There’s a natural desire here to see this tournament as a revelation or proof of arrival, as though we’ve finally made it across the water and have the shores of a new land in our view. Or else, if it isn’t those things, to be a little disappointed, as though it’s more a sign of work left unfinished than predictions overcome.
But is there any practical reason to think that US soccer could have experienced a sudden profound change between the Italy loss and the win against Egypt? Would it really be so bad if this were just the latest in a line of occasional stunning results that don’t really influence the larger context, like 1930, 1950, or 1998?
Since no amount of “confidence” or “trust in each other” is going to give Benny Feilhaber the ability to pick out a pass or Bob Bradley the ability not to inject Sacha Kljestan into important passages in big games, I’m guessing we should focus on the latter question. But that’s not to diminish the achievement of the team during these last two weeks. Just the opposite, actually, since what’s frustrating about the endless obsession with “making it” in US soccer is that it blunts our ability to appreciate a spectacular moment: every astonishing upset has to answer to the inescapable narrative of progress; every flash of joy has to usher in an age. We have to deflate any good feeling that doesn’t come with a trophy attached with a lot of defensive talk about “not settling for less” and being “in it to win.” (Really? Two weeks ago we were going to be disappointed with anything less than a championship?) It’s as if we can’t fully enjoy even an amazing accomplishment like the Confederations Cup until we think the team is so good we can take amazing accomplishments for granted.
Don’t get me wrong; I want the team to get better. I understand, and largely agree with, the incremental-improvement-over-time take on recent history, and I think, or hope, that each one of these hints of revolution slightly raises the level the team sinks back to when it passes. It’s just that I’m more interested in seeing the run through this tournament, and the Spain game above all, as something to celebrate for its own sake, without thinking about next year or whether it’s safe to nudge up my expectations. I’m sure I’m not alone in that, but partly thanks to Bradley’s understandable emphasis in his postgame remarks, so much of the coverage has skirted the “what does this mean?” question that I’ve spent most of the last 24 hours wanting to take an anchorperson by his lapels and scream “We #$*%ing BEAT SPAIN! Doesn’t that matter more than abstract ‘potential’?”
Read More: Confederations Cup, USA
by Brian Phillips · June 29, 2009
good point.
I think that is something we do as americans with our sports. look at any moment in sport, whether it be Lebron being debated as the next Micheal Jordan at the age of 18, or every new American distance runner being compared to Steve Prefontaine, there is never a moment where greatness is just enjoyed.
Instead, we must look to the future and compare, or try to read into it all in a grand scheme sort of way.
Everyone loves a good sports story where one pivotal moment changes the way a sport is seen or a team plays or how one player will be judged in the annals of history; but when we analyze the beauty out of the moment because we are trying to find that story and see a trend or an arc instead of a point, that’s when we miss the point.
I don’t know if other countries do it as much as the US, or if this is somehow the “american” thing to do because of our never ending search for something better, but it’s frustrating, and sort of sad, in a son never pleases daddy sort of way.
While I agree that we must acknowledge that this was a great accomplishment, isn’t it also impossible to properly judge what it means without seeing what happens as a result? I mean, if we go to the World Cup next year and don’t advance (without having some weird thing where we play well but get knocked out, I guess), this will just be looked upon as another one of those “flukes” you reference. If we go and play well again, somewhat replicating what we did in 2002 (or even better, who knows), this will be looked upon as a turning point.
Part of what makes this run so difficult to properly…summarize, I guess…is the lack of real context. I mean, we’ve somewhat struggled in World Cup qualifiers, but that’s partially because CONCACAF is a total pain in the ass. I guess you can look to a few friendly results and the Gold Cup final, but really, we’ve not had that much to properly judge by since 2006.
