Defenders tend to lack the knowledge to cover each other and to anticipate offensive play. The American game is often an exercise in tunnel vision and as players get older it becomes more difficult to change habits formed as youth. One bit of good news is that last year the USSF changed the rules and field sizes of our youth up to age 12 to encourage tactical awareness and play. Hopefully in the coming years we will see players who have learned to be as subtle as they are now direct.
The MLS – our adult players need to play…that is true. But, when capable, they need to stretch themselves and play at the highest caliber possible. Too many of our better players are in the MLS and not in Europe. Without a doubt, if Christian Pulisic had stayed in the US he wouldn’t be the player he is now and will be in the future. Our national organization needs to encourage our developing players to take advantage of any offers to play for European teams.
Minor Issues – Pride in Our National Jersey…..what National Jersey? – Germany, France, Italy, Argentina, Brazil….all major international powers….all with an identifying jersey that inspires pride in the national team….both in their followers and in their players. The USA seems unique too….in our constantly changing uniform for our national team. Yes, the USSF and Nike like to sell jerseys….but other nations manage to sell their wares while keeping a traditional look. Brazil is immediately identifiable by its yellow jersey and blue pants, Argentina has its sky blue stripes and of course Germany’s white and black strikes immediate recognition ( and fear?) among it’s foes. When does the USA decide adopt a look that we all recognize as our own?
We aren’t English – ok, this is really nitpicking……but, it has been said that only when the USA puts it’s own stamp on the game will we truly become the respected international soccer nation that we would like to become. Anybody in this nation watching footy on the goggle box whilst eating crisps? No? Then why do we play football on the pitch in our kits and boots? Nothing against the English, but why do we think we must talk UK when referring to the sport? We play soccer on the field in our uniforms and soccer shoes. We still carry an inferiority complex about our soccer ( of course, failing to make the World Cup won’t help) but at least using our own terms in regards to SOCCER could help establish pride in our ability to play and impact the world’s game.
It’s a long way to 2022, hopefully all the discussion will prompt changes, both big and small, to the game in the United States so that we never miss out on this great event again.
The Soccer Yoda constantly observes many soccer matches of differing levels and ages, males and females…..in person, streaming through the internet and on television. But as for being a fan of any team or teams, there are very few sides that spark my emotions. Among those that do, there are two teams in particular in which I invest large amounts of time and energy. I follow their activities whether they are playing or not and enjoy periods of elation or endure times of depression depending upon their results. One such team is the United States Men’s National Team. Actually, being the patriotic person that I am and considering that I have personally coached 8 youngsters who have reached this level, I cheer for any team representing our country. But since the senior men’s team tends to represent all of American soccer (correctly or not), there is extra emotional involvement with them. The other team is Liverpool. Rooting for the Reds lately is an exercise guaranteed to produce bipolar behavior. Just in the last two weeks in two consecutive games against high level competition, they went from a very impressive 4-0 walloping of Arsenal to a 5-0 disaster against Manchester City. But, win or lose, they have my club team loyalty and my bucket list includes someday singing You’ll Never Walk Alone while watching the Reds at their home field of Anfield.
Last week both my teams were involved in important matches and they resembled each other in eerily similar ways. Unfortunately those similarities were not welcome by their followers and certainly not by me.
Soccer is, by nature, a defensive game. Scoring goals is not easy and enormous amounts of physical and mental energy is spent on devising ways to score and then on putting those strategies into practice. Teams that give up goals easily have difficulty winning because outscoring opponents on a regular basis is very difficult. There are basic methods of individual and team defense that, if practiced proficiently and consistently, can make it very tough on offenses. One of those strategies is the concept that individual defenders must keep track of offensive players as they move into positions in attack and especially if they get near the goal in onside positions. Defenders must know where the ball is, but they also must know where attackers are and they must limit the distance between those attacking players and themselves. The act of “ball-watching” at the expense of keeping track of opponent forwards often results in attacking players getting the ball with space between themselves and the defense. If those offensive players can shoot accurately…. goals result. No defender wants to commit the error of ball-watching and it is considered a basic mistake in defensive soccer.
