Top Stories

How far can USA go in the World Cup (Greetings from South Africa)

Good afternoon all. I'm coming to you from lovely South Africa, where World Cup fever is in full swing as the country preps for the opening of the tournament on Friday.

The U.S. men's national team begins its tournament on Saturday against England, and the match has folks all over the country (and world) wondering just how the Americans will do in this tournament. Will they enjoy a dream tournament like in 2002, or will it be another disappointment like 2006?

I gave my take on Fox Soccer on the best-case scenario for the United States. It may sound crazy to consider, but so was a Confederations Cup final berth a year ago, and World Cup quarterfinal eight years ago. Fox Soccer colleague Jamie Trecker also chimes in with his take on why the Americans won't go far this World Cup.

I have been in South Africa for just about 24 hours so I am still getting settled in, but be sure to check into SBI and Fox Soccer for all my coverage of the 2010 World Cup.

For now, give the above story a read and tell us what you think would be the best and worst scenarios for the United States.

Share your thoughts below.

Comments

  1. I love college football, but if the WC was decided the same way, Spain and Brazil would have the first three weeks off to get ready for to play for the championship.

    Reply
  2. Felix the Cat:

    It would be much simpler and make my point better if you explained why YOU think Bradley is a great coach?

    What has he done? He wasn’t any good with the Metrostars. Granted that’s not a fair example because they are clearly cursed. However, he wasn’t very good with Chivas either, even though he was given a bunch of good players from the senior team. The main reason people think Bradley is a good coach is because of his stint with the Chicago Fire. The fire were good because of Peter Nowak and some other great players. Nowak managed the team more than Bradley did. That”s why the team dropped off so much when he retired. Now if you want me to list Arena’s credentials, the comparison will be embarrassing.

    Reply
  3. AverageUSFAN:

    You said:

    “Correct me if I’m wrong but what you seem to be saying is that if you don’t understand why Bradley is doing something, then it must have no value?

    Isn’t that rather arrogant on your part?”

    You’re building a straw man argument here, and you also seem to be confused about what coaches do. I never said what you attributed to me. Would you like me to suggest that you are saying something you aren’t and then respond to that? Cheap shot.

    You are making it sound like coaches are geniuses who dabble in complex processes only the super intelligent or other coaches can understand. Even with coaches much smarter than Bradley, an experienced fan with a strong understanding of the game can certainly understand and appreciate a lot, if not all, of what a coach is doing. Soccer isn’t rocket science. My point is Bradley is too simplistic, he’s good at the basics and simple things, and we all know that everyone likes him, but he doesn’t rank well with other top coaches. He’s overrated.

    I’m not going to wait until after the W.C. to reserve judgment because I have never thought Bradley was good enough. Even if the U.S. makes it to the second round, it doesn’t mean Bradley is good. The team bears a lot of the responsibility and the U.S. is finally in an easy group. If this team were in any of the tougher groups they would have almost no chance of advancing. This wait and see is the same mentality that crucified Arena even though the U.S. exit from the W.C. was inevitable no matter who was coaching, given the circumstances. Most of the people here are just going to base their decision on whether the U.S. advances or not which is ridiculous.

    Reply
  4. Xperry Ment:

    I guess it depends on what we mean by “experimenting” doesn’t it?

    I said that Bradley needed to play Gomez and Torres, an example of the latent talent you are talking about.

    I’m referring to too much experimenting and the timing of it. Experimenting to an extent that is unnecessary, and to the extent that the team is unsettled and lacking cohesion. E.G. Did Bradley really need to mess around with players like Clark and Ching? Their situation seemed quite clear. They are not emerging latent talent. They are players that quite clearly have not played well in some time. The weird thing was that he played Ching, who actually played quite well in that particular game, then he cut him anyway. If he was going to cut him even if he played well, why play him at all? He knew Ching wasn’t good enough and could have stopped using him a long time ago. Clark could not be justified in anyway. He shouldn’t have been experimenting with him right before the W.C. either.

    Trying to compare Klinsmann with Bradley is a bit of a stretch. Unless you asked Klinsmann how late and how much experimenting would you recommend, it doesn’t mean much. Klinsmann did not mess with Germany using players that had not even played well for Germany in a long time and who were coming off injuries. Since you mention Klinsmann, he also made it quite clear that players who have been out with long term injuries need a minimum amount of recovery time, and that Onyewu wasn’t even close in that regard.

    Reply
  5. “You do NOT go into the W.C. still “experimenting” unless you have an idiot for a coach. Also, it’s not much of an experiment with your final W.C. roster. Maybe we will lose to England because Bob needs to “experiment” some more.”

