Jeremy Plonk's column about Jess Jackson's anti-synthetic surface stance is both frustrating and very insightful. Jackson offers that "dirt horses" don't like to run on the plastic, period. He seems to be saying that Curlin shouldn't have run on the surface at the Breeder's last year, and as such he doesn't want to run Rachel Alexandra there. It seems like a facile argument at best and I'll agree with Plonk that at worst, it's an excuse not to race against Zenyatta.
For an owner who made Curlin "the world's horse" and fought to enter Rachel in the Preakness, doesn't this strike you as more than a little bit disingenuous? Jackson set racing on its head when he won the Preakness with a filly. If she raced Zenyatta and lost, would her colts (sired by Curlin!) be less valuable? If you say that some horses like certain surfaces and not others, does that somehow mean that they won't still earn millions running on dirt? As a breeder, he's ALREADY admitting that Curlin's offspring stand a good chance of not taking to the polytrack. This guy may be a great sportsman who loves racing and loves horses, but this seems to me to be a little bit more like showing your hand before the bets are down. It would be more shrewd to say that Curlin was tired after a long two years.
Not getting to see these two fillies, who have proven that they're not just the best of their gender but the best horses in the country period, race one another is cheating us. I don't appreciate it. I hope he has a change of heart.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
What would you do for a Klondike bar?
At 2-0, I still didn't believe. Did you know that that's what it means to be a supporter of USA football? That's it. You say, well, no, we'll never win a damned thing. We never have, and we never will. And people make all kinds of excuses, and offer consolation and say, "You're not Brasil; you did the best you could do" and all manner of things. I've heard it forever.
Our boys "got credit" for just putting on their shoes correctly in 1990. In '94, they got plenty of credit for backing into the elimination rounds (and for helping Andres Escobar to his final reward). In 2002, we got pats on the head after a Uefa ref was somehow allowed to do our game against a Uefa team and he refused to call a penalty on the world's second most obvious handball (world's worst: see Stephanie Henchoz in the FA Cup final v. Arsenal). I'm so TIRED of hearing that.
I'm not going to recap the game or give player ratings--I don't believe that anything that could be said along those lines would deal with the issues we as USA supporters face. Our two goals were CLASS and they were taken by our two most incisive goal scorers. Dempsey and Donovan--it's nice when your stars do what they're supposed to do. It's almost like we're a REAL FOOTBALLING NATION, isn't it?
No, seriously--In big games, the big stars do big things for most countries. That's what is supposed to happen. Do big games make stars? I don't think so. I think that great players (GREAT) rise to the occasion because in football, more so than in any other sport, individual talent can change games. Dispute that? Did you see Kaka today? What in the world was going on?
So the consolation prize again--Landon Donovan finally had a big tournament. Clint Dempsey had a big tournament. Captain Carlos came back from injury and had two great games. Gooch and DeMerit and Spector were so good...mostly. Clarke was good--pretty much. Mike Bradley would have helped today, he was important--when he wasn't going headless chicken. Tim Howard was truly great. He is one of the great keepers on earth.
What does that offer us? That we manage to qualify for 2010? These guys aren't going to play in the Gold Cup, so that's out. This was our chance. I mean, we aren't going to win the World Cup next year. (We aren't. Be honest.) So what is our excuse, and what is the consolation? Damn it.
We are a nation of 300 million people. We're third, I think, behind China and India. There are many immigrants here from footballing nations. Yeah, I could be pointing the finger at you, 'Jesse' Rossi. But I'm not. Don't care. Freddy Adu could be playing for Ghana right now and it wouldn't have made any difference. The reason is because we don't have the right mindset.
What changed about Spain was that they won the Uefa Championship and they were never again the underachieving-yet-talented side that couldn't win. No, suddenly, they were the f***ing Champions of Europe.
Until you win something, you're nothing but the team that didn't win anything. I hate pats on the head, and consolation. 2 goals up by the half and I couldn't say, "We have won this." Even if it were against Brasil, the truth is, we don't know how to win. I said this before, but why is it that our boys are too "honest" to kill off a game?
I could slag the tactics but I really don't think it's about the tactics. I think it's about knowing, once you've won, how to win again and again. Germany, Brasil, Italy--they know. France sort-of knows. I'll make the case that if the Frogs hadn't won Euro '84, they NEVER would have won the 1998 World Cup or Euro 2000. I say that because the kids who grew up to win those trophies watched players like Tigana and Platini win a trophy. It gets ingrained in the psyche--you can win. I bet Ecuadorians still think they can win. Damn Argentina think they can win. And the biggest joke of them all, England STILL think they can win something.