At national team levels such basic errors as ball-watching are considered major mistakes and decent players know better than to lose attacking opponents anywhere, much less near the goal. So , last week , when the USA played Costa Rica in an important World Cup qualifying match in New Jersey, solid defense by the Americans was expected.The game started on a positive note for the home team. Possession and probing offense seemed to indicate that the USA understood the importance of the game and had a good plan to attack the visitors. Then, at the 30 minute mark, Costa Rica’s Marco Urena managed to get between the two USA center backs Geoff Cameron and Tim Ream without either one providing an obstacle to his receiving a pass. Now Urena is not an international star. He plays in the MLS for the San Jose Earthquakes and, while scoring a few times this season, he is not considered a major danger to opponents goals. Perhaps he would have been noticed more quickly if he did have a greater reputation. As it was, Cameron looked to have his attention upfield and Ream let Urena get inside him. When the pass came, the USA defense was in trouble.
Although Ream recovered to cut off Urena’s direct path to the goal, the Costa Rican still managed to get off a shot around him which beat American goalkeeper Tim Howard and the USA was behind. The visitors played solid defense after that and late in the game Cameron compounded his mistake by giving up the ball deep in American territory and Urena scored again. The 2-0 defeat put the USA in a poor position, needing some kind of a result in the next match against Honduras in order to keep World Cup hopes alive.
The next game was in Honduras and the hosts scheduled the match in the middle of the day to take advantage of the heat and then the government declared a national holiday so the crowd would be large and intimidating. In addition, the grass on the field was left fairly long to slow down the American game. Such is life competing with Central American countries in soccer. Not surprisingly, USA coach Bruce Arena replaced Cameron and Ream at center back positions with Omar Gonzalez and Matt Besler. These two have played together many times for the American team and seemed to be a good choice for this match. Arena also decided to use a long ball attack to counter the heat and grass. The game mimicked volleyball without any particular advantage to either side. Then, at 27 minutes, the American defense fumbled again. The Hondurans had the ball on their left, about 30 yards from the USA goal. But the situation seemed well covered. One attacking player, Romell Quioto , was in an outside position, however he was covered by Graham Zusi with Gonzalez backing him up.
The pass was an attempted through ball to Quioto, Gonzalez was retreating and appeared to have the Honduran in his sights. But, as the ball approached him, he let it roll past instead of playing it….seemingly not seeing the danger presented by Quioto, who broke past Zusi.
The ball went past Gonzalez, who then realized that Quioto was breaking on the ball. He chose to slide in order to knock the ball away before the Honduran could get to it. But he botched the slide, and instead, put the ball right in front of the grateful Quioto.
The Honduran placed a perfect shot past goalkeeper Brad Guzan and the USA was behind. Ball-watching had again struck the Red, White and Blue and our World Cup hopes hung by the proverbial thread. Luckily the USA’s Bobby Wood found an equalizer late in the game and a draw was the result. So our chance to play in Russia next summer now rides on a huge home game with Panama followed by an away match against Trinidad and Tobago, both in October. Hopefully the American defense will be better in those matches.
While the USA was giving the Soccer Yoda a series of heart palpitations, my Liverpool team was all fun. A roaring attack led by Sadio Mane was tearing up English and European opposition and while the Reds also had some defensive problems, mistakes like the Americans were making just don’t happen at the higher level of play that Liverpool represents. Or so I thought.
The big game was Liverpool versus Manchester City. Although early in the season, Manchester City is a major threat to take the English Premier League title so a match between these two championship challengers represented a chance for the winner to get a jump on that prize. And the game started well for my guys. Passing was brisk, possession was ours, early threats on goal were one-sided in Liverpool’s favor. I should have learned to look away from the tv screen at the 25 minute mark from the recent USA matches, but this was Liverpool…..this was different. As the 25th minute started the ball was being bounced around by each team’s midfielders who were playing their version of soccer tennis. Neither team put the ball on the ground at that moment and it was getting headed back and forth in the middle of the field. While that was happening City forward Sergio Aguero literally WALKED ( yes, CAPITAL letters ) from behind Liverpool’s two centerbacks into a position between them and neither saw him as they were watching the midfield volleyball antics. Then City midfielder Kevin De Bruyne spotted Aguero in his advantageous position.
