O $ay Can You $ee...

1989, another summer...when barely 10,000 people turned out in Miami's NFL gridiron stadium to watch the Arsenal Football Club defeat Argentine champions Independiente 2-1 on the strength of a brace by Rocky Rocastle in something called the Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy.

LINK: Local newspaper bothers to cover the match.

It was quite charitable of George Graham to field a very strong XI, but his post-match comments about "America needs to wake up" were far more telling. He certainly expressed a healthy scepticism about the USA's willingness to support the game, although in five years the nation would host what is still the most-attended World Cup in the tournament's history, re-launch a professional football league, and qualify for every World Cup finals since 1990 (England, ahem, 1994, ahem, cough cough). Yet at the time, with no interwebs to promote professional teams from Europe and South America, and more importantly no EA Sports FIFA video game to hype individual players, there was minimal interest in club football in the USA.

25 years is a long time to hold a grudge against an entire nation, however.

I've been very outspoken in my criticism of the decision makers at Arsenal (and by that I mean one person) and the club's unwillingness to come to the USA during the pre-season in the last 10 years, a time which has seen Spuds and Villa and Everton (hardly "big clubs") join the ranks of MUFC, Chelsea, Liverpool, and MCFC in touring the States.  Arsenal are a decade or more behind other clubs in England, Italy, Spain, and even Portugal in building the "brand" in the USA.

The growth of the Arsenal fan support in this country has been entirely organic, with attempts by the club to reach out to the millions of fans here seeming to come only grudgingly after much noise being made on this side of the Atlantic. That's a separate topic, but it seems that Arsenal took a nation of 330 million for granted until someone finally (to use Graham's term) "woke up" and noticed it.  Web stats show that the USA generates the second-most Arsenal-related web traffic after the United Kingdom. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Arsenal supporters routinely turn up in greater numbers at their local pubs and bars in the USA during match viewings. (This was certainly the case for our group in New Orleans, where the pub would open at 6:30 in the morning to cater to 30 or more bleary-eyed Gooners.)

Arsene Wenger notoriously loathed making pre-season tours, but was open to disrupting his Austrian camp preparations for far-flung trips to the workers paradise of Southeast Asia and other locales that seemed far more laborious to reach than the USA. A tour of Vietnam is nice, where the average annual income is less than $300 US, but isn't it a bit much to expect those folks to buy an AUTHENTIC (ahem) Arsenal kit that costs more than half that?

I know that I'm somewhat of an anomaly among the USA Gooners in that I've been following the club longer than Wenger has been the manager. I actually asked off work back in 2000 to go watch the Uefa Cup final (back then Cup finals could be played during the middle of the week with no thought to a USA television audience) and was one of 3 Yanks in an Atlanta soccer bar filled with ex-pats from both England and Turkey.  My allegiance to Arsenal is now stronger than that for any other sport team that I've grown up following and when I "married" my support to the club I agreed to do so for better or for worse.

Wenger's infamous stubborn nature, which is now cartoonish in its ability to be parodied, was part of the "worse" in our marriage.  Everyone knows that he essentially IS the decision maker at the club, that the board and Executive have deferred to him on every major move that has been made since Dein's departure. So one must think he had a hand in the club's failure to visit the USA even once while others made a concerted effort to grow their support and raise their profiles here.

The odd thing about Wenger's remarks the other day is that the translation of it seems to say, "We had no intention of coming to the USA until the support was big enough," rather than an intention to come here and proactively help grow that support. Every summer there would be sold-out matches in much bigger stadiums than Red Bulls across the USA featuring clubs such as AC Milan, Benfica, Barca, etc. along with Arsenal's English rivals. Chelsea?  Really?  A club that spent a considerable amount of time in the lower leagues before the arrival of Ken Bates?

