Well, it appears the early season problems for the New York Yankees have made people a little bit touchy.
Perhaps the Yankees' front office could be reminded that return on investment that the MLS gets for averaging more than 16,000 fans per game is a pretty damn impressive achievement. For more than $200 million a year you'd expect that the Yankees could sell out most games in one of the world's most populous cities.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=640402&sec=mls&cc=5901
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
A Sign of Hope for the Future
More to come on this topic (much more actually), but it appears as if the United States Soccer Federation is taking substantive steps to address the technical deficiencies of our nation's youth players.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=527400&cc=5901
Of note is a quote from USSF Academy technical director John Hackworth:
John Hackworth, technical director of the national academies, is trying to bridge what he sees as a vast gap between the kind of training American players receive and the no-nonsense grooming players get in the rest of the soccer world.
American players, Hackworth says, tend to develop bad habits playing for club teams that often emphasize winning over developing skills and games -- even against weak opponents -- over practice.
"It's not a matter of whether little Johnny can handle a soccer ball, it's a matter of whether little Johnny can get a result," says Hackworth, also an assistant coach for the men's national team. "That is a problem, and it's always been a problem for national team coaches like myself."
Music to my ears.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=527400&cc=5901
Of note is a quote from USSF Academy technical director John Hackworth:
John Hackworth, technical director of the national academies, is trying to bridge what he sees as a vast gap between the kind of training American players receive and the no-nonsense grooming players get in the rest of the soccer world.
American players, Hackworth says, tend to develop bad habits playing for club teams that often emphasize winning over developing skills and games -- even against weak opponents -- over practice.
"It's not a matter of whether little Johnny can handle a soccer ball, it's a matter of whether little Johnny can get a result," says Hackworth, also an assistant coach for the men's national team. "That is a problem, and it's always been a problem for national team coaches like myself."
Music to my ears.
Mission Accomplised???
At least the football minds at Craven Cottage appear to be on the same page as those of us here at CarlosBocanegraMustGo...something, however tells me that Bob Bradley still needs some convincing.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/23052008/4/bocanegra-released-cottagers.html
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/23052008/4/bocanegra-released-cottagers.html
Saturday, April 5, 2008
A Good Place to Start
Some form of football or soccer was first played in the territory comprising the United States as long ago as the early 1600's, in the Jamestown settlements of tidewater Virginia. These games, however, and the related games that took place in countless forms across the colonies and states for the greater part of the next three hundred years, bore little resemblance to the modern game as we know it today. In fact, the rules of the game were so different in the past that historians of both soccer and gridiron football count the contest between Princeton and Rutgers in November 1869 as the first recorded intercollegiate game using rules resembling the modern game(s) for both sports.
That fabled game in New Jersey (Rutgers prevailed by the score of 6-4) was actually more similar to rugby and modern soccer than it was to modern American football. The game was contested on a field conforming to the London Football Association's 1863 rules, with a field measuring 110 x 70 meters, a 24-foot wide goal, and movement of the ball allowed by all parts of the body - the ball could be kicked or batted, but not thrown.
While soccer and American football have clearly taken divergent paths since that date, it was not always the case, however, that soccer played second fiddle to the sport that is now the preeminent sunday religion in many parts of America. At the turn of the 20th century, only baseball was well-established as a professional sport in America. Soccer was popular amongst the dense immigrant communities up and down the Atlantic coast, with a particular concentration in the swath of civilization running from Boston, Massachusetts to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The development of soccer in the United States took a further jump in 1913 when the United States Football Association (known now as the United States Soccer Federation or USSF) was formed and accepted for membership with FIFA. One of the USFA's first actions was to create an official national championship tournament (known now as the Open Cup), open to any team that wished to enter. First contested in 1914, this championship is third to the World Series and the Stanley Cup Finals as the longest running team sport tournament in America.
The early national championship tournaments were dominated by semi-professional traveling squads from booming industrial towns such as Fall River, Massachusetts, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and communities in the greater NYC metro area. Two of the more well-known squads, Bethlehem Steel and the Fall River Rovers met in the national finals three years running, 1916-1918.
