It's one of my favorite times of the year, with the kick-off of the Barclay's Premiership just hours away. 20 teams enter the new season with both monsters and minnows hoping to take home some kind of silver. Who will achieve those goals? Here's are a few predictions (though we all know a blind monkey throwing darts at a board in a dark room will likely do as well as I do).
The Premiership - Though many can hope, realistically the race for the title comes down to four teams, with a fifth pushing hard to be included in that group. In a race that I think will come down to the last several weeks, it will once again be Manchester United raising the trophy. Despite the losses of Christiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid and Carlos Tevez to Manchester City, they still possess a ferocious attack led by Wayne Rooney, Dimitar Berbatov and underrated newcomer Antonio Valencia. The best defense in the league returns intact, though goalkeeper Edwin van der Sar will miss the early season with broken fingers. As a bonus, they have the best manager in England (and maybe all of Europe) in Sir Alex Ferguson. The scorelines may be a little closer, but the end result will be the same: plenty of Red Devil victories. Once again dogging their heels will be Liverpool. Like ManU, The Reds also dealt with a heavy loss over the summer when Xabi Alonso took more of Real Madrid's cash and headed for Spain. That puts an even heavier burden on Steven Gerrard, not the best of developments for a brilliant player who is showing signs of being brittle. The defense is solid, and Pepe Reina is a class keeper, so it should come down to scoring goals . While I do think that Liverpool will give ManU a solid battle, if either Gerrard or equally injury prone striker Fernando Torres is lost for any length of time, I could easily see this team dropping out of the top four. Battling for third will be Arsenal and Chelsea. The Gunners have a potent attack, led by the enormously gifted Andrei Arshavin, Cesc Fabregas, Robin van Persie and Carlos Vela. However, there are two concerns. First is whether the attackers can stay healthy. All 4 missed significant portions of 2008-09, and more injuries could cause Arsene Wenger serious heartburn. The other is can the Gunners keep the ball out of their own net. Manuel Almunia is a quality keeper, but the defense was a weakness last season and doesn't look improved at this point. Chelsea will once again be led by Frank Lampard, John Terry, Michael Essien, Didier Drogba and Nichlas Anelka. The good news is that they form a stable core that new manager Carlo Ancelotti can build around. The bad news is that none of them is getting any younger. Drogba had a poor season in 20008-2009, and Anelka disappeared for the middle third of the season. Keeper Peter Cech is capable of both moments of brilliance and serious howlers. It's a little hard to know what to expect from Chelsea, but I think that Arsenal will pull away at the end of the season to finish third with Chelsea fourth. The wild card here is Manchester City. The new Arab owners have spent a huge amount of money to try to build a contender, but injuries are taking their toll with high priced acquisitions Roque Santa Cruz, Gareth Barry and Kolo Toure already in the training room. There appears little question that they will score goals, led by Tevez and Emmanual Adebayor, but the defense is a huge question. Shay Given is a competent keeper, but were I Mark Hughes I would have looked to upgrade that position. As it stands, I can see ManCity finishing anywhere from 4th to 12th but most likely they will wind up in the 6th-9th place range.
Just two teams comprise the ranks of the hopefuls, in that with a few good breaks they could land a place in European competition. Of them, I like Everton the best. A lot of deadwood was pruned from a 5th place squad over the summer, and several key players who were injured last season, including playmaker Mikel Arteta and striker Yakubu are set to return Add that to a good defense, the best goalkeeper in England in Tim Howard, and a number of young and up coming players, and this is a very solid side. I have some concerns about their depth, but the Toffees will be fighting for a place in Europe in 2010. The other side is Tottenham Hotspur. Herry Redknapp nearly pulled a rabbit out of the hat in leading the team from the relegation depths to a top 8 finish during the second half of 2009. He will be looking to build on that with the addition of Peter Crouch to an already potent attack led by Luca Modric, Robbie Keane and Jermaine Dafoe. Wilson Palacios adds bite in the midfield, while the defense (which was surprisingly strong in the second half last year) relies on stalwarts Ledley King and Jonaathan Woodgate. The chief concerns are the health of King and Woodgate, and the shaky goalkeeping situation, where neither Gomes nor Carlo Cudicini appear to be the answer. Still this is a team with the talent to cause lots of problems, and perhaps even get that coveted European spot.