On behalf of the disloyal killjoys:
It’s not easy to become attached to players at a moment’s notice. Unless any of Bob Bradley’s men are among those whose careers we follow closely, it was probably a challenge to pull for them from someplace deep. We can appreciate what they achieved, but we cannot decide to like them or heap praise on them just because others insist that we are duty-bound to do so. We were disoriented by this tournament, and in its final movement there wasn’t much room for circumspection. Now that the emotions have subsided, we’re resented for missing the train, as though we were supposed to have a ticket in the first place. We are not glory hunters. We are merely wretched travelers in an empty, echoing station.
Let me pause ever so briefly to acknowledge the validity of Brian’s thoughtful point and then rush on to my own little rant. This rant has one point, really, and that’s that it is *extremely* frustrating to watch Team USA in situations where there’s a premium on ball possession (and there are a lot of those in soccer). In the last half-hour-plus of yesterday’s match they simply couldn’t string together two passes in a row. And this failure to keep possession is, in my view, the team’s chief shortcoming (not that they don’t have others). Michael Bradley is a very talented midfielder, I think, but I don’t believe his presence would have made much of a difference yesterday. I think the team is still looking for someone to replace Claudio Reyna. If they could find one, I think they would immediately become considerably more consistently dangerous.
Also: I don’t read a ton of soccer blogs, so maybe this is a commonplace observation, but: Doesn’t Kaka run like a girl? A slightly awkward, long-limbed, incredibly fast and powerful girl?
I described him as “princessy” in the portrait I did a few months ago, and I stand by that assessment.
Sacha Klejstan needs to grow back out his fabulous early-70s Small Faces-style soccer hair. When he cut it was as if he cut off his balls: Has not been the same since.
Anomaly? Perhaps.
But it certainly adds to the lore (http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/2009/06/09/numbers-or-lore-soccer-and-statistics-in-the-us/), if we can bring ourselves to remember.
I think my view of what the USA did in this tournament has been shaped by the night I spent in the south of France during the ’06 world cup final. After the loss I was shocked to see people going ape-shit waving french flags, running up and down the street singing, enjoying fireworks and alcohol. You would not have known they had just lost the biggest tournament in the world. It was not hard to keep my thoughts from drifting back home, trying to recall a similar scene in which supporting fans of the losing team in a major sport’s championship would have done anything except pay the tab and get the hell home.
This is not to compare the two teams, but maybe the different levels of success each has experienced shaped the French response in some way. Either way, I’m interested in the fans’ response to their team’s success. France could have been one of those “so good [they] can take amazing accomplishments for granted,” but they did just the opposite…after a LOSS.
Everyone wants to celebrate their team, but is this kind of joyous celebration a sign of the true fan’s passion? That being the reaction to and celebration of a team itself as an entity whose ultimate failure does not diminish what they mean to their fans? The festivities I witnessed followed one of their most notorious losses (if not THE most notorious). I ask myself if anything similar could happen here. Are their fans of the USMNT that are capable of celebrating their team as an entity that they adore? Or is our allegiance too results-based? I’m curious what other posters think.
Kingsnake has it on the nose! Good lord, I hadn’t thought of the Sampson parallel until you pointed it out.
Now, if only he’d responded to being shackled (unjust red card) by tearing down the temple (uhh, Brazil’s momentum? I’m struggling here) …
… ehh.
Brian, I had forgotten “princessy”! Le mot juste!
You make an excellent point, Brian. But I would add that getting out of the U.S.’s larger-context rut is easier said than done, for two reasons that hopefully won’t sound stupid coming from a first-time commenter.
One is the all-encompassing glare of the World Cup in the U.S. American soccer has no broadly meaningful club championship, no meaningful club continental championship, no meaningful continental championship for its national team. Unless you’re an MLS diehard or have an adopted team across the pond, the only tournament–the only _thing_–the typical American soccer fan has ever has ever had to really, truly care about is the World Cup. That goes double for the general U.S. media, who we know have only been too happy to work up a lather for a niche sport’s big spectacle every fourth year and ignore it the other three. Every other game a U.S. soccer team has _ever_ played between Cups has been some sort of appetizer to the “real thing”; realizing that even a win as momentous as 2-0 over Spain is something new, something to be appreciated on its own terms, was never going to be easy.
