Off On A Tangent

I watched the first half of France against Switzerland today and noted how similar was the French play to the American play in terms of effort and enthusiasm. The differences between the games are notable of course - the French are more skilled than the Americans and played against a lesser opponent - but the result was analogous: very disappointing. I think the reason for the lack of energy differed too - the French seemed over-confident and as if they didn’t much care, and the Americans seemed nervous and lacking confidence. I wish the US team would watch the South Koreans play - they make up in energy what they lack in skill, and that’s what the US needs to do.

So, to focus on the US team’s woes: I think Arena goofed big time by:

1. Playing Landon Donovan on top. Landon has been playing the midfield for the US in most of their more recent matches. Back when he used to play forward, I always argued he’d be better off in the midfield because he’s fantastic on the ball facing the goal, he’s a great dribbler, decent passer, and only so-so as a finisher. As a forward, he never gets involved enough.
2. Playing DeMarcus Beasley at all. Beasley has been terrible in all the matches leading up to the World Cup and deserved to be benched. I don’t know what happened to Beasley, but his first touch is so bad, he loses the ball about 50% of the time as soon as his lead feet try to trap it. My suspicion is that 4 years ago, he was a kid who thought he was great and that belief overcame a lot of his actual deficiencies, and that 2-3 years playing in the Dutch leagues has taught him the folly in that belief and wisdom has brought paralysis. He could use some youthful indescretion.
3. Not playing John O’brien. Doesn’t matter if he wasn’t fit to play 90, he needed to be in there as the US’s most creative player.
4. Playing both Eddie Lewis and Bobby Convey on the left side. This may be hindsight, but it seems to have been too big a risk to not play any kind of defensive player on the left. The first goal was scored because both had vacated the defensive leaving the Czechs a wide open crossing shot with plenty of time to place it accurately.

I don’t think a team recovers from this sort of lack of confidence and energy (or exuberance) in the course of a tournament, so my expectation is honestly two more losses (Ghana looked good, and if not for a ref too hesistant to call penalty fouls, Ghana would have had two penalty kicks and potentially a tied game). The only chance to turn this around is with a dramatic change in lineup:

3-5-2 Pope and Onyewu in the back with either Conrad, Bocanegra, Berhalter or Albright - choose one, I’m not as familiar with these players. The point is, a dedicated and solid defender to work with Pope and Onyewu. Probably the fastest of these guys would be the best pick, since neither Pope nore Onyewu are blazing.

Reyna as center midfield, Donovan and Dempsey on the right, Convey and O’Brien on the left.

McBride and Eddie Johnson up top.

That’s a risky play, and I can’t take full credit for the idea of going 3-5-2 (read it in an espn forum). After watching what happened in Morocco, I would have said 3-5-2 is too dangerous, but the problem with 4-4-2 is we have too many good midfielders and too few good defenders. When we played 4-4-2 by making one of our lesser midfielders (eddie lewis) play defender, that just didn’t work. So, go with your strength. Playing an aggressive formation might go a ways towards bringing some spark to these players.

So I’m at the Y working out on the elliptical and watching the business news channel, listening to them blather on about Vespa’s and high gas prices. Apparently, Vespas are back and doing well again here in the States. The two reporters, a man and a woman seem amused by the story. At the end, the woman says to the man “so, would you buy a vespa?”. “No”, says the man. “Maybe if gas hit $5/gallon, I’d consider it.” “Really?” the woman asks incredulously. “No, not really, ” says the man. “But, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be smart to consider it,” he continues quickly. “Maybe for other people,” the woman concludes.

Holy shit, I’m thinking, did I just hear that right? Is the aristocracy here so blatant and oblivious to their own arrogance? Let them drive Vespas, eh? Chuckle. I’m not making this up or exaggerating this exchange.  It’s not quite verbatim (like, I”m not sure she said “maybe”), but “for other people” was the concluding phrase. I’d switch over to CNN, but I can tolerate hearing “CNN, the most trusted news source” only so many times from a channel named CNN.