Holland won one title, too. That brilliant side from '88--look at the names. Koeman, Gullit, van Basten, Rijkaard. The influence is so strong, 20 years on. Every tournament since, people at least give the Dutch a fighting chance. They play how they play, and nobody says, "Oh eff the Dutch, they'll never win" because you can't say never about a country that has won Uefa. (I'm of the opinion that winning the Euro title is harder than winning the World Cup.)
So that's all I can take from what happened today. I don't want consolation because I'm inconsolable. All the USA is now, is all we were a month ago. We had a chance to become some sort of winners today, and we didn't do it. We didn't close the deal. And going into the 2010 World cup, we still won't know how to do that.
Simply holding aloft a trophy, and having the confetti fall, and the fireworks go off, and having a winner's medal around your neck, makes all the difference. You have to win something sometime. The USA still hasn't.
Our boys "got credit" for just putting on their shoes correctly in 1990. In '94, they got plenty of credit for backing into the elimination rounds (and for helping Andres Escobar to his final reward). In 2002, we got pats on the head after a Uefa ref was somehow allowed to do our game against a Uefa team and he refused to call a penalty on the world's second most obvious handball (world's worst: see Stephanie Henchoz in the FA Cup final v. Arsenal). I'm so TIRED of hearing that.
I'm not going to recap the game or give player ratings--I don't believe that anything that could be said along those lines would deal with the issues we as USA supporters face. Our two goals were CLASS and they were taken by our two most incisive goal scorers. Dempsey and Donovan--it's nice when your stars do what they're supposed to do. It's almost like we're a REAL FOOTBALLING NATION, isn't it?
No, seriously--In big games, the big stars do big things for most countries. That's what is supposed to happen. Do big games make stars? I don't think so. I think that great players (GREAT) rise to the occasion because in football, more so than in any other sport, individual talent can change games. Dispute that? Did you see Kaka today? What in the world was going on?
So the consolation prize again--Landon Donovan finally had a big tournament. Clint Dempsey had a big tournament. Captain Carlos came back from injury and had two great games. Gooch and DeMerit and Spector were so good...mostly. Clarke was good--pretty much. Mike Bradley would have helped today, he was important--when he wasn't going headless chicken. Tim Howard was truly great. He is one of the great keepers on earth.
What does that offer us? That we manage to qualify for 2010? These guys aren't going to play in the Gold Cup, so that's out. This was our chance. I mean, we aren't going to win the World Cup next year. (We aren't. Be honest.) So what is our excuse, and what is the consolation? Damn it.
We are a nation of 300 million people. We're third, I think, behind China and India. There are many immigrants here from footballing nations. Yeah, I could be pointing the finger at you, 'Jesse' Rossi. But I'm not. Don't care. Freddy Adu could be playing for Ghana right now and it wouldn't have made any difference. The reason is because we don't have the right mindset.
What changed about Spain was that they won the Uefa Championship and they were never again the underachieving-yet-talented side that couldn't win. No, suddenly, they were the f***ing Champions of Europe.
Until you win something, you're nothing but the team that didn't win anything. I hate pats on the head, and consolation. 2 goals up by the half and I couldn't say, "We have won this." Even if it were against Brasil, the truth is, we don't know how to win. I said this before, but why is it that our boys are too "honest" to kill off a game?
I could slag the tactics but I really don't think it's about the tactics. I think it's about knowing, once you've won, how to win again and again. Germany, Brasil, Italy--they know. France sort-of knows. I'll make the case that if the Frogs hadn't won Euro '84, they NEVER would have won the 1998 World Cup or Euro 2000. I say that because the kids who grew up to win those trophies watched players like Tigana and Platini win a trophy. It gets ingrained in the psyche--you can win. I bet Ecuadorians still think they can win. Damn Argentina think they can win. And the biggest joke of them all, England STILL think they can win something.
Holland won one title, too. That brilliant side from '88--look at the names. Koeman, Gullit, van Basten, Rijkaard. The influence is so strong, 20 years on. Every tournament since, people at least give the Dutch a fighting chance. They play how they play, and nobody says, "Oh eff the Dutch, they'll never win" because you can't say never about a country that has won Uefa. (I'm of the opinion that winning the Euro title is harder than winning the World Cup.)
