Tim Howard may be Jesus’s desktop, but pride kills progress. You can’t claim honest rivalry on one end and moral victory on the other, especially if you went to the game as a knowing participant in a fury of modern hype. Not even Manchester City does that. So for the sake of self-respect, or whatever the equivalent is when you’re writing about hope and strangers, it has to be acknowledged: our guys missed chances that didn’t want to be missed (Altidore missed one in each half), gave up a goal that didn’t want to be scored, defended clumsily at times, and got pinned back in their own territory for far too much of the second half. This shouldn’t be “let’s be glad they did their best,” but “this was a win they didn’t take,” especially given that the Dempsey goal was an assist to Green’s fingers. A little bit of grim feeling is not a bad thing here. Straight happiness would feel better, but then all you ever are is adorable.
And that’s where this gets better, because the beauty of 1-1 is that no part of this was adorable. It was a game of flawed equals, incomplete chess sets mowing down each other’s pawns, not an underdog reaching for Hollywood. We did things right, we did things wrong, and so did they. We were not the little team that could, in part because we couldn’t. They had better stats, but they spiked their numbers in the last 20 minutes when they finally got scared of the future; England in panic mode always keep 80% of the ball and never really look that threatening (even when they win late, if that’s possible). They’re getting better at it, but their patience game still feels like cautious diplomacy: everyone speaking in turns, nobody saying anything. Replay this 10 times, and England wouldn’t win nine of them.
So let in a grain of disappointment, not because the game shouldn’t be fun, but because it means you belong. Cherundolo was better—stronger, smarter—than both Milner and Shaun Wright-Phillips; Bocanegra got burned a few times, but basically contended with Lennon; the whole back line (with help from Clark, for all his mistakenness) kept Rooney starved of oxygen. If Altidore hadn’t been the 37th-choice striker at Hull (which never made sense to me, but then what do I know compared to Hull’s current manager, Vacant) he might have had the centimeters game to win this. Anyway it was fun watching him sow the field with Carragher. I hope Vacant was paying attention. In any case, David Beckham’s instantly legendary look of impotent, fuming grief on the sidelines—so much better because it was the only spontaneous part of his appearance; dude looked like a museum piece—was fully justified, and not only by Green’s supra-clumsiness.
I would have liked to see Donovan come inside more aggressively and sail the ball at Green’s reluctant limbs; I think they might have missed it at some point. But the U.S. gameplan was patient, well-drilled, and with the exception of some spin-around defending, it was also pretty precise. They actually used their midfielders, which was pleasant. On the England side, I wonder if we’re looking at a backlash against Capello’s clampdown regime. It was the story they brought him in for, but after two years of him banning bubble gum every week, you could conclude that they’re too antiseptic. You can’t win the duel if you’re too rule-bound to stab a guy, and Rooney’s a bull-headed kid. Maybe just let him curse.
The existential conflict of soccer in America, at least once you’re invested to a certain degree, is that we want to be good but we also want something to celebrate. So we put the team in a weird bubble that lets us be sentimentally happy about them (we went up 2-0 on Brazil!), but that also means we’re always a little more anxious and depressed than we let on (we let them score three in the second half!). In a sport with so many layers and nations, you’re probably always forced to make some version of that distinction, and unless you want to go down the screaming-media permanent-meltdown route, thinking of individuals and what they’re able to accomplish is a humane way to care about a team. But there’s also a moment when you have to say that your game can contend with reality, no Little League buffer necessary. U.S. soccer is there. That’s something to be proud of on its own.
I’m glad it’s over, because now this tournament can start. I’m also glad it happened, because it told us something we needed to know. No, it isn’t going to make soccer popular in America.
Read More: England, USA, World Cup
by Brian Phillips · June 12, 2010
Random thoughts: Onyewu was surprisingly impressive, especially near the goal, and surprised me with his pace as well. Lampard was invisible. Gerrard was rarely visible after a he’s-everywhere first fifteen minutes. Donovan was present only in set-pieces, but at least was dangerous there. I wish the U.S. could borrow a creative midfielder from Spain.
@Alan Jacobs Yes on all points. I was floored by Onyewu, and I’m hoping for, dreading, and expecting a return of the Lampard/Gerrard conundrum in England. (We’re maybe one performance like this away.) I was a little surprised not to see Carrick and we were probably lucky Barry was still banged up. I wish we could borrow a starting eleven from Spain.
Honestly, I’m disappointed not to win this game. Throughout the second half I felt that England’s central midfield was so discombobulated that a Bradley/Torres or Bradley/Feilhaber midfield might be able to unlock the defense altogether … we’ll never know.