At the opposite end of the table, three teams stand out as relegation candidates. It would be quite the surprise to me if any of these sides remained in the Premiership at seasons end. First up is Portsmouth. Left a shambles and facing bankruptcy by previous owners, the side has finally found a deep pocketed owner. The problem is the arrival of Sulaiman al Fahim is likely too late to make the changes necessary for immediate success. Most of last year's key players have fled for greener pastures, leave a side lacking any real star quality. With few attacking options and a porous defense, keeper David James is looking at a long season on picking the ball out of his own net. Another current Premiership side that appears to be in deep trouble is Hull City. After a nearly miraculous start to last season, the club completely fell apart and barely survived relegation. US striker Jozy Altidore and Steve Hunt should at least provide a little more offensive spark, but otherwise there is precious little new blood in a side that has won just twice in 30 games. The defense is pedestrian, goalkeeper Matt Duke is a liability and there are whispers that manager Phil Brown may barely last into the season. Barring a stunning development such as a monster season from Altidore, the Tigers are headed back to the Colaship. Finally, as much as I admire the fighting spirit of Burnley's newly promoted side, they are woefully out of their depth in the Premiership. They simply don't have the speed, talent or money to compete on a long-term basis at this level. Their offseason activities seem to acknowledge this, as they have been frugal to say the least. It will be one year in the bright lights, then back to the second division they will go.
So that is one observer's take on the English Premiership 2009-2010. Future posts will deal with the FA Cup and UEFA Champions League. Make sure to save this so you can come back and make fun of me in the spring when I will have proven badly off base.
Until next time, thanks for reading!
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Crime and Punishment
Two items of sports news caught my attention yesterday, and the stark contrast of these events gave me pause. First, National Football League commissioner Roger Goodell announced that Cleveland wide receiver Donte Stallworth was suspended for one season without pay as a result of an drunken driving incident in Florida during which Stallworth killed a pedestrian. A short time later, it was announced that convicted felon and quarterback Michael Vick had signed a 2-year contract that could be worth almost $10 million with the Philadelphia Eagles. One career (admittedly one that was struggling to hold on) dealt what may be a final blow, the other reaching the culmination of a Lazarus-like resurrection. Both events make me almost physically ill.
It's no secret that in recent years the NFL has had a significant number of players making the headlines for off the field criminal activities, including everything from homicide cases (Carolina wide receiver Rae Carruth was convicted of conspiring to murder his girlfriend) to felony drug trafficking (Cowboy lineman Nate Newton was convicted for transporting 175 pounds of marijuana) to illegal possession of a firearm (Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress is currently charged with this offense after shooting himself in the leg with the weapon in question at a nightclub). Of course, the list doesn't include a multitude of DUI's, domestic abuse charges, simple assaults and other "minor" offenses. But why is this so? Is it, as some writers/armchair psychologists have speculated, simply that football is a violent sport played by exceptional athletes who are trained to perform acts of great violence on the field? Is there any truth to a newer school of thought that blames erratic brain function (and resulting, seemingly irrational crimes) on the residue of years of concussive blows to the head? Are these coddled, protected men so unused to being in the real world that they have come to believe their athletic prowess and fame will protect them no matter what foolish actions they partake in? I don't know the answer to these questions. All I know is that these crimes have acted like a corrosive acid on my liking for this sport.