So that's all I can take from what happened today. I don't want consolation because I'm inconsolable. All the USA is now, is all we were a month ago. We had a chance to become some sort of winners today, and we didn't do it. We didn't close the deal. And going into the 2010 World cup, we still won't know how to do that.
Simply holding aloft a trophy, and having the confetti fall, and the fireworks go off, and having a winner's medal around your neck, makes all the difference. You have to win something sometime. The USA still hasn't.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Good Old Fashioned Criticism Pays Off!
Ah. Yes. Well. I see. I'll be off, then.
Two clean sheet victories, five goals--that sounds OK, doesn't it? Sounds fine.
You know all the numbers, don't you? USA: Only 1 victory ever against a top-ranked team. 0 for the previous 6. Spain: 35 match unbeaten run. 25 clean sheets in that time. 15 consecutive victories. No goals conceded at this tournament. Blah blah blah. Reigning Uefa Champions.
The USA just did something that cannot be described any way but in terms like "shocking," "stunning," "unbelievable." How shocking?
The winning goal was scored by a 19-year old who barely played for his club last season. Think about that for a moment. Big game? Big stage? Bright lights? I supposed Altidore didn't know to be intimidated, at least not by Capdevila. Capdevila is ostensibly Jozy's team mate at Villarreal, although Jozy only got into what, 6 matches or something silly like that?
Ricardo Clark morphed in Claude Makelele, snapping at the Spanish midfielders and breaking up everything that came his way. Landon Donovan drove the team forward like Andrei Arshavin, dominating the midfield play, keeping possession, tracking back and defending (at one point, he HEADED THE BALL OUT OF THE BOX AND I AM NOT MAKING THAT UP). He was brilliant. Yes, Landon Donovan was brilliant in a big game.
The centrebacks--I cannot say enough about them. While Tim Howard kept hauling the team out of the fire with brilliant saves, in general the tandem of Onyewu and DeMerit made his job much easier than it could have been, considering the opposition. Onyewu never put a foot wrong, never, not once in this match. I realised just now that by the end I was actually spoilt by his effort. DeMerit worked just as hard and even pulled out a few Italian-style dirty tricks--his arm-pull on Ramos prompted him to laugh and pat the Spaniard on the head. Was this an AMERICAN defender? Goodness. He and Gooch could be good for years to come if IF yesterday was any example of how they work together. Meanwhile, Howard's save from a David Villa scramble might have been the play of the match. It was classic Tim, cat-like reflexes in full effect. Yet for this match, it was just as much about his positioning and distribution as his athleticism.
Bocanegra and Spector certainly did their part. Spector isn't going to stun anybody with his overlapping runs or on-the-ball wizardry, but he is going to defend and kick the ball into row X when necessary. He's matured considerably since his ManU days and should be a fixture at fullback. As for the Captain--it was good to have him in there. He is a leader, he is a bit of a jerk, he's combative, and he'll get stuck in whenever needed. I saw him constantly working to organise the defence and talk to the rest of the squad. This is the difference between Charlie and Donovan as captains--BlackMouth is a man. Not knocking Landon, but what we saw yesterday was the value of an experienced leader wearing the armband.
Clint Dempsey looked spent much of the time, but he did work much harder than in previous matches to help out in defence. I'm not a big fan of his drifting inside when the team so obviously lacks width in attack--BUT I won't slag him since he assisted on Jozy's goal and took his chance late like a real poacher. Bradley seems to want to play him up front late--but if you think he's better in attack than in midfield, why wait? Feilhaber can do the business wide left. Or put speed merchant Charlie Davies on the wing and let Dempsey start up front. I love the pressure Davies provides--he can fly and he looks like more of a footballer than Cobi Jones ever was.
Davies' early overhead kick definitely set the tone for the USA. They were SO MUCH more aggressive than they had been in any of their recent matches. They were quick and decisive and took their chances rather than the hopeless dithering that seemed to have become a trademark.
OK--so this was great and damned-near perfect. I don't want to pick a nit, but some of the flaws in this team persisted. The biggest thing is that Bradley chases far too much. Our players don't defend an area and then hand their man off to the next person, which causes far too much open space and gives the opposing team big lanes in which to either run or pass. Maybe if Iniesta was in this match, the score would have been different because he would have taken better advantage of the headless chicken running and collapsing lines. The USA desperately needs to stay organised in defence and hold their shape along both the midfield and the back line. Don't chase the play so much, boys. That leads to cards and dumb fouls outside the area. (Although, to be fair, it looks as though they're getting a red card no matter what they do, so I suppose they should get their money's worth.)