    Sure you do. Especially if you have a thin talent pool,injuries and late emerging talent.

    Klinsmann was asked about this idea of bringing in new players late and he didn’t think it was a big deal, that he had done the same thing with Germany in 2006. Now maybe you think Klinsmann is an idiot I don’t know.

    Reply
  6. Before you get all smug about your courage, just remember that no one here uses their real names anyway. We all have bloggers courage.

    My prediction is 1-1 US-England in a pretty awful game.

    Reply
  7. “I rarely, if ever, saw the U.S. play as lifeless as this team does sometimes under Bradley, when Arena was coaching them. I could also recognize specific strategies and appreciate what he was doing when Arena was coach. I haven’t got a clue what Bradley is trying to do most of the time, and when I do it doesn’t seem to make much sense.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong but what you seem to be saying is that if you don’t understand why Bradley is doing something, then it must have no value?

    Isn’t that rather arrogant on your part?

    I have no idea why Bradley does what he does either but then I have no insight into what is actually going on. You know, it turns out he doesn’t report to me.

    It’s hard to evaluate a process when you don’t know what is involved or what the ultimate aim is.

    This may be the most talented US team ever but I notice their opposition is, in general, also more talented than ever so that rising talent level is kind of a wash.

    In terms of talent, I would rate the US group somewhere at the top of the bottom third for World Cup teams. In my mind that gives us a C- for talent.

    I’ll judge Bradley when the tournament is over not before.

    Reply
  8. My criticism of Trekker (Trecker) is based on reading a lot more of his work than this piece.

    Which is why I don’t anymore. He clearly believes he is better than this drudgery and wants to move on to his deserved place in life sort of like Russell Brand former Guardian columnist, West Ham fan and now sometime actor and comedian.

    Like I said, if he is too good for this sort of thing, if this is beneath his artistry,then move on.

    Reply
  9. I’d love to here about some other stuff than the games, so if you provide some ground coverage of how it is just in the townships and/or at the parties that people watch the game, I’d much appreciate it, and I’m sure others would find it a good read.

    Lucky you to be in S. Africa, but I guess being in Espana for the summer is a good alternative. The passion for the world cup here is pretty remarkable.

    Reply
  10. Brad:

    Players should know where they are playing and tinkering has to be done before the World Cup. Especially for us, because we don’t have individual superstars so team cohesion is extremely important.

    I think he should be playing Torres and Gomez.

    Reply
  11. most teams need to figure out starters and experiment before the WC because of problems with form or fitness, Davies goes out so we give Buddle, Findley, Gomez, Dempsey, and Altidore looks up top. Same goes with our defense. Heck even England was giving Defoe and Crouch a chance to lock down the other striker spot next to Rooney. Bob doesn’t have that much control over the development of players or their form or fitness, hence he has to put out the best team he can at a given time. The only problem I have with Bob is in game tactical management (not making subs soon enough) and his loyalty to certain players (clark, bornstein) over players that should get more time (torres, holden).

    Reply
  12. As annoying as Jamie Trecker’s opinion was, I do find a nugget of truth worrisome: one good game + one mediocre game + one bad game = USA. I think we have the highest probability of coming out with 4 points. More than that is about as likely as only 3 points. So it’s fair to say in my mind we are likely to get out of our group, but not highly likely. Nevertheless, I am pulling for the boys to rise to the occasion.

    Reply
  13. Brad:

    It depends on when those “friendlies” take place. This was the U.S. team’s final roster and final three games right before the world cup. You do NOT go into the W.C. still “experimenting” unless you have an idiot for a coach. Also, it’s not much of an experiment with your final W.C. roster. Maybe we will lose to England because Bob needs to “experiment” some more.

    Reply
  14. DaveW :

    Sometimes I am absolutely astonished at how differently people see things. Everyone goes nuts here about the recent U.S. performance at the Confedrations Cup even though that was a lesser tournament and the U.S. lost their first two games and advanced with a single win and the lucky help of another team. They shouldn’t even have had the opportunity to play Spain in the first place.

    No one sees this but somehow you hear time and time again that the U.S. was “lucky” in the 2002 World Cup because they got help from South Korea. Now you even go so far as to say they only played two really good games. Really? I’m sorry but they beat Portugal and tied the hosts who went on to eliminate Italy and get to the semifinals. Then they beat Mexico. Then they outplayed Germany and were victimized by a horrible refereeing decision or they might have been in the semi-final. I saw them play FOUR excellent games. The only bad game was against Poland and obviously I saw that quite differently than you did. The U.S. was shell shocked and robbed in that game by a ref who clearly wasn’t going to let them win. They gave up an early goal but immediately bounced back to tie it. Except the referee wrongly disallowed the goal. There was NO foul. It was almost as bad of a call as the phantom penalty call on Onyewu four years later. stealing the tie game from the U.S. was bad enough, but then in seconds it became the equivalent of a two goal swing as the Poles scored again while the U.S. was correctly protesting the theft of a goal. That was totally devastating and would have been for any team. It also rejuvenated Poland who were trying to save some face and not go home in total shame. How you blame Arena for that is beyond me.