It's so bizarre to think that Arsenal, at the moment that they were one of the two biggest clubs in England with some of the most famous World Cup-winning players on the planet in their team, didn't want to capitalise on that brand and equity to tour the USA. Or that when complaints about constraints on spending were the norm, nobody thought to raise a few million pounds on a visit to the States.  Or that if the option of doing so were mooted (and I'll assure you that someone over here more than likely reached out to Arsenal more than once during this time), that it was rejected out of hand.

(Side note--anyone who thinks that touring North America automatically interferes with pre-season preparation and will prevent winning a championship may want to look at the summer travel schedules of recent title-winning sides.)

As an example, when MUFC announced their summer tour of the USA back during the winter months, the accompanying article on ESPN noted that "Manchester United haven't toured the USA since 2011."  Wow! THAT LONG?  Two entire summers passed without a visit here?

I'm pleased that someone somewhere at Arsenal has forced this visit to the States on Arsene Wenger, and that the growth of support here was finally deemed worthy of it. It's a pity that it must be a one-off in a small stadium, considering the pent-up demand that so many of us here have, not ever having had the opportunity to see the club play live. I hope it's something to build upon. The integration of the Premier League into the culture in the USA has been underway for almost 15 years, and this country will represent a tremendous growth market for years to come.

After 25 years, it's nice to say "Welcome back, Arsenal. Now don't wait another quarter century to come again, please."

NOT the most important football match in USMNT history

Quick thoughts before what idiots are calling "the most important match in US soccer history:"

1) Before this tournament, expectations were VERY low that the USA would advance out of this group. Why is it suddenly an imperative that they do so?  This is senseless. The entire mission of this World Cup finals experience for Klinzi was to put together a team with quite a few youngsters who would then be ready for Russia in four years. No Donovan, no Eddie Johnson--this was essentially the "developmental" World Cup for the Yanks.

2) Klinzi is going nowhere. He is on a long-term mission, so his job is NOT on the line.  I am well and truly sick of Eric Wynalda and his senseless pronouncements, and what he said yesterday about Klinzi being fired after today if the USA does not advance proves just how ridiculous he has become--as if the idiocy he spewed during the FA Cup final wasn't convincing enough.  The point is that there is no pressure on the manager to take this team beyond the group stages, so very little hangs in the balance.

3) The fanciful notion by the non-footballing world in the USA that losing today will somehow kill off the growth of the sport here proves once again that football writing should be left to people who know about football. They (these people raised on the tedium of baseball and gridiron) are once again marveling at the packed sports bars and plazas and parks where tens of thousands of football supporters are gathering to watch USA matches, conveniently forgetting the scenes of madness 4 years ago when Donovan scored the last-second winner versus Algeria. All the same tired stories feigning shock at the crowds following the matches have been trotted out again, seemingly with a simple "find and replace" done to change "South Africa" to "Brazil."  This narrative is BORING, OLD, and NEEDS TO BE RETIRED. The establishment has to simply accept the fact that the sport is now popular here. It is the second-most popular sport in the USA among people under the age of 35. Can we start writing something new about football support in the States?

4) I saved this one for last on purpose. From strictly a footballing perspective, the most important match in USA history was the round of 16 match versus arch-rival Mexico in 2002. It's not up for debate. This was the match that made the rest of the world finally take notice of the burgeoning football culture in the States. There has never been a bigger, more pressure-packed match than USA against its most bitter enemy for a chance to advance to the quarterfinals. It proved that the USA could win a big match on a big stage, and it validated a youth programme that had produced Donovan, Beasley, Mathis, Wolff--all of whom contributed to the team's success that tournament. How could anyone with even a passing interest in the sport and a connection to the interwebs not know how big that match was in the growth of the game in the USA?  I'll go on to say that in the 1990-present period of the USA matches, today's match is not even in the top 10 in terms of importance. Ending Spain's unbeaten streak, drawing with England in 2010, beating Mexico to win the Gold Cup, winning at the Azteca (finally), being cheated by Germany and a Uefa official out of a trip to the semifinals in 2002, simply qualifying for Italia '90--how can these idiots elevate a "Group of Death" match where the team has already miraculously taken 4 points above all of those? 