De Bruyne brought the ball down and, for the Soccer Yoda, it was deja vu all over again. Another defender-splitting pass to a forward who gained his position unseen until it was too late. Aguero dribbled around stranded goalkeeper Simon Mignolet and City had the lead. 10 minutes later Mane was red-carded for a controversial foul and the rout was on. Liverpool manager Jurgen Klopp was concerned about the upcoming Champions League match with Sevilla 4 days later and made changes at halftime to rest many of his most important players. It ended up 5-0 Manchester City.
So what did we learn from these events? We learned that, even at the highest levels, fundamentals are still fundamental. Basic mistakes like defensive ball-watching can occur in any game, from the youngest kids to the most experienced professionals, if the players are not constantly alert to their surroundings. And the Soccer Yoda learned that, for now at least, he should cross his fingers very hard and be very afraid during the 25 – 30 minute mark of his favorite teams games!
Recently the Soccer Yoda came across an article about the USSF attempting to standardize the manner in which player positions are referred to in this country. After checking with an instructor for the USSF coaching courses I discovered that, yes, standard position references are preferred and are being used in class and that numbers are considered superior to position names in this regard. To understand the use of numbers for positions, one must be familiar with the history of soccer development, especially considering historical formations and substitution rules.
In the 1920’s and early 1930’s , the most popular formation in use was the 2-3-5.
As seen above , the formation has 2 defenders with 3 midfielders and 5 forwards. Sometimes, like in Italy, the 5 forwards were staggered to add depth. During this time, the use of numbers on the players jerseys began to become popular, not having been used during the first 50 years or so of the sports formal development. There is a reason that this custom, of such obvious need to modern sports fans, was slow to come into use. It was the substitution rules……or actually the lack of them. In most competitions there were no substitutions allowed until the mid 1960’s and not in the World Cup until 1970. The starting 11 players were the only 11 players to participate in a game, therefore there was no need to differentiate starting players from substitutes by using unique jersey numbers. In the 1930’s player numbers did finally became fashionable, but there was a need for only 11 of them. The numbers were used to indicate the players position for each game, not the individual player himself. So the number 2 (right fullback) might be worn by one individual in one match and different person in the next. Remember, the non-playing members of the team did not need numbers (or uniforms for that matter) since they weren’t going to participate at all in that game.
The numbers were labeled defense to offense, right to left, starting with the goalkeeper as #1 and going from there. So the numbers could be used to describe player positions just as well as the names of the positions.
During that decade (1930’s) Arsenal started using a variation of the 2-3-5, and since they had become one of the most winning clubs of the time, the formation was copied by many (of course).
The center halfback was moved back to increase the defensive strength of the formation and the insides were also moved back to increase depth on offense. Although the center half was no longer a “halfback” and the position became a primarily defensive one, the name stuck and even today some commentators refer to central defensive players as “center halves”. The insides job was to feed the outside players or the center forward. The formation became known as the WM from the letters which can made by drawing lines from one position to the next among the top half of the team and among the bottom half. Each position became associated with each number and the physical traits needed in each position became attached to the number describing the position. A #9 was a big player, very good with headers and possessing a powerful shot. #7’s and #11’s were fast, very good 1 on 1 dribblers and defense was not a needed skill for them. 8 and 10’s had excellent passing skills, great vision and the ability to construct offense moves and so on with the rest of the 11 players on the field. The number described the position in a quick easily understood manner.