Sort of a bucket-of-crabs kind of game – anyone trying to crawl out of the muck of mediocrity was immediately dragged back down in it by everyone else around them.
@Brian Phillips Capello is clearly playing Gerrard just behind Heskey, and Lampard as a relatively deep playmaker — but that should work, shouldn’t it? I mean, Lampard ought to be able to handle that role. And if not, then Capello should skin him and bring Paul Scholes on wearing the pelt.
I think Gerrard was fantastic tonight. He played fantastically for the first goal and then even when he was pulled back to defend he was rock solid.
That said, he didn’t have the freedom he needs to play at his best and part of the problem is the formation. 4-4-2 leaves Rooney playing too deep because he keeps tracking back to help the midfield expecting Heskey to hold the ball and it keeps Gerrard mired in the midfield battle as England don’t have the manpower to control possession.
I love Heskey’s assist and target man play but he has zero goal-threat and that’s just not acceptable for an international striker as good teams can isolate Rooney. He was played on for a perfect 1-on-1 with Howard and finished like a schoolboy. Terrible stuff.
Lennon was also way too hesitant – when he did run at Bocanegra he burned him but kept holding back. Part of that was possible because Rooney was always so deep and that meant he didn’t have the target he wanted.
Donovan played as well as I expected and the USA should be happy with how well they kept their shape at times but it’s difficult to see this as anything other than an England failure.
England need to go 4-5-1 with Rooney up front and Gerrard in the hole where he plays best (that’s the sort of run he made for the goal anyway).
Heskey is like Crouch – good at what he does but forces England to play a certain way. We shouldn’t be building a team around the worst natural striker in England and given how well Rooney performs up front on his own now, I cant see how 4-4-2 is a formation built to work for HIM.
@Brian Phillips I’d take some reserves from Spain, honestly. But who wouldn’t?
Yes, exactly. This was a game pretty much among equals, England is the better side, in actuality and in a historical sense. But you can see American players and fans grow in confidence and results like these. Today proved that the USA is the best team in CONCACAF and that it’s a a team that on the right day can beat anyone in the world. They’re a team to fear.
Although to niggle, I was calling for Torres and Gomez in the last fifteen minutes. That game was for use to win, Bradley wimped out and played for the goal. Fair enough……..but we had a chance to win that game with fresh legs.
Because of the hype the Americans themselves made, it might even make the sport less popular.
@John Louis Swaine Does it complicate that that Rooney loves playing with Heskey? Does anyone understand why Rooney loves playing with Heskey?
@Alan Jacobs That’s it—the fundamental, fathomless mystery of why these two can’t play together. Capello put it to sleep, but it’s waking up.
@A. Ruiz I was hoping for Torres too. I wish he would have started, frankly. I see what Clark offers that he doesn’t, I guess, but Clark singlehandedly gave up a goal, so that more or less negates that advantage, doesn’t it?
@Brian Phillips Altidore ate Carragher for lunch in a way I haven’t seen a striker do before. Pretty interesting how afraid the defenders are of him- he’s too big to body out, and fairly quick running straight at you.
Does Rooney love playing with Heskey because he is also a media target man – everybody criticizes him for shooting at the keeper, but at least he made a strong run and also had an assist. Not great, but not awful.
@Brian Phillips But see, I don’t think Lampard’s disappearance today had anything to do with Gerrard. I think the U.S. — after the goal, anyway, though I bet this was the plan from the start — played their defense very narrow. Think about how often in the second half especially the U.S. was content to have a midfielder on an island with Lennon, Wright-Phillips, and Johnson. Bradley was clearly content to let those guys do their pacy darting thing, figuring that they would create a lot less damage than Rooney, Gerrard, and Lampard having room to move in the middle of the pitch. Lampard just didn’t have any clear space ahead of him that he could attack.
And he turned out to be right. If Slovenia and Algeria and other teams were paying attention here, it could be that England’s future in this tournament will depend on whether its widest players can become really dangerous. (England might be able to use Landon Donovan, come to think of it.)
That England got its goal courtesy of a quick diagonal out-to-in run by Gerrard suggests a tactic that could be re-used if other teams do copy the U.S. approach.
On another note: Has the U.S. team had a playmaking midfielder since Claudio Reyna? I’ve seen Michael Bradley play that role in a few lower-stakes matches, but is he up for that challenge here? Will he even be asked to take it on?
@Alan Jacobs Um, *Bradley* turned out to be right.