So there you have it. Wretched sports "journalists" in the USA, you should just admit that you don't know anything about the game of football and stop trying to frame it in your Cold War perspective that doesn't work anymore.  The outcome of today's match doesn't matter at all in the overall growth of the sport. I'm assuming you haven't bothered to see the crowded stadiums in Seattle or Portland or the sold out matches any time a big European club tours the States, so perhaps you just write another boring column about Lebron James or the New York Yankees. Your career, like your newspaper, will soon be a thing of the past.

Copa!

About this FIFA 2010 World Cup: I love the game, and I love the tournament, but I am weary of having to watch poor match officiating. I think we all are. I think the limitations that most of the officials have displayed come down to one thing: pressure. Officials feel it just like players and managers do. As much of a cock-up as Howard Webb was through much of the Premier League season, he performed admirably in the tournament and I think his composure was due to the fact that he has been in big games and handled the pressure before. Sometimes it just seems to me that officials from small confederations go mad in big matches, brandishing cards like party favours and missing big calls. I'm not implying that referees from big nations are immune from making game-changing blunders, but I think it's easier to find quality officials from those nations. Does this kind of social democracy belong in the World Cup? I ask you this, man from Mali.

About Team USA: It's true that we don't have much of a defence. It's true that our forwards don't score much. We're limited, certainly. But...think of this: Most of this squad weren't even 10 years old when the USA returned to the World Cup in 1990. That team was made up of a bunch of college players, journeymen, part-timers--21-year old keeper Tony Meola was given the captaincy, the most senior players were three players aged 27. Their clubs? Three players were based in Europe, playing for the giants Győri, Volendam, and Meppen. All the rest played in what passed for domestic clubs in the USA. It was three-and-out for the Yanks that summer.

So in one generation, the USA went from THAT mess to this squad that was one disallowed goal away from two victories and a draw in the group stage and extra time against a fine Ghana side away from the quarterfinals. Not quite as good as the 2002 side, but then again not quite as experienced as that side either. I don't want my point to get lost by bringing up 2002, however. I'm stunned that in 20 years, the USA went from being a minnow to being expected to move out of the group stage and possibly even make the last 8. And more importantly, I didn't see one minute of the 1990 Cup until the advent of youtube. Italia '90 was a myth. I had seen some of Mexico 1986 due to the fact that I was on holiday and the hotel happened to have Univision (or whatever Spanish-language channel existed back then), but my friends thought I was insane for watching it.

We're becoming much more aware of how great the sport is in this country.

This is one generation removed from ignorance that the Cup was even taking place. I can't imagine how the sport will continue to grow. The advent of web-based content has made it simple to follow leagues all over the world. I truly believe that this has been one of the most important factors in growing interest in the game here--if we can watch it played at the highest levels, if we can see Lio Messi and Wesley Sneijder ply their skills every weekend and in the Uefa Champions League, we'll appreciate it so much more. The appetite for the game is such that Fox has added a second football-based channel. Now people in America can watch league football from England, Germany, Spain, Italy, even France (if that's your thing).

When all that was available 15 years ago was MLS--with its poor play, empty stadiums, whacko rules, ridiculous nicknames and matching uniforms--it was only natural that people might be turned off from "soccer." I couldn't stand MLS. What was with the attempt to copy gridiron? People who really love the game will love it because it's different. Earl the Cleveland Browns fan wasn't going to suddenly start following Columbus because MLS had divisions and a dumb playoff system. The sport should simply try to appeal to people by making it look more like a European league. It's slowly getting there, the quality of play is getting better, but the popularity of the sport in America is directly due to the availability of coverage of the top leagues in the world.