A little sensible time-killing late in matches would help, as would taking the ball to the flag and earning a corner kick. That kind of stuff is what professionals do without really thinking about it. Our boys are just a little too sincere to do that, I guess.
I would like to give respect to Bradley for going to a 442 and using Davies in the last two matches. This needs to continue. Playing that diamond-type midfield with Donovan at the top and Clark at the bottom does everything it should--Donovan can be a playmaker and nuisance, Clark can break up the opposition's passes and provide cover for the back line. When you have enough goal scorers (Altidore, Davies, Dempsey, Donovan, Bradley), you can afford to play a guy like Clark, and credit to Bob for recognising that and sticking with it.
I was worried that he waited a bit too long to use his subs, and the team started to look tired, dead legged, in fact. This was when Howard and Gooch were having everything in the world thrown at them by the Spanish attack. I was really scared that Mata was going to skin somebody alive in the last 15 minutes.
And that is ALL I have to criticise after this win. This win. They do need to build off this. If they don't, the win becomes less important, though not any less signifcant. The USA just did something that 35 previous sides could not do, and that's beat the most gifted international side of a generation. That they did it in a major tournament, on foreign soil, makes it even more impressive--and shocking, and stunning, and unbelievable.
Two clean sheet victories, five goals--that sounds OK, doesn't it? Sounds fine.
You know all the numbers, don't you? USA: Only 1 victory ever against a top-ranked team. 0 for the previous 6. Spain: 35 match unbeaten run. 25 clean sheets in that time. 15 consecutive victories. No goals conceded at this tournament. Blah blah blah. Reigning Uefa Champions.
The USA just did something that cannot be described any way but in terms like "shocking," "stunning," "unbelievable." How shocking?
The winning goal was scored by a 19-year old who barely played for his club last season. Think about that for a moment. Big game? Big stage? Bright lights? I supposed Altidore didn't know to be intimidated, at least not by Capdevila. Capdevila is ostensibly Jozy's team mate at Villarreal, although Jozy only got into what, 6 matches or something silly like that?
Ricardo Clark morphed in Claude Makelele, snapping at the Spanish midfielders and breaking up everything that came his way. Landon Donovan drove the team forward like Andrei Arshavin, dominating the midfield play, keeping possession, tracking back and defending (at one point, he HEADED THE BALL OUT OF THE BOX AND I AM NOT MAKING THAT UP). He was brilliant. Yes, Landon Donovan was brilliant in a big game.
The centrebacks--I cannot say enough about them. While Tim Howard kept hauling the team out of the fire with brilliant saves, in general the tandem of Onyewu and DeMerit made his job much easier than it could have been, considering the opposition. Onyewu never put a foot wrong, never, not once in this match. I realised just now that by the end I was actually spoilt by his effort. DeMerit worked just as hard and even pulled out a few Italian-style dirty tricks--his arm-pull on Ramos prompted him to laugh and pat the Spaniard on the head. Was this an AMERICAN defender? Goodness. He and Gooch could be good for years to come if IF yesterday was any example of how they work together. Meanwhile, Howard's save from a David Villa scramble might have been the play of the match. It was classic Tim, cat-like reflexes in full effect. Yet for this match, it was just as much about his positioning and distribution as his athleticism.
Bocanegra and Spector certainly did their part. Spector isn't going to stun anybody with his overlapping runs or on-the-ball wizardry, but he is going to defend and kick the ball into row X when necessary. He's matured considerably since his ManU days and should be a fixture at fullback. As for the Captain--it was good to have him in there. He is a leader, he is a bit of a jerk, he's combative, and he'll get stuck in whenever needed. I saw him constantly working to organise the defence and talk to the rest of the squad. This is the difference between Charlie and Donovan as captains--BlackMouth is a man. Not knocking Landon, but what we saw yesterday was the value of an experienced leader wearing the armband.
Clint Dempsey looked spent much of the time, but he did work much harder than in previous matches to help out in defence. I'm not a big fan of his drifting inside when the team so obviously lacks width in attack--BUT I won't slag him since he assisted on Jozy's goal and took his chance late like a real poacher. Bradley seems to want to play him up front late--but if you think he's better in attack than in midfield, why wait? Feilhaber can do the business wide left. Or put speed merchant Charlie Davies on the wing and let Dempsey start up front. I love the pressure Davies provides--he can fly and he looks like more of a footballer than Cobi Jones ever was.