@Alan Jacobs That’s a great observation. I’m being tongue-in-cheek with the Mystery of the English Midfield stuff, just because for a while it seemed like the media were homing in on a supernatural explanation for Lampard & Gerrard’s struggles struggles together, but yes, seriously, putting the game at the feet of England’s wide players was absolutely the right tactical move and I hope Saadane was paying attention. Not only does it circumvent their best creative players in favor of speedsters who can’t pass, but it knocks their defense out of shape because both the fullbacks are more comfortable going forward (and Cole almost has to, given their weakness on the left—although that weakness didn’t stop SWP from touching the ball a thousand times in the second half). It also draws the England fullbacks inside, which today opened up space for U.S. attacks down the flanks (our strong suit, more or less). It also lets teams coax Rooney into being an extra defender, since (as John said above) the more he’s denied the ball, the more he’ll start dropping back (why is it so hard for him not to do this), and the more he drops back, the less space Lampard will have.
Must have been frustrating for Capello, who’s spent so much time installing that intermittently successful patient-through-the-middle attack.
@Alan Jacobs
Onyewu grew into the match, though. Didn’t start as strong.
Haven’t heard much about Cherundolo’s failure on that short corner in the first half when he had all the time in the world and did nothing. Didn’t even attempt a shot. Of course “Stevie C” had an excellent game overall, but that particular play stands out for me when building my story of How We Could Have Maybe Won This Game.
Its interesting how a supporter of one team sees the game quite differently to the supporter of the opposition.
I thought USA played well at times especially in the build up in the final third but without making any real penetration. Altidore’s chance perfectly highlighted the lack of pace from our centre-back partner to Terry, whether Terry or Carragher. USA were particularly dangerous from set-pieces and this could give them an edge in games and always a chance to score even under pressure. However, USA lacked the creativity and essentially quality to really trouble the England defence, Cole made Donovan his small-boy all evening. Dempsey created space and time but only on a few occasions but despite Green’s fumble he has to have due credit for his ability to get time and space from Gerrard before the shot.
England played very well in the 1st two thirds with Gerrard and Lampard playing well together never overcommitting in the midfield and making things tick and the ball move freely. Johnson was never trouble defensively, not due to his in-abilitites but the lack of quality and emphasis of the point of attack on USA’s left wing. Cole was comfortable defensively and showed why Donavan has and will never be called a world-class player by anyone out of the USA. Heskey was once again perfect (besides his shot) and had one of those games for England which give the structure for others to play while quietening his critics.
Unfortunately, Wright-Phiilips was not comfortable playing on the left wing and seemed to be thinking about his every touch and move instead of playing with flow and intuition. He wanted to come inside too much and didn’t show early his ability to go to the left which would have opened up later penetration to his right. Lennon is one of the quickest players in the World and if I were him I would run at my defender each time I got the ball! Instead he only really ran at Boccers 3 or 4 times and had large success. It was very frustrating to see him get the ball with time and space to run at an isolated Boccers but to decide to pass back into Johnson or a deep lying Stevie G or Lamps.
The main disappointment was that Rooney failed to bring his A-game well defended at times by the USA but mostly fouled whenever he got the ball deep and was turned. This could be Rooney’s WC or Messi’s or Ronaldo’s but so far Messi has stepped up to the plate while Rooney failed. He has more time and his quality will shine through but we need to get goals and inspiration from him on a game to game basis.
The country isn’t too disappointed, England drew their opener against Uruguay in 1966 so nothing to get worried about especially because we played well at times and dominated the game against a country who have beaten Spain and Italy in recent years.
Possession: Eng 58% USA 42%
Shots on target: Eng 9 USA 5
Corners: Eng 8 USA 4
What made the draw easier to take was interviews with some USA supporters who have made the long journey to South Africa but when asked to name the players of the team they could not name a single one while others only knew Donovan! Expected from your average american football support but not from fans that have made the trip!
@Joe That made the draw easier to take?
@Brian Phillips yeah, changing the stat that the ‘USA have the most supporters in SA’ to ‘USA have the most uneducated supporters in SA’
@Brian Phillips Love the blog by the way
@Joe I always figured the US’s eventual success on the world stage would be harder for the world to swallow for our perceived national indifference. So it’s interesting that you’re in some way comforted by it, as long as you can frame it as part of an already-existing “uneducated Americans” narrative. I guess that’s good?
You’re idea of the appreciation of individual accomplishment developing into an expectation to contend (and get results) is right on. A good tie is the only result for this transition, i think. Still, Hotty Toddy Everybody!