Then in the late 1960’s, substitution became a part of the game. Players needed numbers in excess of 2-11 and when a new player entered the game wearing a larger number than 11 he could go to whatever position for which he was needed, unrestricted by the number on his shirt. As the game changed and players became more mobile in their duties on the field, their shirt numbers grew less and less attached to their starting positions. Larger squads required larger numbers and today it is not uncommon for players wearing numbers in the twenties or even higher to start games. However, as mentioned in earlier posts, soccer is a game with a deep attachment to tradition. Even today, many forwards have numbers 7-11, often defenders wear low numbers, etc. As for positions, the number attachment still remains to a large extent. When Messi started games for Barcelona in an advanced central position and then moved backwards towards the middle of the field, the system was called a “false 9”, in that Messi gave the appearance of a traditional center forward, but then moved back in a move designed to pull defenders out of the middle to open up space for other players. The fact that Messi wore #10 while playing a position known universally as a “false nine” shows the lack of connection between shirt number and position number. But the use of the number 9, false or not, shows the long-standing attachment of number to position.
In modern times we have many formations and variations on those formations. As a result, the names used to describe various positions vary depending on the formation, the role of the player, the person describing the position and other variables. For instance, a defender playing in the back outside of a formation might be called a “wingback”, an “outside back” or a “fullback”. Given the multiple names for various positions, it seems logical for the USSF to attempt to establish some uniformity in our country’s soccer terminology. They are using the 4-3-3 as a basic formation and encouraging numbers to be used in place of names to refer to player roles.
Notice in the above , that the numbers used for each position are very similar to those used 80 years ago. 9 is still the center forward, 7 and 11 are still wings. The playmaking midfielder is 10, reminiscent of the “inside” who wore number 10 and fulfilled the same role in those days. 5 is still a central defender, now joined by 4 in the four back lineup. 2 and 3 have moved outside but are still defenders and referring to a player as a “3” certainly does reduce the variety of names that outside defenders have for their position at present.
However, the 4-3-3 is only one formation of play and there are others that don’t fit the USSF numbering system so well. The 4-4-2 diamond is one such formation. It has been used by many teams, including the USA men’s national team. While some of the numbers do fit the USSF designations, others do not. The back line’s 2 thru 5 numbers still describe their roles as does the defensive midfielder #6. And, there is a center forward that #9 can represent. But then we get problems.
There are two “center forwards” in this system, both interchangeable with each other, which is one of the attributes of formations that use two forwards…..they are difficult to defend against given the unpredictable movements of those forwards. Now, if numbers are supposed to represent roles as in #9 is an up-front forward…..then there are two 9’s in this formation (at least to the Soccer Yoda). Similarly if #8 is a central midfielder playing equal parts offense and defense…..then there are two 8’s as well. #10 is an attacking midfielder in the 4-3-3 and in the 4-4-2 diamond as well. So the numbers should look like this……simple:
As we can see, 9 is a still a central forward and 8 is still a central midfielder. As to 7 and 11, well they are wings who play wide and are largely attack oriented. And there aren’t any players in this system with those roles so there isn’t a 7 or an 11. But the USSF doesn’t see it that way. They want one player with each number, not multiples. So in the 4-4-2 formation this becomes the numbers used to describe the positions and roles:
This seems to contradict the concept that numbers describe roles on the field so that there is no confusion when discussing the players and their duties. Now a 10 is a central forward just like a 9. 7 and 11 are no longer right and left wings, they are central midfielders. and 8 has become an attacking midfielder instead of being balanced between offense and defense. The roles of the numbers have changed in order to fit the “one unique number for each player” mantra. Therefore, according to the USSF, when talking about roles on the team, we must also refer to the formation being referenced. “The 10 in the 4-4-2 diamond” becomes necessary because the “10 in the 4-3-3” has a distinctly different job. There are lots of formations with many differing roles for players and many do not fit the designated numbers of the USSF 4-3-3 outline. The necessity of referring to which system is being discussed seemingly contradicts the stated objective of simplifying and standardizing the position references. And, unless the USSF comes out with a chart of numbers for each and every formation, the use of which numbers for which position in each different system is left up to the individual and there is no standardization anyway.