When I was younger, I was a huge fan of the Washington Redskins, my hometown team. I remember the years of Sonny Jurgenson and Sam Huff as players, not announcers. I still know many of the names of the "Over the Hill Gang", the first Redskins team to get to the Super Bowl (where they lost one of the ugliest games ever, 14-7). After a few dark years, a new shining beacon arrived by the name of Joe Gibbs, and suddenly the Redskins were champions, not just once but 3 times in nine years. Then, following the death of owner Jack Kent Cooke and the eventual takeover of the team by a brash new owner, Daniel Snyder, the dark years descended again, and have lasted to the present day. As I got older, I learned that some of my heroes such as Jurgenson, John Riggins and Dexter Manley were deeply flawed men, but most of that came out after their careers were over. I felt bad for them, but it didn't affect the team directly, so these foibles were quietly overlooked. Then nearby rival Baltimore was shaken in 2000 by the Ray Lewis case, in which the star middle linebacker was initially charged in a shooting in Atlanta with everything from homicide to aggravated assault (he eventually pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice), followed in 2004 by the conviction of star running back Jamal Lewis on federal cocaine distribution charges. More charges followed, with a distressing number of convictions. Still, these were things that happened in other towns, to other teams. Then, in 2007, it hit home. Star Redskins safety Sean Taylor, who was just coming into his own as one of the best defensive players in the league, was shot to death in his own home by burglars during the Redskins season. The aftermath was traumatic to me. For several days, the truth, that Taylor was trying to protect his wife and young daughter, was counterbalanced by a disturbing series of stories alleging that Taylor was involved in gangs, in drugs, and that the crime was in retaliation for a confrontation with thugs over some all-terrain vehicles the year before. The team rose up and miraculously made the playoffs. My heart wasn't in it. For me, like many others, sport, in it's myriad forms, is a form of escape. It allows us to put aside the trials and tribulations of the real world and focus on something as clean and pure and simple as skill against skill, strategy against strategy, and the fervent wish that we too could be as athletically gifted as those we are watching. Now the real world had intruded, and the idealism that sport represented had been shattered. It has happened to most sports now (the Escobar killing during the World Cup in 1994, the 2002 manslaughter case against the NBA's Jayson Williams, the drug scandals that have wracked sports from baseball to cycling to NASCAR, the tawdry figure skating affair in 1994) with very few remaining unblemished. The corrosion of the spirit continues unabated.
Now there are two additional reminders of this. In the lesser known story, Stallworth spent a night in a bar drinking, then hit and killed a man on the way home with his car. His blood alcohol reading was .12 (the legal limit in Florida is .08). He reported the accident himself, waited on the scene for police, plead guilty to a charge of DUI homicide (though receiving a ludicrously light 30-day sentence with two years of monitored house arrest), and has reportedly reached a financial settlement with the man's family. Some allege the punishment is harsh in response to another serious NFL DUI case (the much criticized Leonard Little vehicular homicide case in 1999), but I keep coming back to one thing: he killed a man. It wasn't in combat or wartime. He wasn't defending himself. He certainly didn't mean to do it. But there is one, unescapable fact. Stallworth took a 4,500 pound blunt object and hit a man with it at high speed. He killed him. How is that harsh? He'll get another chance at the NFL in a year. That family will never see their husband/father/son again. Stallworth made one bad decision, and now a lot of people are paying the price.
Michael Vick's story is better known. Implicated in a dog fighting ring in 2007, he lied, obfuscated and tried an increasingly desperate series of excuses until finally being convicted on federal felony charges late in that year and sentenced to 2 years in jail. At the time of his conviction he was given an indefinite suspension by the NFL, which was lifted by commissioner Goodell last week. Yesterday he signed with the Eagles for millions of dollars. Michael Vick didn't kill anyone. Yet to me, his crime is just as grievous as that of Stallworth. Vick tried to kill the truth. Ok, that is an idealistic statement. In our system of criminal justice however, there are penalties for trying to conceal the truth, which is exactly what Vick tried to do. In my mind, he has become a stereotypical pampered athlete who doesn't give a damn about anything except himself and his paycheck, and is prepared to do anything to avoid facing the consequences of his actions. Hardly the prototype of the hero-athlete, or anything remotely resembling a role model.
A number of years ago, basketball player Charles Barkley achieved some notoriety by proclaiming far and wide that he was not a role model. Therein lies the problem. Like it or not, young people look up to athletes, especially successful ones. Now there are two other athletes for them to look at. One is a relatively stand up guy who made a catastrophic error, but he's not a star player and gets suspended for a year beyond his legal penalties. The other is a liar who tried to escape his punishment at all costs, but is a star player who served his legal penalties and stands to make millions of dollars from the NFL yet again. Who is the greater villain? I'm don't know anymore. All I am sure of is that the corrosion has tainted my love of football, and I am not sure if the damage can be repaired.