Davies' early overhead kick definitely set the tone for the USA. They were SO MUCH more aggressive than they had been in any of their recent matches. They were quick and decisive and took their chances rather than the hopeless dithering that seemed to have become a trademark.
OK--so this was great and damned-near perfect. I don't want to pick a nit, but some of the flaws in this team persisted. The biggest thing is that Bradley chases far too much. Our players don't defend an area and then hand their man off to the next person, which causes far too much open space and gives the opposing team big lanes in which to either run or pass. Maybe if Iniesta was in this match, the score would have been different because he would have taken better advantage of the headless chicken running and collapsing lines. The USA desperately needs to stay organised in defence and hold their shape along both the midfield and the back line. Don't chase the play so much, boys. That leads to cards and dumb fouls outside the area. (Although, to be fair, it looks as though they're getting a red card no matter what they do, so I suppose they should get their money's worth.)
A little sensible time-killing late in matches would help, as would taking the ball to the flag and earning a corner kick. That kind of stuff is what professionals do without really thinking about it. Our boys are just a little too sincere to do that, I guess.
I would like to give respect to Bradley for going to a 442 and using Davies in the last two matches. This needs to continue. Playing that diamond-type midfield with Donovan at the top and Clark at the bottom does everything it should--Donovan can be a playmaker and nuisance, Clark can break up the opposition's passes and provide cover for the back line. When you have enough goal scorers (Altidore, Davies, Dempsey, Donovan, Bradley), you can afford to play a guy like Clark, and credit to Bob for recognising that and sticking with it.
I was worried that he waited a bit too long to use his subs, and the team started to look tired, dead legged, in fact. This was when Howard and Gooch were having everything in the world thrown at them by the Spanish attack. I was really scared that Mata was going to skin somebody alive in the last 15 minutes.
And that is ALL I have to criticise after this win. This win. They do need to build off this. If they don't, the win becomes less important, though not any less signifcant. The USA just did something that 35 previous sides could not do, and that's beat the most gifted international side of a generation. That they did it in a major tournament, on foreign soil, makes it even more impressive--and shocking, and stunning, and unbelievable.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Beautiful Game, Or Not
I've had the misfortune of watching the USA men's football team come up against Italy and Brasil in the Confederations Cup. I didn't see much of anything I liked, not play and definitely not tactics. The heady days of 2002 are clearly gone, making me wonder just how special that particular group was. Led by Euro-based players and supported by some MLS "stars," Sam's Army stunned Portugal in the opener, fought the hosts South Korea to a draw, and made it through to the knockout stage where they punished hermanito Mexico and were a pitiable display by a Uefa ref from the semi-finals. There was speed (Donovan, Beasley), technical prowess (O'Brien), strength at the back (Sanneh), and genuine goal-scoring ability (McBride, Mathis). At the time, I think I was loathe to praise Eddie Lewis, but he was a very good crosser and makes any winger on the current team sheet look like a Sunday Pub leaguer.
Damn. So many of the promising players that have come along since then (Kyle Martino, Bobby Convey, Freddy Adu) have turned out to be busts that there haven't been any to replace those who've aged out. McBride, O'Brien, Mathis, Wolff--where is their current equivalent? Not among this bunch, believe me.
The Uefa players from 2002 played like they knew what they were doing. They could keep possession, hold up play, track back, get stuck in when needed, score in the air or from distance or poach a goal...In short, they developed their skills at the highest level, and they led the USA.
1998 was embarassing; 2006 was worse. Everyone said that Bruce Arena had to go. His time had passed and the USA needed a fresh approach. Now I see that the fresh approach is to give the ball away carelessly, play a lone striker, and killed on counter attacks.
Bob Bradley is in his first big tournament. His squad is playing like it's their first big one as well, despite years of international experience among some of the players. Those players should be providing leadership but clearly aren't. What I've seen, and what I don't like:
Landon Donovan is NOT team captain material. I've never believed that it's possible for a captain to lead from the front. Midfielders and defenders can see more of the pitch and provide inspiration and organisation. Donovan is more or less a striker or possibly a playmaker. But that's the least of his problems. His weakness is that he is frail, both mentally and physically. He is the size of Leo Messi and that's where the comparison with the Argentine ends. Donovan could not make it in Europe--not even in the Bundesliga. It's not like he was playing for ManU or Milan or Real Madrid. He failed. It was too hard for him. That is simply not the kind of player who is given the honour of the captaincy. His frailty in South Africa is reflected in the team he supposedly leads.