“OK” the reader might ask, what’s the big deal? It’s just numbers. But there is an issue….at least to me. Recently I saw a tape of an excellent youth girls team. This team was very well coached, had a great possession game with loads of control, movement and a terrific combination of thoughtful and skillful play. They were good enough to win the national championship in their age group. They played a unique 4-1-4-1 system with a holding midfielder who controlled the game and a central forward who moved laterally as well as forward and set up her attacking midfielders (all 4 of them). But I was informed that actually, in reference to the USSF numbering system, the team used a 4-3-3 with very withdrawn wings and a deep holding midfielder. You see, there is no argument about numbers and roles if every team is using a 4-3-3. Now in this case the deference to the 4-3-3 doesn’t make much difference anyway. The numbers and roles fit the 4-1-4-1 fairly well compared to some other formations. But here is the problem: our youth system lacks in the development of short game mental and physical skills. Our kids can generally kick the heck out of the ball and can run like crazy to get to it, they can win 50-50 balls and can “be aggressive”. But when it comes to checking back, to providing short support for teammates, to running as a means of creating space for themselves AND for others, to making the simple possession-keeping pass……well, not so much. The USSF recognized this in their new youth rules. While the 4-3-3 can be a formation in which all these techniques are used, far too often in this country it is not. The insistence that numbers following the 4-3-3 are used in all discussions of the game could turn into a lack of variety in formations used by our already imagination-lacking coaches. It is a worry that the ease of using 4-3-3 numbers and the difficulty in transferring those numbers to other systems will stifle creativity in our youth coaches. Of course, for kids under the age of twelve ( under the new youth rules) there are not 11 players on the field and numbers might not be best for describing the roles of those players anyway. One thing is true, however. With standardization comes the risk of conformity and in a sport where imagination can be the best attribute, that is a worry.
Last week the Confederation Cup was played in Russia and won by a German team missing many of that nation’s best players. The Confederation Cup tournament is a warm-up to the World Cup every four years, held in the host country of the next World Cup and many of the processes to be used the next year are tested for readiness in this smaller version of the world’s biggest sporting event. Stories like the success of the German B team, the continued strength of Chile, the failure of Mexico to dent the top tier teams (again) were all worthy of discussion, but the use of the Video Assistant Referee will have the greatest long-term effect on the sport.
The VAR is a technological addition to the management of the game that seeks to eliminate errors by the referee and assistants on the field. Added to the goal-line system that has been in place for several years, one gets the idea that FIFA is finally entering the modern era. To an American sporting audience familiar with the use of video replay in all other major spectator sports in this country, these changes beg a “what took you so long” response. But many Americans don’t understand the massive effect that tradition has on soccer around the world. Remember, this is the sport that still doesn’t recognize the invention of the stopwatch, so adding these other tech innovations represents a huge change in viewpoint by the organization that runs almost all soccer on the planet.
First, lets examine how the VAR works. While many up-to-date soccer fans know of it’s existence, very few know just how it works. First of all, the crew that operates the VAR system consists of 3 individuals. The crew can be at the location of the game or very near, but technological communication being what it is…the crew might be in a room hundreds of miles away. The crew consists of the head person – the Video Assistant Referee, who must be a present or past field referee, and who makes the final decisions of the VAR system. The second person is the Assistant Video Assistant Referee (no, I’m not making that up). The AVAR helps the VAR in making the calls. There is also a Replay Operator who operates the video machines and plays the appropriate bits of the game for the consideration of the other two. There is a bank of monitors so the two video refs can get many looks at the play and even compare them to each other. There are four types of plays that can be reviewed by the video crew: 1) goals – was there was a violation leading up to the scoring of the goal? These “violations” can be hand balls, missed fouls etc, but the primary question that tends to be decided is offside. 2) penalty kick decisions 3) straight red cards – red cards pulled as a result of a second yellow cannot be reviewed 4) mistaken identity in awarding a red or yellow card – yes, this seems strange, but it does happen once in a rare while.