Teams such as these were made up of a mix of American players and immigrants largely hailing from England, Scotland and Ireland. These teams, to whom soccer historians credit with developing the first incarnation of the "American" style of play, generally utilized the direct and unimaginative long-ball style of play that continues to so often be denigrated by critics of the game as it is played in the UK today.
Unfortunately, it appears that the "American" style has developed only slightly in the eighty some-odd years that have passed since descendants of Northern Europeans first established a foothold for soccer in America. The USMNT, while recently blessed with speedy players who allow the team to counterattack effectively, generally relies on the same northern european style that has dominated soccer in this country for as long as the game has been played: a style reliant laregely on constant vigorous effort - particularly on defense - but lacking in the skills, posession, flair and imagination that are evident amongst players in continental Europe and South America.
To some extent, this style of play has served the USMNT well. The benefits of this style can be seen when the opposition consists of players of smaller stature such as those often seen on the USMNT's CONCACAF opponents. The larger US players are able to assert themselves physically and keep the opposition from taking effective offensive positions, and teams from the Central American and the Caribbean Islands generally lack the skill and cohesiveness necessary to prevail over such physically superior opponents.
Perhaps the single greatest success of the current American style is evident in the dominance that the USMNT has asserted over the Mexican team over the past several years. The US has repeatedly and effectively neutralized the Mexican attacking players with superior size, and the Mexicans' increased frustration levels has led them to abandon the attractive style of play they so often demonstrate in World Cup games against non-CONCACAF opposition. Recently, however, the Mexicans have seen more and more of their young skilled players snatched up by powerful European clubs and it seems likely that it is only a matter of time before Mexico learns that it must not be distracted by US tactics and assert its own imprint on the game. When Mexico does so, the USMNT is in for a tough time.
The US style is often successful against lesser-European teams as well. US fans point to shutout victories over Poland, Switzerland and Sweden in the last 6 months as proof that the USMNT is able to be successful against European competition on European soil. This success, however, while nice in the short term, means little. The USMNT should be expected to prevail in such encounters. When faced with opposition employing a similar direct style of play, the USMNT's superior athleticism should overcome the likes of Poland, Sweden and Switzerland given that the US population (and the resulting pool of possible players) dwarfs that of those three nations (38, 9 and 7 million respectively).
The USMNT has also seen similar postive results come to nought before. Those who remember the USMNT's overwhelming 3-0 victory over Austria in April 1998 will also remember that such a result was little but a memory as the curtain came down on the USMNT's appearance in France just a few short months later.
Ultimately, my intent is not simply to criticize but to question. Why has the US style of play failed to develop? Why has the US national program continued to prize the type of player who is suited to the direct style of play but who lacks the skill on the ball to match the players turned out by countries like Germany, Italk, Argentina (and even Ghana)? It seems that we should grow tired of success over relative international minnows when the USMNT is so often out-classed against the superior-skilled competition. It is this man's opinion that the American style of play has seen no real development in the past 3-4 Wold Cup cycles because those charged with assessing and implementing the technical aspects of the USMNT have too much to risk - better to achieve modest success with a style that is likely to achieve solid if not spectacular results, than to risk failure with a style that represents a dramatic change for the better.
For this reason, it will be interesting to see the style of play used by Bob Bradley and the USMNT in its upcoming high-profile matches against England (5/28), Spain (6/4), and Argentina (6/8). If the USMNT abandons any effort to control the midfield with passing and movement (as it so often does) and resorts to long, hopeful outlet play in the hope of keeping the score respectable, it will simply be more of the same. If the USMNT comes out and plays with a noticeable intent to match the skill and possession of its superior opponents it may find that doing so, even in a losing effort, is a learning experience worth its weight in gold. We shall see.
That fabled game in New Jersey (Rutgers prevailed by the score of 6-4) was actually more similar to rugby and modern soccer than it was to modern American football. The game was contested on a field conforming to the London Football Association's 1863 rules, with a field measuring 110 x 70 meters, a 24-foot wide goal, and movement of the ball allowed by all parts of the body - the ball could be kicked or batted, but not thrown.