    Reply
  15. The fact is that no team should be judged by its pre-WC friendlies. Lots of teams have flubbed friendlies and done well in the WC.

    Okay, fine, the team stunk in the first half of the Turkey game, but we played a lot better and had a lot of chances in the 2nd half.

    Reply
  16. The overwhelming majority of people who post here seem to think that this is BY FAR our most talented team ever. So Bradley should have the best options for tactics of any other U.S. coach in history.

    Efficiency might get you to the world cup, but it won’t take you much further.

    I rarely, if ever, saw the U.S. play as lifeless as this team does sometimes under Bradley, when Arena was coaching them. I could also recognize specific strategies and appreciate what he was doing when Arena was coach. I haven’t got a clue what Bradley is trying to do most of the time, and when I do it doesn’t seem to make much sense.

    Reply
  17. I’m not so sure Bradley is that bad of a coach. It’s hard to tell when the talent level is what it is. The talent level also limits what kind of tactical changes the players can implement in games, by the way.

    I would say he’s been very pragmatic and able to get a lot of good results on efficiency. After all, when the US wins it’s often on converting 1 or 2 of 5 or 6 good chances while the opponents miss or have saved many more good chances.

    Reply
  18. Personally, I think hitting the right teams at the right time has a lot to do with it, especially in 2002. Not that wasn’t probably the best US team since I’ve paid attention(1994), and a great goal keeping performance, but the US only played 2 really good games, Portugal and Germany, and one tactically good game with an early goal to go on(Mexico).

    Without South Korea’s help, USA doesn’t get out of group, and the Poland game was one of the worst coached ever: when the opponent deals with every cross into the box it’s time to try something else, but the US did nothing but send crosses in the whole game.

    Reply
  19. I know I have gone against the grain when posting quite a few times. Not long ago I made a comment about Landon Donovan, a player I like, and think is an excellent player, and great by American standards, stating that his tendency to disappear and or not even show up mentally for so many games was the only reason you couldn’t rate him as a great player relative to the world’s best players. Of course nearly everyone told me I was crazy and called me a hater. (Disagreeing with someone is the new definition for hater here.)

    I recently read a great, and surprising, article interviewing Donovan in ESPN magazine and nearly bust out laughing. In the interview Donovan himself talks about his problem with “checking out” of games and needing to be motivated, and how he was taking the game for granted. I guess all of the people here who told me I was crazy for saying the same thing should tell him how wrong he is.

    Reply
  20. Your post is obviously directed at me. Even though you are obviously a half-wit and an Ives suck up, I will respond anyway.

    I have posted here and admitted when I was wrong several times over the years. I rarely see anyone else do that. There are a few, but not many.

    Reply
  21. Maybe you should learn to read. I just looked at my post again and it quite clearly states the difference between 2002 and 2006 under the same coach. It’s hard to take you seriously when you won’t even read the post before responding to it.

    It’s interesting that you state that the group was a lot tougher in 2006. That was my position. There were two teams ranked higher than us and a third team that was very good. A very tough group. Then you throw in some game changing bad calls by the referees and a weaker team, and it shouldn’t have been even remotely surprising that we were eliminated in the first round. Yet everyone threw a hissy fit and declared Bruce Arena as the world’s worst coach. The “hating” went on for years.

    Reply
  22. I didn’t make a prediction on if their point total would be enough, but the U.S. doesn’t usually do well in the goal difference category. If there is a tie for second it will probably come down to who was beaten up less by England. If the second place tie is with Slovenia, Slovenia’s defense could be the difference.

    I don’t really care about Trekker one way or the other and he certainly doesn’t influence me in any way. I do believe Bob Bradley is sub par as a coach, especially at this level. It amuses me that you think that is so absurd when the vast majority of fans on this blog ripped Bruce Arena to shreds and pretty much said he was a terrible coach who was just lucky his whole career! Now that’s absurd. Oddly enough, people are praising him again now. Not very honest is it?

    Reply
  23. I think you and others are really taking liberties with the definition of positive. Being realistic and objective means you can’t be positive? Anything can happen in a single game and that is what I’ll be positive about. That doesn’t mean I have to not be objective or realistic.