Bradley's insistence on playing a lone striker is a complete failure. The USA lacks a real target man up front (don't give me Altidore; I'm talking about a Drogba type) and punch from the midfield to support him. Their best hope would have been to play a diamond midfield with Donovan on top, just behind two forwards, two wing players, and a holding midfielder at the bottom. The USA gives up goals like my ex- gives up her body to drunken frat boys; knowing that, Bradley should have his fullbacks stay at home and leave the counter attacks to the front 6. The lack of composure and the nervousness says to me that Bradley didn't give the team the sort of instruction it needed to feel comfortable and confident. This was certainly evident against Brasil from the very beginning of the match.
What is the strength of the team? What is the character? I don't see anything definitive as of now. If losing Brian Ching means no goals from open play, then nothing done in the last 15 years to develop young players has had any effect on the national game. And if that's the case, then an all hands to the pumps, Sam Allardyce game plan should be Bradley's first, second, and third options. In fact, as unappealing as that might be, it might make the most sense even if Ching is healthy because the best players on the side right now are in defence (take that for what it's worth). Jon Spector and Onyewu could anchor a tough, defensive-minded XI, and it's possible that Jay DeMerit, with proper instruction and midfield cover, could handle the other CB position.
I don't know if there is potential among this bunch of bottlers. Everyone from the manager down should examine what it means to represent his country and decide if he has the stomach to take on the best in the world. Anyone who can't give a serious account for himself should step aside. And those responsible for player development should consider what this kind of play means.
Damn. So many of the promising players that have come along since then (Kyle Martino, Bobby Convey, Freddy Adu) have turned out to be busts that there haven't been any to replace those who've aged out. McBride, O'Brien, Mathis, Wolff--where is their current equivalent? Not among this bunch, believe me.
The Uefa players from 2002 played like they knew what they were doing. They could keep possession, hold up play, track back, get stuck in when needed, score in the air or from distance or poach a goal...In short, they developed their skills at the highest level, and they led the USA.
1998 was embarassing; 2006 was worse. Everyone said that Bruce Arena had to go. His time had passed and the USA needed a fresh approach. Now I see that the fresh approach is to give the ball away carelessly, play a lone striker, and killed on counter attacks.
Bob Bradley is in his first big tournament. His squad is playing like it's their first big one as well, despite years of international experience among some of the players. Those players should be providing leadership but clearly aren't. What I've seen, and what I don't like:
Landon Donovan is NOT team captain material. I've never believed that it's possible for a captain to lead from the front. Midfielders and defenders can see more of the pitch and provide inspiration and organisation. Donovan is more or less a striker or possibly a playmaker. But that's the least of his problems. His weakness is that he is frail, both mentally and physically. He is the size of Leo Messi and that's where the comparison with the Argentine ends. Donovan could not make it in Europe--not even in the Bundesliga. It's not like he was playing for ManU or Milan or Real Madrid. He failed. It was too hard for him. That is simply not the kind of player who is given the honour of the captaincy. His frailty in South Africa is reflected in the team he supposedly leads.
Bradley's insistence on playing a lone striker is a complete failure. The USA lacks a real target man up front (don't give me Altidore; I'm talking about a Drogba type) and punch from the midfield to support him. Their best hope would have been to play a diamond midfield with Donovan on top, just behind two forwards, two wing players, and a holding midfielder at the bottom. The USA gives up goals like my ex- gives up her body to drunken frat boys; knowing that, Bradley should have his fullbacks stay at home and leave the counter attacks to the front 6. The lack of composure and the nervousness says to me that Bradley didn't give the team the sort of instruction it needed to feel comfortable and confident. This was certainly evident against Brasil from the very beginning of the match.
What is the strength of the team? What is the character? I don't see anything definitive as of now. If losing Brian Ching means no goals from open play, then nothing done in the last 15 years to develop young players has had any effect on the national game. And if that's the case, then an all hands to the pumps, Sam Allardyce game plan should be Bradley's first, second, and third options. In fact, as unappealing as that might be, it might make the most sense even if Ching is healthy because the best players on the side right now are in defence (take that for what it's worth). Jon Spector and Onyewu could anchor a tough, defensive-minded XI, and it's possible that Jay DeMerit, with proper instruction and midfield cover, could handle the other CB position.