Thanks for reading!
It's no secret that in recent years the NFL has had a significant number of players making the headlines for off the field criminal activities, including everything from homicide cases (Carolina wide receiver Rae Carruth was convicted of conspiring to murder his girlfriend) to felony drug trafficking (Cowboy lineman Nate Newton was convicted for transporting 175 pounds of marijuana) to illegal possession of a firearm (Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress is currently charged with this offense after shooting himself in the leg with the weapon in question at a nightclub). Of course, the list doesn't include a multitude of DUI's, domestic abuse charges, simple assaults and other "minor" offenses. But why is this so? Is it, as some writers/armchair psychologists have speculated, simply that football is a violent sport played by exceptional athletes who are trained to perform acts of great violence on the field? Is there any truth to a newer school of thought that blames erratic brain function (and resulting, seemingly irrational crimes) on the residue of years of concussive blows to the head? Are these coddled, protected men so unused to being in the real world that they have come to believe their athletic prowess and fame will protect them no matter what foolish actions they partake in? I don't know the answer to these questions. All I know is that these crimes have acted like a corrosive acid on my liking for this sport.
When I was younger, I was a huge fan of the Washington Redskins, my hometown team. I remember the years of Sonny Jurgenson and Sam Huff as players, not announcers. I still know many of the names of the "Over the Hill Gang", the first Redskins team to get to the Super Bowl (where they lost one of the ugliest games ever, 14-7). After a few dark years, a new shining beacon arrived by the name of Joe Gibbs, and suddenly the Redskins were champions, not just once but 3 times in nine years. Then, following the death of owner Jack Kent Cooke and the eventual takeover of the team by a brash new owner, Daniel Snyder, the dark years descended again, and have lasted to the present day. As I got older, I learned that some of my heroes such as Jurgenson, John Riggins and Dexter Manley were deeply flawed men, but most of that came out after their careers were over. I felt bad for them, but it didn't affect the team directly, so these foibles were quietly overlooked. Then nearby rival Baltimore was shaken in 2000 by the Ray Lewis case, in which the star middle linebacker was initially charged in a shooting in Atlanta with everything from homicide to aggravated assault (he eventually pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice), followed in 2004 by the conviction of star running back Jamal Lewis on federal cocaine distribution charges. More charges followed, with a distressing number of convictions. Still, these were things that happened in other towns, to other teams. Then, in 2007, it hit home. Star Redskins safety Sean Taylor, who was just coming into his own as one of the best defensive players in the league, was shot to death in his own home by burglars during the Redskins season. The aftermath was traumatic to me. For several days, the truth, that Taylor was trying to protect his wife and young daughter, was counterbalanced by a disturbing series of stories alleging that Taylor was involved in gangs, in drugs, and that the crime was in retaliation for a confrontation with thugs over some all-terrain vehicles the year before. The team rose up and miraculously made the playoffs. My heart wasn't in it. For me, like many others, sport, in it's myriad forms, is a form of escape. It allows us to put aside the trials and tribulations of the real world and focus on something as clean and pure and simple as skill against skill, strategy against strategy, and the fervent wish that we too could be as athletically gifted as those we are watching. Now the real world had intruded, and the idealism that sport represented had been shattered. It has happened to most sports now (the Escobar killing during the World Cup in 1994, the 2002 manslaughter case against the NBA's Jayson Williams, the drug scandals that have wracked sports from baseball to cycling to NASCAR, the tawdry figure skating affair in 1994) with very few remaining unblemished. The corrosion of the spirit continues unabated.
