Dave's random mumblings…

I’m leaving the rotting corpse of the England team where it lay and turning my attention to the US team and what happened there.

The World Cup is over and the US football scene is falling back to its usual level of coverage that’s designed for the anoraks and not the casual “is it a World Cup year?” fan.

The US were somewhat outplayed in the final 16 by a rather good Ghana team that a lot of people seemed to be looking past towards a quarterfinal game with Uruguay.

The team was unconvincing in the group stage (as were England), take away the routine ball that Rob Green fumbled in the opening game and the group would have looked very different. If England had won that game 1-0 the US would have been drawing lots against Slovenia for the right to advance to the second stage rather than winning the group.

Bob Bradley the US manager has a lot of detractors. He has been in charge for three-and-a-half years, coached the team in 66 games and called up a total of 92 different players during that time. He has made some inexplicable personnel decisions.

• Sticking with Jose Altidore no matter how bad he’s playing.
• Freddy Adu never even made Bradley’s preliminary 30-man squad for South Africa. Adu is young, but could be the best outfield player to come out of the US youth system.
• Picking Ricardo Clark, a player who’s does not have the speed or touch to play at international level. He was chosen to start the first Group Stage game against England and made the mistake that led to England’s goal. Inexplicably he was chosen again for the Ghana game and made the error there that led to Ghana’s first goal.
• Starting clearly out of form RSL player Robbie Findley over Herculez Gomez and the red hot Edson Buddle.

To be fair Bradley has had some success. Most notably winning the Gold Cup in 2007, beating Spain and reaching the final of the Confederations Cup last year. There were a couple of rough patches, but in the end he ensured a fairly straightforward qualification for the World Cup, and finished atop Group C at the tournament.

I’ve said before that qualification for the World Cup should be all-but automatic for this team. Three teams are guaranteed to come out of CONCACAF; they should be Mexico, the US and whoever else is hot (Honduras this cycle) so I don’t see that as much of an achievement.

The Win over Spain and leading Brazil 2-0 at half time at the Confederations cup was impressive, but the success here seems to have been put to one side and not built on.

Bradley inherited a very disciplined side from Bruce Arena, not the most creative team in the world, but very functional and played to their strengths. Unusually for an international side the US team play a lot of games together, far more than the European and South American sides. However during those games he picked 92 different players, no chance at consistency or taking advantage of all those games to build that well drilled club mentality that has been so obvious over the last month in sides like Spain, Germany and Holland.

Under Bradley that discipline has been lost and the team has no real identity or style. They have been questionable at the back and gave up a lot of goals against mediocre opposition during the qualifying campaign. His best player is unquestionably Donovan, who gets misused in a far more defensive role that takes away a lot of his influence on the game that makes him so important to LA and was seen during his loan spell with Everton.

We are at the start of another four year World Cup cycle, a coach needs two years to understand the personnel and get them playing his way, and another two years to actually qualify. The question that the USSF needs to ask, is Bob Bradley the right person to lead this team through this cycle?

If not then who. Jurgen Klinsmann’s name keeps coming up. For the last 6 years he’s been a large part of building the Lowe’s young and talented German squad.  A team that plays very tidy, attractive, attacking football, with loads of confidence.

Klinsmann lives in LA and has an understanding of US football. He was the federation’s first choice but said no when the USSF would not give him the level of control he wanted over the entire national team set up. He has proven with his role with the German squad that he knows how to build a team at this level and probably has a better understanding than anyone else about what needs to be done to raise the bar for the US Team between now and Brazil 2014.

I fear the USSF would rather stay with what they know and either stay with Bradley or one of the other insider coaches they know. Going with someone like Klinsmann and giving up control to him would be a philosophical change fore the USSF, but it may be what they need to make it to the next level and possibly repeat the results of 2002.

Last Saturday lunchtime Englishmen all over North America pulled on the three lions, went to the bar, sang Go Save the Queen and expected England to do the business over the hosts.

The Three Lions pub in Redmond was full to brimming, there were hundreds at the George and Dragon in Fremont and the story was repeated all over Seattle and North America.

Here is the basics, England invented football. Americans don’t like football, they don’t even call it football, they use the “S” word. In Seattle football competes with baseball and a game called football.

Us English, on the other hand, live and die the game, it’s important and we see the three lions as an extension of who we are. The whole idea of being beaten at ‘our’ game by the Americans is just about the greatest shame I can imagine. It’s not only the result on the field; it’s the ribbing at work and the piss taking from friends. It would be bad.

In 2010 it’s no longer true to say football is a game that does not interest Americans, it does. Also it’s a game that the Americans are rather good at, Landon Donovan may be the first world class player to come out of the US youth system, and its got the potential to be a rich source of good players.