The USMNT is missing a top quality manager. That's the next ingredient. I'm not going to say anything about Bob Bradley as a tactician--I think he's adequate in that department. But he doesn't have the ability to organise the team tightly and they still have trouble killing off games. The early lapses in concentration or lack of defensive preparation in the World Cup cost the USA 3 victories. I sincerely believe that England, Slovenia, and Ghana were winnable matches. If the USA didn't concede early, their athleticism and attacking style would eventually wear down their opponents (Ghana is a different story, I know, but they don't have a Michael Bradley or Clint Dempsey, either). I don't have a problem with Jozy Altidore not scoring when we have three midfielders who score regularly--Jozy's ability to knock the ball down and get it to the wide players and his link-up play are excellent.

The USA's attack doesn't worry me at all; it's the back line that needs much, much work. It's fair to say that Bocanegra, DeMerit, and Cherundolo won't be back in four years. Tim Howard likely won't be around to save their bacon 4 or 5 times each match, either. The priority for US Soccer must be to identify and develop a deeper talent pool of defenders--or else continue to suffer. They also need a coach who can get the team organised and play a little bit tighter when needed. I like to see more players in Europe--I think the nerves that Bornstein eventually overcame could be helped by slugging it out across the Atlantic. If not Europe, then I hope more of our players will consider Latin America. Yes, they get beaten up on the pitch, but that's going to happen wherever we go, so they might as well toughen up now. I thought Gomez might be part of the future but damn, he's already 28. This should have been his World Cup prime--think Brian McBride in 2002.

Ultimately, this World Cup ended for the USA because Bradley couldn't get his starting XI right--and his early subs led to tired legs at the end of the match. If Edu and Feilhaber were the best options in midfield (pushing Dempsey up top in a sort-of free form 4-3-3 in attack and 4-5-1 in defence), then he should have simply started them and junked the rather rigid 4-4-2, thus keeping his subs for late when fatigue clearly became a factor in the 2nd Ghana goal. The transition from attack to defence is what separates the best teams in the world from the rest--what I've seen in this tournament is that Spain, Germany, and Holland do it best. Traditional formations seem to blur with them--Robben and Sneijder aren't strikers but are getting the goals. Podolski and Muller support Klose as forwards in attack but go back to win the ball in defence. Spain--well, Spain are different.

The USA needs a manager who can use that kind of flexibility to support a defence that has yet to come together for our national team. There are promising players in this squad that I expect will come back better in 4 years time--Michael Bradley will only be 26, Stu Holden 28, Bornstein 29, Torres 26, Jozy 24, Edu 28, and Feilhaber 29. That, along with Brad Guzan (he'll be 29) is the nucleus of a strong team. Use it well, along with a few newcomers that we probably don't even know yet, and the expectations for the team could be even higher than this year. Does Jürgen Klinsmann finally get the call?

3 weeks in limbo

Two weekends of travel, plus a 3 day celebration of my birthday last weekend, took me away from these efforts but I suppose now I'm back. What have I missed?

England destroyed by Australia (that is far too mild a term to describe what happened) in the Ashes.

Arsenal do nothing in the transfer market. Lather, rinse, repeat.

USA defeated by Mexico and referee. See above.

I'll quickly share my thoughts on each of these things:

Ravi Bopara should not be allowed to bat 3rd for England. What he did in the Fourth Test was so terrible, so wretched, so embarrassing, that it actually is beyond belief. When do you stop beating your head against a wall expecting it not hurt? What is worse about what he did was the ripple effect it had on the rest of the batsmen, forcing ever-desperate displays. If he plays in the Fifth test, write it off. His confidence is in ruins.

Arsenal--I don't know. I don't know what to think anymore. I am to the point where I say, "Would you please just overpay for a decent centre-half so we can move on?" The angst of this summer is hurting the supporters. It's sickening, really. Not that I have any claim on what Wenger ought to do--by sickening I mean that it causes tension, stress, and feelings of unease that are translated by the mind into nausea and headaches. Stop making me sick, Arsene! I don't have health insurance!