Now there are two additional reminders of this. In the lesser known story, Stallworth spent a night in a bar drinking, then hit and killed a man on the way home with his car. His blood alcohol reading was .12 (the legal limit in Florida is .08). He reported the accident himself, waited on the scene for police, plead guilty to a charge of DUI homicide (though receiving a ludicrously light 30-day sentence with two years of monitored house arrest), and has reportedly reached a financial settlement with the man's family. Some allege the punishment is harsh in response to another serious NFL DUI case (the much criticized Leonard Little vehicular homicide case in 1999), but I keep coming back to one thing: he killed a man. It wasn't in combat or wartime. He wasn't defending himself. He certainly didn't mean to do it. But there is one, unescapable fact. Stallworth took a 4,500 pound blunt object and hit a man with it at high speed. He killed him. How is that harsh? He'll get another chance at the NFL in a year. That family will never see their husband/father/son again. Stallworth made one bad decision, and now a lot of people are paying the price.
Michael Vick's story is better known. Implicated in a dog fighting ring in 2007, he lied, obfuscated and tried an increasingly desperate series of excuses until finally being convicted on federal felony charges late in that year and sentenced to 2 years in jail. At the time of his conviction he was given an indefinite suspension by the NFL, which was lifted by commissioner Goodell last week. Yesterday he signed with the Eagles for millions of dollars. Michael Vick didn't kill anyone. Yet to me, his crime is just as grievous as that of Stallworth. Vick tried to kill the truth. Ok, that is an idealistic statement. In our system of criminal justice however, there are penalties for trying to conceal the truth, which is exactly what Vick tried to do. In my mind, he has become a stereotypical pampered athlete who doesn't give a damn about anything except himself and his paycheck, and is prepared to do anything to avoid facing the consequences of his actions. Hardly the prototype of the hero-athlete, or anything remotely resembling a role model.
A number of years ago, basketball player Charles Barkley achieved some notoriety by proclaiming far and wide that he was not a role model. Therein lies the problem. Like it or not, young people look up to athletes, especially successful ones. Now there are two other athletes for them to look at. One is a relatively stand up guy who made a catastrophic error, but he's not a star player and gets suspended for a year beyond his legal penalties. The other is a liar who tried to escape his punishment at all costs, but is a star player who served his legal penalties and stands to make millions of dollars from the NFL yet again. Who is the greater villain? I'm don't know anymore. All I am sure of is that the corrosion has tainted my love of football, and I am not sure if the damage can be repaired.
Thanks for reading!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
US-Mexico - AAARRRGGGHHH!
Yep, yesterday's game made me want to scream. Long, loud, and profanely. Why? It wasn't that the US lost. Nor did it have anything to do with lineups, tactics or anything related to Bob Bradley. Even the dreadful officiating wasn't the cause. No, the sole villain in this case is a man named Bill Gates. Right around the 74th minute, Mr Gates' infernal creation, Windows, decided to take a powder. All of the usual complaints hit at once. The screen froze, the "End Program" function didn't, alt-control-delete wouldn't take, nothing worked. In the end, I had to kill the power to reboot. Anyone whose had to take that approach knows what happened. It took about two and a half days to reboot. When I finally got the game back up, it was just in time to see the end credits and the final score. Needless to say, I was less than pleased, especially since Al Gore's invention was my only recourse to watch the game. So Mr. Gates, wherever you are, that middle finger from the Mexican fan on the front page of El Tiempo this morning also represents my feelings toward you (at least for the time being).
What did I think about the game? Until I see the third I missed, I can't really give an honest judgement. From what I am hearing, I may just give it a pass. Like everyone else, I was elated by the superb Donovan to Davies goal for the US, but aside from that I never got the feeling that the US was going to threaten again. Even after going down, the Mexican side continued to play their style, and within minutes it was clear they were solidly back in control. Castro's strike was brilliant, but he had enough time to bake a cake since Bradley Jr. had over committed to cover Blanco. From that point on, I was just hoping to escape with a point, especially after the three yellow cards to US defenders (Onyewu's hand ball I could at least buy as a professional foul, but the cards to DeMerit and Bocanegra were soft, to be polite). After the crash, when I finally got back on and saw the final score, I can't say I was surprised. The winning goal (having seen the replay) looks like a typical Azteca goal, with a Mexican substitute capitalizing on tired legs. Yes, Juarez made a fine run in beating Donovan and Bocanegra, but DeMerit didn't have enough left to get over and cover the cross, and Onyewu was caught too close to the top of the box to cover DeMerit's mark, Sabah. Still and all, to me it was a just result. Aside from an even opening ten minutes, this was Mexico's game, and they deserved the result.