The MLS Championship game does not hold the appeal of the World Series (named because it was originally sponsored by the ‘The World’ newspaper) or the Super Bowl. But last year in Seattle there was 45,000 knowledgeable fans there for the game.

Love of the game

In 1994 the US hosted the World Cup (England did not make it, look for “Graham Taylor impossible job” on youtube, it’s worth it) in 1996 the US launched Major League Soccer (MLS) as the top-level league in the US. MLS had some slightly rocky times in the first few years, but seems to be doing OK now. There are 16 teams, and over the next two years adds three more. There are quite a few “soccer specific stadiums” and the league as a whole (led by Seattle, LA and Toronto) should make a small profit this year or next. Something way beyond the premier league.

The average attendance for MLS is approaching 20,000, similar to the Coca-cola championship. Seattle play to 36,000 every game, Toronto sell out 22,000 each home game and are looking to expand their stadium.

The youth system is huge, for kids football is the number 1 participation sport in the USA. Having been part of the set up in Washington State as a coach, it’s well organized with a lot of good coaches for the kids that are good enough. It is aimed at preparing kids for college; there is no real club academy system for the elite kids. The truth is last Saturday’s game was not just about Robert Green’s mistake. England had the entire second half to score another goal and could not do so.

And the United States were well worth the draw.

Just before the disastrous US run at World Cup in 1998 (and before the failure of the US team to beat Iran) the US Soccer Federation unveiled “Project 2010″. A 12 year, $50 million project to pave the way for the US to win the World Cup in 2010. I do think the US should qualify for the finals every time. Looking at CONCACAF it should be US, Mexico (the only real rival for the US team in the confederation) plus one or two of whichever of the other Central American or Caribbean teams are having a good run of form. Four years ago it was Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago, this time it’s Honduras that gets a trip to the finals.

This does lead to the US having a somewhat inflated FIFA ranking and I get that me saying the “US should qualify… every time” is a bold statement, but with the resources they have to pull from and the opposition in CONCACAF there would be no excure for not making the finals every time. 16 years ago it was different and qualification was not a sure thing, and now it’s expected and that’s progress.

When “Project 2010″ was started consistent qualification was about where the US team was at, but today there seems little ambition beyond that. The US has a few outfield players consistently playing their club football in Europe. Landon Donovan is the best player to emerge from the US youth system, a good player who did well at Everton. He has direct style that works well in the MLS and suits the Premier League OK, but I think he would be found technically wanting in Italy or Spain.

The remains of “Project 2010″ carry on today as the “Generation Adidas” program. Generation Adidas is a venture between MLS and USSF and has been very successful in identifying and helping younger players prepare for playing professionally.

The first generation of players coming though the revamped system (led by Beasley and Donovan) made it to the last 8 in the 2002 World Cup, before loosing out to a good German side. This showed a lot of progress in a just 8 years, from happy to be there, to giving an established side a good run in the knock out phase.

So with all of this in place and a couple of generations of players coming through the revamped system, is just qualifying for the World cup every four years enough? If fans expect more than just being there, then the question becomes why does the US struggle against well drilled sides?

Clearly on the day the US can beat anyone, but the flip side of this, they can be beaten by anyone on their day. And that’s a problem.

The next question for the US team, is qualifying for the World Cup enough?

In England it’s expected that they will be playing deep into the tournament, making it to the last 8 and loosing on penalties is typically enough to keep the media at bay. Any worse than that and it’s a total failure, heads should roll and so on. Make it to the semi finals and years of sins will be forgiven (especially if they are drawn against the Germans) and the jingoistic press splash Churchill quotes across the sports headlines.

England is a team that supporters expect to beat anyone we play. Fans get some games are more difficult than others, but the expectation is clear. The US needs to have the same, they expect to beat Grenada and Panama, is that enough?

I was doing some reading last week and came across “Project 2010″. Just before the World Cup in 1998 (and before the failure of the US team to beat Iran) the US Soccer Federation unveiled “Project 2010″. A 12 year, $50 million project to pave the way for the US to win the World Cup in 2010, bizarrely I could find no mention of “Project 2010″ anywhere on the USSF site today.

I think the US should qualify for the finals every time. Looking at CONCACAF it should be US, Mexico (the only real rival for the US team in the confederation) plus one or two of whichever of the other Central American or Caribbean teams are having a good run of form. Four years ago it was Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago, this time it’s Honduras and Costa Rica looking like the best of the rest.

I get that me saying the “US should qualify… every time” is a bold statement, but with the resources they have to pull from and the opposition in CONCACAF I believe that should be a given. 16 years ago it was different and qualification was not a sure thing, and now it’s expected and that’s progress, but is that enough?