Second, it’s not like the desire to chart the U.S.’s progress along the giant ladder to “making it” is a new thing. I forget if it was Joe Gaetjens or one of the other team members who said “This is all the game needs to go in the states” (or something similar) after the win over England–but either way this is 60 years at least we’ve been talking about what-comes-next rather than what-just-happened. I totally agree it would be great to leave “making it” behind, but I’d also say that struggle for recognition, acceptance, etc. is wound up in the sport’s very identity in the U.S. Wouldn’t we say that’s one of the things that’s made American soccer American, for better or worse? (Worse.) It’s an old habit that’s going to die very, very hard, if it ever dies at all. I’m fine with shaking the anchors by their lapels, but I’m also not going to blame the anchors for asking the same questions we’ve been collectively asking our entire lifetimes, either, if that makes sense.
Keep up the good work.
I think it is almost impossible to judge the standard of a country’s soccer ability/talent by its performance in the world cup/confederations cup or whatever.
By this I don’t mean, that Brazil’s world cup wins are meaningless, or any other country that has won/does consistently well.
The fact is however, international tournaments are so far apart and differ wildly in quality. The World cup coming every 4 years means that a quarter final appaerance followed by a second round appearance/exit at group stage might not indicate regression or vice versa.
The best way, in my opinion, to judge progress in soccer is to simply figure out,
A How many of your players play for top european sides?
B How many world class players do you have?
definitons of ‘top european side’ and ‘world class player’ will vary I suppose but it should be pretty easy to figure out.
i don’t know how good of an indicator those two are John.
You are forgetting about what teamwork brings to the equation, and how much of a difference a good coach can make.
I mean look at England with the last Euro 08. They have many top players, but they didn’t even qualify.
that can be said for many teams. While good, it takes something else to be great. so it’s hard to use that as a scale of how good a team is.
Now, getting players on world class teams and in big leagues will show improvement, it isn’t a good indicator of how good a team is, nor how good they will do…in my opinion.
I agree that one international tournament isn’t a good indicator. However, continued success in said tournaments is a good way to judge a team.
Probably the best way is one that uses both your A and B and continued success.
This is just a brilliant, brilliant blog. An oasis, really. It’s comforting to know that there’s a community of people thinking carefully about the sport. Thanks to all, and Brian especially, for creating such an illuminating (and humorous) forum.
@Charley – I took John’s comment to be more about what the team does when they aren’t playing internationals, rather than their ability to find continued success in those tournaments. To use Aaron’s example, the 2006 French side was full of players whose separate careers had taken them to the highest levels of European league competition. At the time, the weakest club represented on the team was probably Nantes (for Italy it was Lazio, for Germany, Köln, and for Portugal, Dynamo Moscow). This is rapidly becoming esoteric, but I’m not sure that it’s a completely useless exercise. It has to be a good sign that six of our starters (Howard, Bocanegra, Dempsey, Spector, Bradley, and Onyewu) play in European top flights.
I see what you mean there. I guess i was taking it a little too far.
It is a good sign having more and more guys in top leagues playing against the best.
And it shows a great trend, one that helps prove that slowly, US soccer is getting better.
I guess what i was trying to say is that while a good indicator, it doesn’t show everything, because a team’s heart can prove to make or break a team, and tournaments show that.
oh, and I agree BM, this is definitely the best blog I read. An oasis indeed.
Well I didn’t actually mean ‘the US National soccer team’ as much as just ‘US soccer’.
The US will basically always qualify for the world cup like, for example, South Korea because of their qualifying groups. Thus qualification can not be seen as progress as it might be for a mid to lower level European team.
Once you are in a world cup, if you get out of the group stage can be determined by something as simple as who you get in that stage. Another team in the group might have injuries/lack of form/etc. Second round can depend on draw.