A very different reaction from the USA v. Mexico match--white-hot anger. Why is it OK for opposing players to grab an injured player and try to drag him to his feet by his head? Why is it OK for an opposing player to sprint 40 yards and shove someone in the back at the endline? Why is it OK to throw debris, missiles, cups, and other nasty stuff at a visiting player? IF THE USA SUPPORTERS CONDUCTED THEMSELVES THIS WAY, FIFA WOULD BAN US. But when "they" do it, it's OK because it's "cultural." Oh, so you're saying that behaving like savages is part of their culture? Is that racist?

It's cowardly for FIFA to look the other way at the abuse that USA players have to endure. It's also disgusting. The USA will never be taken seriously, nor will the USA take the game seriously, until this stupid, childish, dimwitted double-standard is eliminated. The end.

Consistent, at the least

As I type this, Oz are 217 for 1. England finished their 1st innings at 435 all out. Broad managed a stunning 19, and poor ol' Monty a 4. Kaitch and Ponting are currently each working on centuries. Good lord, England.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Big Boys Save the Day

We watched the USA B-team labour against Honduras last night, needing a spark from subs who had played in the Confederations Cup. Yes, I know it's shocking, but Bradley actually used all three of his substitutions, and to great effect. Feilhaber and Davies played very well once they were introduced, and Kenny Cooper provided fresh legs for an obviously winded Brian Ching. Good choices, good results; way to go, Bob!

My observations (This saves me from having to write a narrative, which I'm not in the mood for):
There is good and bad in the B squad, but this is a nice chance to develop players that are going to have to support the 2010 qualifying campaign.
Troy Perkins looks quite good, cutting down the angle on one breakaway, saving a point blank shot, good distribution and showed he knows when to come off his line and when to stay back.

Great to see Cherundolo back. He played the full 90 and kept the squad out of trouble with his tackling and hard work. And when the subs came on in the 64th minute, he moved forward and got in on the attack play. Having him healthy, again, gives Bradley options.

Same for Brian Ching--Again, one of the A squad players made a difference. You could see how he would have helped out in the Confederations Cup had he been healthy. He might not be a big forward by world standards, but at 6'1" and 200 lbs. he provides a big target for the USA. He participated in the build-up to the first goal and was clinical finishing off the second. If he stays healthy and if Jozy can get more club matches, I like our attacking chances in the upcoming qualifiers. Which leads to...

Charlie Davies. He immediately changed the game and you could just sense that a goal was coming. His pace is deadly and he's a real footballer, not a one-trick pony like Cobi Jones. I'd like to see Bradley use him as a winger instead of a forward, because he can absolutely terrorise fullbacks with his speed. However, I was also impressed with the way he found space in the middle and held the ball up for Quaranta's goal, and his pass was perfectly weighted. Touch? From an American?

Benny Feilhaber's progression as a complete midfielder has been fun to watch. He can defend or attack, he passes very well, and has played the role of impact sub very well. I don't see him starting, considering who is in front of him, but if Bradley needed him due to injury or suspension, I think we'd all feel comfortable with Feilhaber in there.

I liked the work of the B squad guys, even if they did give away possession too often, which basically makes them Americans. Adu showed some really nice touch when he made quick passes, but when he fools around with the ball he is easily dispossessed and makes mistakes. Play quick and direct and he can be an asset. I'd like to have him on the wing--he's just too small to play forward against real footballing nations. Beckerman was great--lots of good tackling, pretty good distribution, and good at breaking up the Honduran attack. Robbie Rogers made a lot of good runs up the left side. He needs to work on what to do once he's beat his man to the corner flag, though.

Lastly, big ups to Quaranta for both the goal and simply making it back into the side and making the most of the opportunity. The goal was beautiful and so rare from the USA. I like to see players take their chances without hesitation and he read that ball from Davies perfectly. Good for him.

So there we have it. A nice victory over a side that sent its best players (several of whom play in Europe) sets up an easy one against Haiti. Might we get to see Kenny Cooper start?

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.

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.

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.