A review can be called for by either the field referee or the VAR. Field refs occasionally know that they haven’t had the best vantage point for a call, so the VAR allows for another set of eyes (or two) to look at the play from a different view and speed. The VAR can conduct a check of a call without bothering the field ref if he feels that the call may be wrong. If all seems correct the VAR does nothing, this is called a “silent check”. If the VAR decides that there has been a “clear ” error ( that is the language that triggers a review) , the VAR notifies the field ref that the video indicates an error has been made. At that time the field ref can accept the judgement of the VAR or decide to take a look for himself by using a video system set up on the side of the field. The ref can also decide he was right with his initial decision and ignore the VAR. The on field play is stopped by the ref when a VAR review is taking place, a signal consisting of a rectangle formed by index fingers is given to notify fans when the review is being used. Players who make the rectangle motion to demand a review or who interfere with the process are given an automatic yellow card. Perhaps this is a first step in lowering the amount of dissent referees allow from players on a regular basis, a move long overdue. FIFA has provided guidelines in regard to the use of the system, especially in respect to slow motion. Regular speed is to be used in all cases except to determine the amount of contact in handballs and physical offenses. In reviewing goals and penalty kick decisions, the “beginning of the attacking phase” can be used as a starting point for the review.
The first major use of the system came in a friendly match between France and Spain this past March. France scored from a header set up by a chip from midfield. The goal was scored, the on-field assistant referee’s flag stayed down and the French celebrated. But the VAR reviewed the play and notified the on-field ref that the French were offside and the goal was taken away. And he was right.
Later in the match Spain had a goal disallowed by the on-field referee, but the VAR correctly found the goal was good. So a potential 1-1 draw became a 2-0 victory for Spain and the VAR had become a factor in international soccer.
Since then the system has been used most notably in the Confederation Cup and, as would be expected with the use of a new process in multiple games, the results were mixed. A couple decisions took a lengthy amount of time and the video tape was seemingly overlooked in a couple calls when the video indicated the standing decision was wrong. In the final match an elbow by a Chilean defender looked very deliberate and the on-field referee called for video review. Despite the video showing a very red-cardish foul, only a yellow was given. This, of course, set up howls of complaints about the system in general but FIFA President Gianni Infantino indicated after the tournament that he was happy with the overall performance of the process and it will be used in select future FIFA events including next summer’s World Cup. The system was good enough not to change Germany’s decision to use it in their national league next year and the English have indicated they will use it in their cup competitions next season with possible introduction to regular league competition in 2018. In the USA, the MLS is planning to use it in all games starting next month.
Of course, in a sport as tradition oriented as soccer, the VAR has produced lots of comments with opinions running both pro and con. The main complaint revolves around the time it can take to make decisions. Although some reviews have been quick enough to avoid major stoppages to play, others have taken long enough to stop the game flow completely. Goal decisions don’t disrupt the game very much as the time taken to celebrate goals is usually enough time to review the play. Reviews on foul decisions, which normally take little time, can stretch out when video is involved. But the Soccer Yoda has heard one complaint, voiced by a number of soccer pundits, which seems rather incredulous, at least to me. That is the concept that incorrect calls are part of the game- they provide a “human” element and many talking points for fans to argue about with each other. One would think that accuracy would be the major aim of referee decisions and not “talking points”, but some don’t see it that way. They point to Diego Maradona’s famous “Hand of God” goal scored on England in the 1986 World Cup as a moment which would never have been allowed by video and therefore a loss to soccer history. I look at it differently. In that same match, Maradona brilliantly dribbled through practically the entire English team starting from his own half to score a goal that might be the best goal ever scored in a major soccer competition, but the controversy over his hand ball goal commands the discussions of that game and that World Cup.