The US players really have to look at this game and be upset. I'm not sure why, but this was a team that seemed overconfident to the point of cockiness before the game, and outside of Davies, Onyewu, and Holden in a substitute role, it was not justified. Davies for me was the US man of the match, as besides the goal he was the only attacking threat for the US. I still can't help but wonder what might have happened if Davies had connected on Holden's terrific cross in the 71st, or he hadn't been ruled offside (close but correct) a minute later. Onyewu is fast on the road to being the best defender the US has ever produced, and while his clearances left a bit to be desired, he was the rock at the back that kept the Mexican attack at bay for 85 minutes. As mentioned above, I don't think either goal can be laid at his feet. Holden came in and added what little spark was apparent in the US offense later in the game. Tim Howard was ok in goal with one brilliant save on Dos Santos, but several scary moments that defenders had to clean up. However, he too could not be faulted for either goal ( a screaming golazo and a wide open man 6 yards out). For everyone else, this was a game to forget. Leading this group were Bocanegra, Dempsey, and Ching. Bocanegra was just dreadful. Poor touches, lousy clearances and repeatedly getting torched by opposing flank players is usually a direct path to the bench. However, Bocanegra is the best of a batch of bad options at left defender, so this nightmare likely won't affect his status. Dempsey was simply anonymous, and after his scoring exploits at the Confederations Cup, that is not good enough. Again, though, he has to stay on the pitch just for those moments of brilliance he provides. Ching was a disaster at holding forward. His play in this game may have been the worst of the three, as he appears to have forgotten how to trap the ball. When you are supposed to hold the ball so your team can advance up the field, and you can't even get more than one touch, that's a problem. If he had 30 touches in the game, I would bet that 50-75% resulted in turnovers. He was a big part of the reason the US simply could not possess the ball. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't take a shot at Donovan. While he did have one moment of brilliance (the turn and pass that released Davies for the US goal), he was mostly anonymous for the rest of the game. To cap a bad day off, he was beaten by Juarez on the run the that lead to the winning goal. If the US is to be successful, Donovan has to influence play as he did in the first 10 minutes, and not as he did in the last 80.
For the US, I thought this was a disappointing result, but not a crushing defeat. After six of the ten Hexagonal matches, they are tied for second with Honduras (third on goal difference), and a point up on Mexico (the US has a +4 goal difference over El Tri). After Trinidad & Tobago beat El Salvador last night, it looks more and more like all four of the top teams are safe. That means the US, Costa Rica, Honduras and Mexico are battling to avoid the play-in game against the 5th place South American qualifier, which will likely come from among Ecuador, Uruguay, Columbia, and Venezuela. Trinidad & Tobago and El Salvador are in deep holes on only 5 points and given the schedules I don't think they can recover. Honduras' surprising win over Costa Rica (the surprise was the score, not the fact they won) mixes up the pot a bit, especially since it really hurt Costa Rica on goal difference. Each team still has a tough road game to play, though it appears the US may have a little easier path in the next pair of games as they get bottom teams El Salvador at home and T&T on the road, while Mexico has to visit the cauldron in Costa Rica before getting Honduras back at home. Honduras and Costa Rica each have a tough match and an easier one in the September pair. I think everything will come down to the last match day, with the US having an advantage in playing Costa Rica at home to win the group with 20 points, followed by Mexico on goal difference at 19, Costa Rica with 19, and Honduras going to the play-in game on 17. We'll know how good a prognosticator I am in about 62 days.
Thanks for reading!