What I would want if I was some kind of boss of US soccer is a high percentage of players(all the way down to U 21 level) playing at European clubs, with a one or two guys playing key roles for big time clubs. On the national level, I would base my improvement on how I do locally. Basically you would want to dominate every team in North America and contend with everyone else.
I think these are better measures of success than whatever you do in a world cup.
BTW this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be absolutely chuffed if you do well in a world cup. I’m Irish and I remember the 1990 world cup like it was yesterday. however I’d say as a soccer playing country we were in better shape in the mid eighties in terms of top flight talent.
I think that we all certainly have a grasp on reality and our place. But there was a moment, maybe it was a fleeting moment, that we were, for 15 minutes… the best team in the world.
Sometimes there has to be a balance between desire and reality… It seemed as if we were given the opportunity to experience both. Maybe that isn’t such a bad thing.
isn’t the point of a national team, on its most rudimentary competitive level, to compete in and aim to win major tournaments? i think thats pretty much the barometer for success of a national team, otherwise itd be completely ephemeral and subjective and pretty much exactly like the BCS. the greeks in 04 certainly couldn’t be considered a world-class side, except they won, and so therefore they were, no matter the amount of players playing for the Big 4.
Of course, the point is to win major tournaments. However it is my opinion that how you do in the world cup is not an efficient way to judge progress.
These two things would be linked anyway. The best, most successful international teams do have most of their players at top teams. The exceptions either way are just that: exceptions.
Interestingly, you said Greece were considered a world class side even though they won a european cup just 5 years ago. It’s been 18 years since Argentina have won a major national tournament. Would you say they were or are a world class side?
I don’t know many people would say ‘were’ but it would be interesting to hear your reasons either way.
per argentina, against the all of my better judgement, i’m going go ahead and skewer myself, jump right onto the coals, and say they are not at current a “world class” side. some of their players? absolutely. the team itself? nope, i can’t gift them that, for the drought you mentioned, for the 6-1 in la paz, for their manager, you name it. they are a perennial, no doubt, and more often than not they are indeed Garth-and-Wayne worthy (see: the goal against serbia in the last world cup. yeah, the one with all the passes), but not right now. messi alone just isn’t enough.
per greece, failing to qualify for the subsequent world cup and their performance in the next installment of the Euros was enough, i think, to strip them of any “world” class they had procured.
Ok, fair enough. Those are reasonable points.
I think it is a narrow view point however. You want the world class players first, and the world class team second or both together. This way you always have a chance as Argentina do (if they qualify they will be one of the faves for the cup) rather than try to hit it big just one time as Greece did with superior tactics (well anti football in my opinion, bu whatever), good organisation, good coaching and some fortune.
All in all, it depends on how you define progress I suppose.
I won’t dispute a word of that, I myself ran around my apartment screaming a mere two months or so ago at not Barcelona finally breaching but at Chelsea finally being breached. But, much as I and it appears you too dislike it, results are results.
And the world class players? Well, its not a full XI, but the US has two-and-a-half; Timmy, Landon, and the upper half of Gooch. i’ll take that if it can beat egypt and an unbeaten-in-35 spain and take brazil to the wire, because from a year ago that’s progress, and so perhaps in another year we can add Dempsey or Bradley or somebody’s name to the list.
in the words of herman edwards
WE CAN BUILD ON THAT!!
It’s dangerous to read too much into results like this, and important to enjoy them for what they are.
The reality is that there have very rarely been moments in international football where a sporting dynasty has been born; more often than not it’s just a reflection of a period of time where a group of players gel well, get a few breaks and overachieve.
Fortunes ebb and flow, but the biggest fish in international football will always be Brazil, Argentina and continental Europe.