The laws of the game are explicit, they don’t give leeway for bad decisions by officials. Offside is offside, hand balls are not allowed. Flow can be important to the game and game stoppages can affect that flow. But FIFA has decided that accuracy in game-deciding referee decisions takes precedence. As for talking points, there are calls which require opinion…..fouls can be decided by the observer, red cards are frequently a matter of referee discretion. And the VAR system is still controlled by humans…there will still be controversy even as the process becomes more refined, fans will still have plenty to talk about, that is certain.
Last week the USA men’s team was back in action for two very important World Cup qualifying matches. After stumbling to 2 defeats in their first games which led to the replacement of Jurgen Klinsmann with Bruce Arena, the team had earned a win and a draw in their next 2 encounters, thus putting them back in the middle of the contest to earn a spot at the World Cup in Russia next summer.
The two matches were against Trinidad and Tobago at Dick’s Sporting Goods Park in Commerce City, Co. and against biggest rival Mexico in Mexico at the Estadio Azteca near Mexico City. While the first game was figured to be a must win and very doable… being at home and against the last place team in the hexagonal group, the second was considered equivalent to (in the immortal words of Jim Croce) tugging on Superman’s cape and pulling the mask off the old Lone Ranger.
By the time the match ended in Mexico there were many American soccer fans (including this one) whose prior perceptions about the USA team will have to be reconsidered, if not thrown out entirely. Bruce Arena went out on a very long limb which proved to be much stronger than most anybody would have believed. As a result, there are some new thoughts about the USA men’s team that counter these former ideas:
1. WRONG – The USA has only a handful of players that can be consistently counted on in international matches Prevailing thought was that once you got past Clint Dempsey, Josie Altidore, Geoff Cameron, Tim Howard and maybe…Michael Bradley, there were no more players that could perform adequately on the international level for the USA. The first game seemed to strengthen that thought.
The 11 players who started against Trinidad totaled 715 appearances for the USA. Five of them had been in more than 55 games each for their country. It was a very experienced group but that was expected. Then Bruce Arena came out with his lineup against Mexico and surprised almost all of those who follow the USA.
This lineup kept only 4 of the 11 who played against Trinidad and Tobago. There were 536 appearances for the USA in this group, 179 fewer than the Trinidad lineup. The difference is even more notable in that only 2 of these 11 had more than 55 games for the USA and those two had almost 50% of the international experience of the total lineup. In addition, one of those two – DeMarcus Beasley – actually retired from international play in 2014 and although he came back a year later, he had only played once for the USA since then. In the hours between Arena announcing the lineup and the beginning of the game, fans of the team shook their heads and wondered what the heck he was thinking. And then the USA pulled a draw in the toughest place to play in the region. So it turns out that there are many more internationally capable players in the US than fans had thought previously.
2. NOT AS CORRECT AS MANY THINK – The US back line is its weakest link and cannot stand up to constant pressure from any decent international team In the World Cup 2014 elimination game against Belgium, the USA held off a very good opponent for over 90 minutes before finally succumbing in extra time. But that effort was due to Tim Howard’s amazing performance, stopping 18 shots. The American back line did little to help him that day. Recently they gave up a late goal to Mexico, 4 scores to Costa Rica in a dreadful effort and even after Arena took over they allowed Panama a soft goal that took a possible excellent win away from home and reduced it to a merely satisfactory draw. Even the shutout of Trinidad was not without some scary moments in front of our goal. So most observers looked for the Mexicans to riddle the USA back line, no matter who played there. Arena did figure he needed some extra help on defense and played a formation which had 5 backs for the majority of the game. The idea was to give up possession to the home team but keep them from threatening the goal and look for chances to beat them with counter attacks. This was crazy according to most all experts. How many times have American fans and commentators said, over the years, “we must have more possession to take the pressure off the back line”? But, except for just a couple moments, those 5 held firm despite Mexico’s possession. The Mexican goal came from a rare fast attack on their part and was the only shot on goal of the game for them (shots that hit goal posts are not considered “on goal”). Mexico had 73.8 % possession and only one shot on goal…..and not that many other shots either. Guzan did not have to do a “Tim Howard vs Belgium” imitation and the USA defense gained in reputation, at least for now.