    I was NOT exaggerating about the Czech and Turkey games. Actually for this one, you don’t even have to take my opinion on it. All of the “positive” people were saying the same thing as me. That’s how bad it was. They could easily have lost 6-2 to the Czechs. The Turkey game was a remarkable turnaround, but the game should have been put away by Turkey in the first half. They missed some ridiculously easy chances.

    Your comment on the games being friendlies and tryouts for players is hilarious. The fact that it was extremely important for the U.S. to at least play well in their last few games before the world cup and the teams they were playing were lacking any real motivation makes the situation worse. They have selected their final team and you and others still persist with this not the first team nonsense. Give me a break.

    Reply
  24. aristotle,

    I am not going to insult you because that is not my style and I have too much class to do so,….

    With that said I have two comments:

    1) Your prediction is? What? Does the USA advance or not? What if they lose 1-0 to England, draw with Slovenia 1-1 and defeat Algeria 2-0. Do they advance having gone 1-1-1? Come on boy,…step up to the plate!

    2) Trecker? Please! He has nothing to lose by prediciting gloom and doom for the USA in SA. He IS hoping that the USA crash and burn so he can shout “I told you so.” His writing/opinions are so obviously devoid of objectivity that it is laughable. I cannot believe this guy even has a job with a decent soccer outlet (Fox). Do you honestly agree with Trecker when he writes “Manager Bob Bradley has not demonstrated he’s capable of doing anything more than pointing the guys in the direction of the field and wishing them the best.” Do you honestly believe that? Granted, Bob Bradley has his limitations but do really place any value on the ridiculous statements like that?

    The fact is that the USA is above no team in this tournament. Nine out of ten sensible supporters of the USA agree with that. But I recommend that you don’t buy into Trecker’s biased/axe to grind/personal attacks on Bob Bradley as some sort of professional and informed analysis. He is a sophomore,…a wise fool.

    Reply
  25. Come on man, be positive! The fact is that the USA can compete with all the mid-level teams and on very good day (or perfect day) can beat or give the best teams a run for their money.

    And I think you are exaggerating a bit, we didn’t get totally destroyed by the Czech Rep or Turkey like you seem to think. They were friendlies anyway, how can you judge the team on those games where players are out of position and/or being tried out?

    Think positive!!!

    Reply
  26. I wonder how many of the haters here who don’t want an honest discussion, and who think the word realist is an insult, will come back and post, and admit how wrong they are when Ives’ analysis proves to be far more accurate than theirs?

    Based on past experience, I would say VERY FEW. Instead we’ll get comments from the same people who will say they knew all along the U.S. was lucky, or just make a bunch of excuses.

    Reply
  27. Response to aristotle (can’t reply directly because computer won’t let me):

    Your analysis doesn’t tell me anything. We had the same coach in 2006 as in 2002…why didn’t we do as well?

    The correlation between US success is strongest with the home field advantage and the strength of the teams we had to play. In 2006 we played Czech Republic (ranked as high as #2 at the time) in the first game in Germany. That’s a pretty tough task. This time, we are playing a much easier group on a truly neutral site. I expect to get out of the group without consideration of goal difference, and if we play Germany in the round of 16, I like our chances a lot.

    Reply
  28. The U.S. is like Gonzaga (maybe someone similar, but you’ll get the idea). Not a traditional power or in a particularly deep league and not quite the best talent. They have won just enough so every fan of the team is disappointed if they don’t make it deeper into the tourney and so every fan of the game isn’t exactly surprised if they do well. Getting past the regionals is a good result and getting past the Sweet Sixteen is an outstanding result that is easily conceivable if the cards fall right. Anything more than that is probably unrealistic but not impossible if the opposition gets caught on a bad day. And as long as they play really hard, don’t make stupid mistakes, and don’t fall because of bad coaching, you can be proud and hopeful that the talent improves enough next time ’round.

    Reply
  29. It’s kind of unfortunate that we finally get a good draw by being put in one of the easier groups, but then the order of the games offsets some of that advantage.

    I would think Algeria would be a safe bet for a win given their recent problems, but by playing them last it could make that game much harder. They will either be desperate for a win to stay alive in the tournament, or they might be eliminated and could be absolutely fearless and playing for pride. Playing Algeria or Slovenia first and England last would have been a big help.

    Reply
  30. Let be realistic. We won’t beat England and then we fight for our lives in the next 2 games. But so will Algeria and Slovenia. Getting more than 3 points from this group looks impossible.

    Reply
  31. Response to Stephen (can’t reply directly because computer won’t let me):

    We don’t have to beat 5 USSRs in a row. Period. England is not USSR hockey-like. Period. Ask the England fans if their team is as heavily favored as USSR hockey was.