Joe, everyone: we’ve discounted the influence of real salt lake’s robbie findley; the snakes were basically playing with an extra uneducated supporter in the stands. Algeria’s goalie has better haircut, less skill than Green, so that’s something for everyone to look forward to.
I got it. BP Green: causes leak, cant stop it, hurts ledley king’s pension fund.
@Joe I had a strange encounter with an American fan during the game as well. I was at a bar here in the US and a guy walked in with an England shirt on. At the half he came over and said hi to a friend of mine. He didn’t sound like he was English (he also cheered wildly when the USA scored) so I asked him what he was wearing the English shirt for. He told me his USA shirt was dirty so he just grabbed the English one instead.
@cleareyesfullhearts a football culture takes a long time to generate, to have maturity, to form its own identity and for it to spread within its society. Unfortunately education of the footballing public and the development of that culture starts with the nations own league, in countries which own league lacks quality and history this education and cultural development are limited.
Critically developing elite youth players (therefore senior players) is much harder in a country with a young or currently underdeveloped footballing culture. Having coached elite youth football on 4 continents I have seen first hand the disabling effect a limited football culture has on the development of world-class players. Developing elite youth in a country that has a history, who’s league is of high quality, who grandparents are knowledgeable , who’s youth played football to high standards, where football is intellectually discussed on a daily basis and where world-class live football is accessible is much much easier.
This blog is a perfectly good example that a section of the american public are well educated in football and can critically discuss matter further than statistics and transfer gossip. However, the section is very small as I am sure you will admit. If the USA want to really become a country that has world-class players and produces them on a regular basis then the footballing culture must develop first. The section must get bigger, more educated, spanning a multitude of ages and socio-econmoic groups. Why I was comforted by the post-match interviews with uneducated USA fans was it was an amusing snapshot of the still undeveloped football culture of the USA.
Also, to say the USA have been successful on the international scene is a large overstatement. The only teams that have been successful on the international scene in recent years are Spain, Brazil, Italy, France and Germany. England have not been successful and to claim USA have only highlights a lack of ambition. If USA want to be considered for a place in the loftier hierarchy of international football they have to produce a world-class player. The world awaits for them to do so.
@Joe It’s hard to take your jabs at average American fans seriously when today a number of the UK’s top pundits had no idea who Mesut Ozil was. I wouldn’t call the average Englishmen the most educated about the world game when most perceptions are that every player who doesn’t play in England isn’t worth a damn.
@Joe No, I understood what you meant–I just am surprised to hear that you are comforted that you’re struggling against teams that, to your mind, have such a sorely lacking soccer culture, which in your logic prevents them from being any good. I get what you’re trying to do as far as making yourself feel better, but I have to imagine the way you’re doing it is a pretty cold comfort.
When I said “eventual success”, I certainly wasn’t implying that the US is done improving or is as successful as they’ll ever be–on the contrary, I am sure we will continue to ascend at an accelerated pace over the next 20 years, as we’ve done in the last 20. So while I would certainly call the last 20 years successful for us (we’ve played in more World Cups since then than world powers such as England, for example, and have gone from unlikely to qualify for the WC to likely to advance), I would by no means say we’re done. Hence the “eventual” modifier in that phrase.
@Marlon Dead Right. Coverage of the tournament on the BBC thus far has plumbed new depths with none of the Algerian or Slovenian players referred to be name by the Cape Town studio trio of Shearer, Hansen or Seedorf and Gary Lineker battering Rob Green to the extent that one immediately feels he must be allowed to retain his place. If anybody is in the UK, it’s now apparent that the only mainstream media option if one wishes for intelligent comment is the radio. As for Özil – are we witnessing the arrival of the new Zidane?
@Lanterne Rouge It’s actually Oezil
I recorded the match and watched it with my 8 and 10 year old sons. By the 15 minute mark I started to hear, “This is boring.” Shortly thereafter they wondered off to find something else to do. I watched the whole match but could not agree with my sons more. I just don’t get soccer. It’s like watching paint dry.
@Joe No, it isn’t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesut_Ozil
@Marlon & Joe Either way; RoP house comment style is indifferent to what you do with the umlaut.
@Marlon
not sure who wins Wikipedia the source of all trusted information or…… FIFA
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/players/player=305036/index.html
Final word on this — It is Özil, not Ozil or Oezil; the umlaut is often represented as an “Oe” on keyboards on which it’s not easy to type; in RoP comments, any of these three options is fine; this argument is pointless. Back to substantive discussion, please.
It’s happening! It’s really happening!