I don't know if there is potential among this bunch of bottlers. Everyone from the manager down should examine what it means to represent his country and decide if he has the stomach to take on the best in the world. Anyone who can't give a serious account for himself should step aside. And those responsible for player development should consider what this kind of play means.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Le Weekend
For reasons I do not care to disclose, this weekend was shaping up to be horrible. Per the usual, I'm broke. (It happens when your rent suddenly and unexpectedly doubles and you decide to get the spiffy cable package because, well, because if you didn't, you'd go fucking insane with your sleepless nights and fear of the vacuum of silence.) So what was I going to do?
If my focus here from now on will probably be sport and cooking, then Friday was neither one nor the other. I knew that I wanted to wager on the Belmont, I knew that I was going to watch the Magic/Lakers game on Sunday, I knew that I was going to the NOLA Jesters game Saturday night, and I knew I was going to put in at least a cameo at Lisa's birthday bash Sunday afternoon. That is a considerable amount of dough for a broke man.
Friday I did nothing. End of.
Saturday--I will confess, I started drinking at about 9 something in the blessed a.m. I'm sorry for that. I know it is not generally accepted, nor a good idea, to do such a thing, but just understand that there was a big bowling ball headed at me, and I was the pin, and I didn't want to feel the impact. I got to see a bit of the Iran-North Korea "Irony Bowl" World Cup qualifier (something not seen since the 1998 US group featuring "the facists, the ethnic cleansers, and the fundamentalists"), I ignored the Safina French Open final (made me long for the days of the Swiss Miss because, uh, those gals were a bit tought to watch). FSU lost to Arkansas in the CWS Super Regional. Hillbillies everywhere rejoiced and had sex with a cousin to celebrate.
The focus of the day was the Belmont. I play the horses. I like it. I like it more than boxing. OK, I'm not gonna lie any more, I love horse racing. It is a mental exercise unlike anything else I know, including Civ. It is tied with cooking as the thing I really, really freaking love. I love the track, I love the study, I love sharps, I love wise guys, smart money, the Daily Racing Form, exotics, longshots, Emma Jane, a girl in New Orleans I won't name but she was a placing judge at the Fair Grounds, trainers, jockeys, writers, the two guys in the paddock who run the oyster bar...
When the Fair Grounds season ends, I feel vorklempt. I hate it. I want to watch ponies all year long. In my long gone consulting days, they put me in a hotel room overlooking Turfway Park. Before that assignment, they had sent me to Keeneland--I mean, Lexington. I drank with incredibly charming Oirish grooms (and the name grooms hides the fact that they were actually very cute girls) and dreamed of the final turn at the Bluegrass...
The Belmont, I have suddenly decided, is the real deal Triple Crown race. The distance requires a smart jock, bloodline, guts, and Woody Stephens as your trainer. Since Woody is dead, you see what you need. I love the Belmont. I hate the Kentucky Derby. I hate a field of 20 horses and jocks trying to kill each other. I hate boneheads ruining the odds. The Preakness--well, really, two weeks after the Derby? Not in this day and age. Or even just in this day. Or age.
The Belmont has become the "race of the longshot." But in my opinion, it's the "race where sharps can make some dough because a lot of dopes will bet on a potential Triple Crown winner."
When I saw the field and the post positions, I said, "Bah, I have lost many dollars on the previous TC races, I will just bet one horse, but if I were going to bet many horses, I would bet the two Birds plus Dunkirk." (OK, everybody says this in retrospect, but I actually have proof on a messageboard I post to regularly.) I knew, just like I knew in the Breeder's Classic, what horse would win. No matter what I read, I settled on Summer Bird. Friesan Fire had kicked my ass hard two races in a row. So who to bet? Who was the "invader" who would ruin the party?
How about MTB's half brother? How about a jock who had a serious fucking axe to grind, who had to listen for a year how he once again ruined a Triple Crown runner? How about a rookie trainer who had studied under some of Louisiana's best? Yeah.
I said after the Preakness that I would bet an unknown horse with a seasoned jock because that's who wins the Belmont.
Well, I didn't hit the damn tri ($295) because I didn't bet it because I didn't think I had enough money because I was going to the footie match and Lisa's party. Imagine. I didn't make a 12 dollar bet because of that, a 12 dollar bet that would have given me back 270 bucks. Oh. That hurts. Ouch. Kick me in the nards.