What did I think about the game? Until I see the third I missed, I can't really give an honest judgement. From what I am hearing, I may just give it a pass. Like everyone else, I was elated by the superb Donovan to Davies goal for the US, but aside from that I never got the feeling that the US was going to threaten again. Even after going down, the Mexican side continued to play their style, and within minutes it was clear they were solidly back in control. Castro's strike was brilliant, but he had enough time to bake a cake since Bradley Jr. had over committed to cover Blanco. From that point on, I was just hoping to escape with a point, especially after the three yellow cards to US defenders (Onyewu's hand ball I could at least buy as a professional foul, but the cards to DeMerit and Bocanegra were soft, to be polite). After the crash, when I finally got back on and saw the final score, I can't say I was surprised. The winning goal (having seen the replay) looks like a typical Azteca goal, with a Mexican substitute capitalizing on tired legs. Yes, Juarez made a fine run in beating Donovan and Bocanegra, but DeMerit didn't have enough left to get over and cover the cross, and Onyewu was caught too close to the top of the box to cover DeMerit's mark, Sabah. Still and all, to me it was a just result. Aside from an even opening ten minutes, this was Mexico's game, and they deserved the result.
The US players really have to look at this game and be upset. I'm not sure why, but this was a team that seemed overconfident to the point of cockiness before the game, and outside of Davies, Onyewu, and Holden in a substitute role, it was not justified. Davies for me was the US man of the match, as besides the goal he was the only attacking threat for the US. I still can't help but wonder what might have happened if Davies had connected on Holden's terrific cross in the 71st, or he hadn't been ruled offside (close but correct) a minute later. Onyewu is fast on the road to being the best defender the US has ever produced, and while his clearances left a bit to be desired, he was the rock at the back that kept the Mexican attack at bay for 85 minutes. As mentioned above, I don't think either goal can be laid at his feet. Holden came in and added what little spark was apparent in the US offense later in the game. Tim Howard was ok in goal with one brilliant save on Dos Santos, but several scary moments that defenders had to clean up. However, he too could not be faulted for either goal ( a screaming golazo and a wide open man 6 yards out). For everyone else, this was a game to forget. Leading this group were Bocanegra, Dempsey, and Ching. Bocanegra was just dreadful. Poor touches, lousy clearances and repeatedly getting torched by opposing flank players is usually a direct path to the bench. However, Bocanegra is the best of a batch of bad options at left defender, so this nightmare likely won't affect his status. Dempsey was simply anonymous, and after his scoring exploits at the Confederations Cup, that is not good enough. Again, though, he has to stay on the pitch just for those moments of brilliance he provides. Ching was a disaster at holding forward. His play in this game may have been the worst of the three, as he appears to have forgotten how to trap the ball. When you are supposed to hold the ball so your team can advance up the field, and you can't even get more than one touch, that's a problem. If he had 30 touches in the game, I would bet that 50-75% resulted in turnovers. He was a big part of the reason the US simply could not possess the ball. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't take a shot at Donovan. While he did have one moment of brilliance (the turn and pass that released Davies for the US goal), he was mostly anonymous for the rest of the game. To cap a bad day off, he was beaten by Juarez on the run the that lead to the winning goal. If the US is to be successful, Donovan has to influence play as he did in the first 10 minutes, and not as he did in the last 80.
For the US, I thought this was a disappointing result, but not a crushing defeat. After six of the ten Hexagonal matches, they are tied for second with Honduras (third on goal difference), and a point up on Mexico (the US has a +4 goal difference over El Tri). After Trinidad & Tobago beat El Salvador last night, it looks more and more like all four of the top teams are safe. That means the US, Costa Rica, Honduras and Mexico are battling to avoid the play-in game against the 5th place South American qualifier, which will likely come from among Ecuador, Uruguay, Columbia, and Venezuela. Trinidad & Tobago and El Salvador are in deep holes on only 5 points and given the schedules I don't think they can recover. Honduras' surprising win over Costa Rica (the surprise was the score, not the fact they won) mixes up the pot a bit, especially since it really hurt Costa Rica on goal difference. Each team still has a tough road game to play, though it appears the US may have a little easier path in the next pair of games as they get bottom teams El Salvador at home and T&T on the road, while Mexico has to visit the cauldron in Costa Rica before getting Honduras back at home. Honduras and Costa Rica each have a tough match and an easier one in the September pair. I think everything will come down to the last match day, with the US having an advantage in playing Costa Rica at home to win the group with 20 points, followed by Mexico on goal difference at 19, Costa Rica with 19, and Honduras going to the play-in game on 17. We'll know how good a prognosticator I am in about 62 days.
Thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