The USA’s fortunes would only change in the long-term if they were able to address the depth of talent playing football. They have a well-drilled eleven who go out and beat the Spanish and give the Brazilians a great game. Imagine if they also had to field a reserve team against those sides – the Spanish and Brazilians would probably those ones more comfortably. And by the same token, by the time you selected the 56th best USA XI to take on the 56th best Brazil XI, you’re straying into the territory of a serious mismatch.
At the top level, though, the margins are finer, because you’ve only got 11 to play with (well… or a squad of 22). And the knockout format by which all major international football legacies are defined leaves plenty of room for upsets, for a convulsive fit which means your best player shouldn’t be on the park for the World Cup 98 final, you name it.
So enjoy the week for what it was, hope that you keep the team together for next year and can be bouyed by this tournament, but it’s not likely to be the coming of age.
Argentina are the Buffalo Bills of international soccer …
@John/j – We need a few guys who could merit a Tuesday Portrait.
I do have a few ideas for the Inner Life of Landon Donovan.
Mark: I think you’ve hit on something there. (And this is something I would put in a blog post if I still, y’know, had a blog…)
In this Confederations Cup, the USA found a style of play that works for them — absorb the pressure, then launch a counterattack. It makes our central mids more defensive-minded, but it also creates the kind of goals we saw Altidore, Donovan and Dempsey score against Spain and Brazil. It’s not the prettiest style in the world, but guess what? It beat Spain 2-0 and led Brazil by the same score at halftime. Thus, it can do the job against stronger competition.
But what the USA lacks is depth. When we lost Bradley to that stupid, stupid red card, we didn’t have enough quality to replace him in that role. Would that have been different if Jermaine Jones and Maurice Edu were available? Perhaps not on Sunday, but in 2010, it could be — especially since it appears Edu will be the only U.S. national to play in the UEFA Champions League next season. That would certainly help.
But that’s just at CF. Who would replace Altidore or Davies up front if one of them got hurt? Ching? Cooper? Casey? Not exactly world-class options there. If Bob moves Donovan or Dempsey up front, who plays on the wings? Kljestan? No. Beasley? Not anymore. Torres? Maybe. Adu? He has pace, but he’s better in the middle, and he needs more PT at his club, whatever that might be now.
The backline has similar questions. If Gooch and Demerit are first options at CB, who are the 2nd options? Can Bocanegra still play there? Is Michael Parkhurst ready? And who are our fullbacks? We’ve got Spector, Bornstein, Cherundolo, Hejduk, Pearce and Wynne. You’ll forgive me if I fail to see anyone there who can shut down Kaka in the 81st minute.
And yes, substitution patterns are still a problem. Bradley probably should have pulled Altidore for Bornstein at the half and parked the bus. Regardless, Bradley seems to have a general tactical plan that works for this USA team now. What he needs is more fresh horses. Let’s just hope some emerge in the next 345 days.
Um, yeah, that should say, “But that’s just at CM.” And yes, I probably should have mentioned Benny Feilhaber there somewhere, but I think his mere presence in that lineup highlights the lack of real quality beyond the 1st XI.
This comments section is reaching forum proportions; Brian can I have an avatar of Steve Sampson?
But seriously, I agree with J that, at some point, you have to acknowledge the US reaching the final of a tournament, competing with quality opposition, and being a respectable half from winning is pretty sweet.
I feel some people sulk in the funk of criticizing the not-quite-good-enough, but get off the ride when the story twists into Bad News Bears territory. We were the Bad News Bears. Deal with it, and savor it.
Before this tournament I thought that the 14th place in the FIFA ranking was to much for the USA, but now I think they might deserve even better.
FIFA rankings?
I know this is incredibly euro centric but I don’t know anyone who takes them seriously. I don’t even know the criteria by which they are calculated.
Just went had a look at them. Seems like there are a few head scratchers on the list.
Looking at how its calculated I can’t see much wrong with how its done but I’m not really qualified to spot any flaws.
USA are up to 12 btw, just above the Swiss(!) and 5 places above Portugal (so much for that golden generation).