When “Project 2010″ was started consistent qualification was about where the US team was at, but today there seems little ambition beyond that. The US has a few players that are consistently playing their club football in Europe, but that one true world class player has yet to emerge from the very structured US Youth system.

While I think Landon Donovan is a good player whose direct style is very at home in the MLS, he is not world class and ongoing talk of Donovan’s ”potential” is ludicrous. Clubs don’t invest time to develop 27 year olds, that’s the prime of their career.

One of the few remnants from “Project 2010″ is the “Generation Adidas” program. Generation Adidas is a venture between MLS and USSF and has been very successful in identifying and helping younger players prepare for playing professionally. The first generation of players coming though the revamped system (led by Beasley and Donovan) made it to the last 8 in the 2002 World Cup, before loosing out to a good German side. This showed a lot of progress in a just 8 years, from happy to be there, to giving an established side a good run in the knock out phase.

So with all of this in place and a couple of generations of players coming through the revamped system, is just qualifying for the World cup every four years enough? If fans expect more than just being there, then the question becomes why does the US struggle against well drilled sides?

Clearly on the day the US can beat anyone, but the flip side of this, they can be beaten by anyone on their day. And that’s a problem.

The MLS produces some decent players, but not world beaters. Most of the US players in Europe are not playing week-in, week-out for their clubs. Unfortunately the US national side plays its competitive games within CONCACAF, a conference not nearly as competitive as Europe or South America. There is nothing like competitive games that mean something, against quality opposition to get a team to raise its game.

They US system clearly has money, but seems short on top level coaching (similar to England a few years ago) and is somehow falling short on producing players capable of standing against the best the world.

In England after the failure of Glen Hoddle and Kevin Keegan the FA (who run the England team) had to completely rethink the way the national team was put together. Clearly there was no English coach qualified to manage the side so the FA did the unthinkable and looked abroad for someone who had proven his ability at the very highest level. First was Erikson who made success of the senior side all important. Currently Capello is in charge and while he’s not English, maybe the best man for the job, and is perfect in World Cup qualifying to date.

The FA made the hard decision and look outside England for a manager was a seismic policy change from one of the most change adverse organisations. The US may need to do the same thing by getting the best coach available, ignoring the Gold Cup and playing more meaningful games against better sides.

The won-loss record may temporarily head south, the FIFA ranking may fall a little, but it would be worth it in the long term in an attempt to belatedly fulfill the idea behind ”Project 2010″.

The US national team has had a busy couple of months, 13 games spread across World Cup Qualifying, Gold Cup and Confederations Cup. They ended up winning 7 (1 in extra time), loosing 5 and drawing one. Not bad, but hardly world class when you look at the opposition.

On the plus side there was the obvious highlight of beating Spain, making it to the Confederation Cup final and being 2-0 up against Brazil at half time. However the same tournament had big losses against Brazil and Italy in the group stage in what is ultimately a fairly meaningless tournament.

Where it counts is World Cup qualifying it’s not been so bright. There have been two games this summer, an unconvincing draw against Honduras and a big loss in Costa Rica. The next qualifying game is in Mexico, if the US loose in the Azteca, the away game against Honduras in October may have a huge say in who goes to South Africa.

Ultimately the US are good enough that they should qualify for South Africa next summer, but it’s not an easy path at this point.

The 5-0 loss to Mexico in the Gold Cup final really showed up some ongoing problems with the current set up. Finishing in the red-zone is woeful, the defence seems to lack discipline with players consistently being caught out of position and not able to pick up the runs in the box. Yes this was not the US “A” team, but nor was Mexico.

I feel that the coaches have a far bigger influence over the B team players than the first team. A lot of these players play in the MLS and don’t necessarily have access to top level coaching and opposition week-in-week out the way the European based players that make up a bulk of the first team do.

It’s not a bash on the MLS, just reality that a player that goes against top level defenders every week in training and games is going to be better than a player that goes against defenders earning $40K in the MLS.

This lack of exposure to top level football places more of a burden on the US coaches to provide tactics that work for the players they have, and I don’t think the current coaches have done this very well.

Bob Bradley inherited a team from Bruce Arena that was well drilled with players that understand their role. It was a team that knew where they had to be during set plays, especially on defence but also in the red zone. When playing internationally, not giving away cheap goals to teams that have the ability to close a game down is absolutely paramount.

Looking back over the last couple of months the Spain win looks like something of a lucky win (granted, to a certain extent you make your own luck at that level) and constantly changing line ups don’t help, but during the two games that really meant something they did not play well.

This summer I don’t think the US team has played with the same level of discipline, knowledge and confort, and I think in large part that’s down to the coaching staff.