    We have to get out of our group. We have done well in WCs not played in Europe. If we get out of our group we might play Germany. Germany is not invincible. If we beat them we might get Mexico. Are they one of your USSR-like teams? If we reach the semi-finals it will be a bigger achievement than 1980 Olympics hockey.

    Will we have to beat Brazil, Portugal AND Ivory Coast (not that Portugal and CIV are USSR-like)?

    Reply
  32. 1998 – Idiot coach.

    2002 – Best coach ever, best team ever.

    2006 – Begin of decline of team, devastatingly bad calls cost U.S. points in two games.

    2010 – Mediocre coach at best. Team with completely unpredictable defense. Onyewu could eliminate the U.S. single handed due to not being ready. They targeted him in the last world cup. They wouldn’t let him use his physicality in any way.

    What does this tell you?

    Reply
  33. I wonder how many of the fanboys here who don’t want an honest discussion, and who think the word realist is an insult, will come back and post, and admit how wrong they are when Trekker’s analysis proves to be far more accurate than theirs?

    Based on past experience, I would say VERY FEW. Instead we’ll get comments from the same people who will say they knew all along the U.S. wasn’t good enough, or just make a bunch of excuses.

    A good recent example of this was the posts made during the Turkey game. After getting pulverized by the Czech Republic, and ripped apart by Turkey in the first half of that game, all of a sudden everyone posting instantly transformed their views and sounded like Trekker! You can insult people like me and Trekker because we are realists, but at least we’re a lot more honest than the people who jump on and off bandwagons all of the time. I thinks Ives and his overly optimistic view of how well the U.S. will do has as much to do with not wanting to alienate the fans of his blog, as it does with his real view.

    I will root for the U.S. to go as far as possible and will be ecstatic if they get out of the first round, but with our defense and good old Bob’s coaching ability, it could be tough.

    Prediction:

    U.S. vs England U.S. loses
    U.S. vs Slovenia U.S. loses or ties.
    U.S. vs Algeria U.S. wins

    Let the insults begin.

    Reply
  34. 1998:

    WC in Europe

    USA with bad results against Euro teams

    USA does not reach second round

    2002:

    WC not in Europe

    USA with good results, reaches 1/4 finals

    2006:

    WC in Europe

    USA with bad results against Euro teams

    USA does not reach second round

    2010:

    WC not in Europe

    What does this pattern tell you?

    Reply
  35. Your idiotic use of rankings to determine where the US falls in the pecking order is what prompted my protest.

    A win and two draws (amongst 4 losses I believe) against the teams you list over the past two years or so is hardly MILES ahead.

    Not many people think we can win it. Way too many people think we have no right to even aspire to it. Your BOY Trecker seems to be one of them.

    Reply
  36. I don’t like Trecker as he doesn’t sell his points very well (he is too negative), but I think you missed the point of the article. It was a best case/worse case piece and Trecker gave the worse case scenario. I will give you that he probably believes a lot of what he wrote, but, if you look at his other piece on the US team, you will see that his view is a little more realistic. I think Ives did a much better job with the call of the piece.

    Reply
  37. More imporatantly, I’m pretty sure how well the CONCACAF teams do as a unit in the World Cup will help with future seeding placement.

    Reply
  38. “It’s not like everything he spits out is total garbage. ”

    That is true. Read what I wrote. 80% lie, 20% true. Comparing Trecker( Trekker?) to Goebbels is not a major stretch. Goebbels thought he had a real handle on things, that there was a political answer to everything. He was very surprised at the Allies’ intransigent attitude at the end.

    How this relates to Trekker is that Jamie makes no allowance for the fact that his point of view might not represent the total reality of the USMNT’s chances. A very banal point of view and we all know about the banality of evil.

    There is every chance that Treker is 100% correct on everything he wrote but there is also a very good chance he is 100% wrong.

    One thing Bradley has done well is disguise just what condition the USMNT is in.

    We know that Howard, Dempsey and Donovan are most likely going to play very well. Other than that there is almost nothing certain about this team. England could beat us 7-0 or we could beat them 3-1. I can make a reasoned argument for either score.

    Trekker is intellectually lazy. He doesn’t seem to bother researching and writing on what is actually happening with this team. And that sort of intellectual laziness allowed people like Goebbels to flourish.

    If soccer is beneath Trekker’s literary nous; if he wishes to develop a more intellectual oeuvre, if he feels he is slumming, then he should go out and write the next great American novel and leave us heathens to our primitve pastimes.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to JSmiley Cancel reply