3.WRONG IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS – USA players do not have the ability to change tactics in the middle of matches The USA national team has had numerous successes over the years with varying formations but most observers have felt that lack of experience at high levels keeps Americans from having the savvy to change attacking ideas during matches. That idea must be reexamined now and it was the Trinidad and Tobago match that showed a higher level of tactical awareness than previously attributed to our national team. At the beginning of the game the USA came out with a 4-4-2 formation using the two outside midfielders as withdrawn wings. Arena wanted them to stay as outside as possible in order to spread the T&T defense. This left Michael Bradley isolated in the middle so Pulisic came back on most possessions to offer Bradley an easy forward pass that kept the ball on American feet. (step 1 below)
Pulisic frequently played the ball back to Bradley who then got it outside to either Johnson or Nagbe (step 2 above). They, in turn, either took the ball down the outside themselves or passed it inside and then got it back down the wings. This produced a wave of USA crosses into the T&T box but, except for one good contact by Altidore, there was little danger to the Trinidad goal. The tv commentators were not happy with the American first half and even the former General Secretary of the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association commented to me,”T&T central defenders are quite good in the air. I am surprised at Arena’s approach..”. As the second half wore on things changed. There was opportunity to advance the ball more centrally and the USA spotted it. Nagbe beat one defender on the dribble and ran past another before sending a pass to Dempsey who was posted in the middle. 3 nice passes later Pulisic, who had more freedom to go forward than in the first half, poked in the first American goal.
Later on Yedlin took the ball through the same space, made the same pass (but to Altidore this time) and the return found Pulisic. Goal number two assured victory and both goals resulted from a change in attacking method during the game. Americans can spot openings and adjust during matches after all.
4. NOT RIGHT NOW – Michael Bradley needs to be replaced in the USA midfield Michael Bradley has been THE central USA midfielder for 10 years . He doesn’t have the speed to beat defenders to the goal and frequently not to the ball either. He isn’t a strong defender who can shut down quick opposing attackers. If he is placed too far forward he frequently gets pressured into giving the ball to the other team. So what good is he? That is a question which has been asked more and more frequently in the last couple years. What Bradley does is often unnoticed by the general soccer watching public. He plays best as a withdrawn central midfielder and often acts as the “quarterback” of the team, placing passes…..settling the team down when needed…..aiding with defense by helping other defenders and occupying spaces that the opposition would like to operate from. Most of these tasks do not grab the attention of the viewing and cheering public. Earlier in his career he scored more goals than recently but he was given a more offense role in those days. Still, he has contributed directly to goals like his long-range strike against Honduras which probably surprised more Americans than Hondurans. So his game versus Mexico came as a shock to many USA fans…..and an earth-shaking event to those Mexicans who thought the USA would roll over at the Azteca. He caught Chicharito unawares to steal the ball, then, seeing Mexican keeper Ochoa off his line, he chipped a perfect 35 yd. ball to put 85,000 home fans into a state of absolute silence.
He marshaled the defense that we have already discussed and came within inches of pulling off another incredible strike and winning the game. As a result there are now some observers claiming that Bradley might be the best American player ever….which is probably an overreaction to his terrific game. Others are merely stating that his goal at the Azteca was the best American goal ever scored….which could very well be correct. Wherever he and his goal land in the history of USA soccer, one thing is apparent after last weekend…..at this time, the USA doesn’t have anyone else who can do Bradley’s job as well as he does. Kellyn Acosta, Darlington Nagbe, maybe even a withdrawn Christian Pulisic….in a few years one of these players or a combination of them or perhaps someone not on anyone’s radar right now could take over the vital central midfield position for our national team. But right now it is Michael Bradley, period.
The USA did not guarantee a place in the World Cup with these last two matches, but they certainly moved closer to Russia with their results. Perhaps more important, the make up of the team, it’s quality, it’s depth and it’s capabilities seem to be changing and improving. We need to look at this team differently, it is better than we thought.