I did bet Summer Bird ONE ACROSS. Yeah! I did manage to turn 3 bucks into 20 thanks to that wisdom.
I told everyone I worked with "the two birds with Dunkirk."
Yeah, I'm smart. When I'm rich, I'll be smarter.
If my focus here from now on will probably be sport and cooking, then Friday was neither one nor the other. I knew that I wanted to wager on the Belmont, I knew that I was going to watch the Magic/Lakers game on Sunday, I knew that I was going to the NOLA Jesters game Saturday night, and I knew I was going to put in at least a cameo at Lisa's birthday bash Sunday afternoon. That is a considerable amount of dough for a broke man.
Friday I did nothing. End of.
Saturday--I will confess, I started drinking at about 9 something in the blessed a.m. I'm sorry for that. I know it is not generally accepted, nor a good idea, to do such a thing, but just understand that there was a big bowling ball headed at me, and I was the pin, and I didn't want to feel the impact. I got to see a bit of the Iran-North Korea "Irony Bowl" World Cup qualifier (something not seen since the 1998 US group featuring "the facists, the ethnic cleansers, and the fundamentalists"), I ignored the Safina French Open final (made me long for the days of the Swiss Miss because, uh, those gals were a bit tought to watch). FSU lost to Arkansas in the CWS Super Regional. Hillbillies everywhere rejoiced and had sex with a cousin to celebrate.
The focus of the day was the Belmont. I play the horses. I like it. I like it more than boxing. OK, I'm not gonna lie any more, I love horse racing. It is a mental exercise unlike anything else I know, including Civ. It is tied with cooking as the thing I really, really freaking love. I love the track, I love the study, I love sharps, I love wise guys, smart money, the Daily Racing Form, exotics, longshots, Emma Jane, a girl in New Orleans I won't name but she was a placing judge at the Fair Grounds, trainers, jockeys, writers, the two guys in the paddock who run the oyster bar...
When the Fair Grounds season ends, I feel vorklempt. I hate it. I want to watch ponies all year long. In my long gone consulting days, they put me in a hotel room overlooking Turfway Park. Before that assignment, they had sent me to Keeneland--I mean, Lexington. I drank with incredibly charming Oirish grooms (and the name grooms hides the fact that they were actually very cute girls) and dreamed of the final turn at the Bluegrass...
The Belmont, I have suddenly decided, is the real deal Triple Crown race. The distance requires a smart jock, bloodline, guts, and Woody Stephens as your trainer. Since Woody is dead, you see what you need. I love the Belmont. I hate the Kentucky Derby. I hate a field of 20 horses and jocks trying to kill each other. I hate boneheads ruining the odds. The Preakness--well, really, two weeks after the Derby? Not in this day and age. Or even just in this day. Or age.
The Belmont has become the "race of the longshot." But in my opinion, it's the "race where sharps can make some dough because a lot of dopes will bet on a potential Triple Crown winner."
When I saw the field and the post positions, I said, "Bah, I have lost many dollars on the previous TC races, I will just bet one horse, but if I were going to bet many horses, I would bet the two Birds plus Dunkirk." (OK, everybody says this in retrospect, but I actually have proof on a messageboard I post to regularly.) I knew, just like I knew in the Breeder's Classic, what horse would win. No matter what I read, I settled on Summer Bird. Friesan Fire had kicked my ass hard two races in a row. So who to bet? Who was the "invader" who would ruin the party?
How about MTB's half brother? How about a jock who had a serious fucking axe to grind, who had to listen for a year how he once again ruined a Triple Crown runner? How about a rookie trainer who had studied under some of Louisiana's best? Yeah.
I said after the Preakness that I would bet an unknown horse with a seasoned jock because that's who wins the Belmont.
Well, I didn't hit the damn tri ($295) because I didn't bet it because I didn't think I had enough money because I was going to the footie match and Lisa's party. Imagine. I didn't make a 12 dollar bet because of that, a 12 dollar bet that would have given me back 270 bucks. Oh. That hurts. Ouch. Kick me in the nards.
I did bet Summer Bird ONE ACROSS. Yeah! I did manage to turn 3 bucks into 20 thanks to that wisdom.
I told everyone I worked with "the two birds with Dunkirk."
Yeah, I'm smart. When I'm rich, I'll be smarter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)