While soccer and American football have clearly taken divergent paths since that date, it was not always the case, however, that soccer played second fiddle to the sport that is now the preeminent sunday religion in many parts of America. At the turn of the 20th century, only baseball was well-established as a professional sport in America. Soccer was popular amongst the dense immigrant communities up and down the Atlantic coast, with a particular concentration in the swath of civilization running from Boston, Massachusetts to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
The development of soccer in the United States took a further jump in 1913 when the United States Football Association (known now as the United States Soccer Federation or USSF) was formed and accepted for membership with FIFA. One of the USFA's first actions was to create an official national championship tournament (known now as the Open Cup), open to any team that wished to enter. First contested in 1914, this championship is third to the World Series and the Stanley Cup Finals as the longest running team sport tournament in America.
The early national championship tournaments were dominated by semi-professional traveling squads from booming industrial towns such as Fall River, Massachusetts, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and communities in the greater NYC metro area. Two of the more well-known squads, Bethlehem Steel and the Fall River Rovers met in the national finals three years running, 1916-1918.
Teams such as these were made up of a mix of American players and immigrants largely hailing from England, Scotland and Ireland. These teams, to whom soccer historians credit with developing the first incarnation of the "American" style of play, generally utilized the direct and unimaginative long-ball style of play that continues to so often be denigrated by critics of the game as it is played in the UK today.
Unfortunately, it appears that the "American" style has developed only slightly in the eighty some-odd years that have passed since descendants of Northern Europeans first established a foothold for soccer in America. The USMNT, while recently blessed with speedy players who allow the team to counterattack effectively, generally relies on the same northern european style that has dominated soccer in this country for as long as the game has been played: a style reliant laregely on constant vigorous effort - particularly on defense - but lacking in the skills, posession, flair and imagination that are evident amongst players in continental Europe and South America.
To some extent, this style of play has served the USMNT well. The benefits of this style can be seen when the opposition consists of players of smaller stature such as those often seen on the USMNT's CONCACAF opponents. The larger US players are able to assert themselves physically and keep the opposition from taking effective offensive positions, and teams from the Central American and the Caribbean Islands generally lack the skill and cohesiveness necessary to prevail over such physically superior opponents.
Perhaps the single greatest success of the current American style is evident in the dominance that the USMNT has asserted over the Mexican team over the past several years. The US has repeatedly and effectively neutralized the Mexican attacking players with superior size, and the Mexicans' increased frustration levels has led them to abandon the attractive style of play they so often demonstrate in World Cup games against non-CONCACAF opposition. Recently, however, the Mexicans have seen more and more of their young skilled players snatched up by powerful European clubs and it seems likely that it is only a matter of time before Mexico learns that it must not be distracted by US tactics and assert its own imprint on the game. When Mexico does so, the USMNT is in for a tough time.
The US style is often successful against lesser-European teams as well. US fans point to shutout victories over Poland, Switzerland and Sweden in the last 6 months as proof that the USMNT is able to be successful against European competition on European soil. This success, however, while nice in the short term, means little. The USMNT should be expected to prevail in such encounters. When faced with opposition employing a similar direct style of play, the USMNT's superior athleticism should overcome the likes of Poland, Sweden and Switzerland given that the US population (and the resulting pool of possible players) dwarfs that of those three nations (38, 9 and 7 million respectively).
The USMNT has also seen similar postive results come to nought before. Those who remember the USMNT's overwhelming 3-0 victory over Austria in April 1998 will also remember that such a result was little but a memory as the curtain came down on the USMNT's appearance in France just a few short months later.
Ultimately, my intent is not simply to criticize but to question. Why has the US style of play failed to develop? Why has the US national program continued to prize the type of player who is suited to the direct style of play but who lacks the skill on the ball to match the players turned out by countries like Germany, Italk, Argentina (and even Ghana)? It seems that we should grow tired of success over relative international minnows when the USMNT is so often out-classed against the superior-skilled competition. It is this man's opinion that the American style of play has seen no real development in the past 3-4 Wold Cup cycles because those charged with assessing and implementing the technical aspects of the USMNT have too much to risk - better to achieve modest success with a style that is likely to achieve solid if not spectacular results, than to risk failure with a style that represents a dramatic change for the better.
For this reason, it will be interesting to see the style of play used by Bob Bradley and the USMNT in its upcoming high-profile matches against England (5/28), Spain (6/4), and Argentina (6/8). If the USMNT abandons any effort to control the midfield with passing and movement (as it so often does) and resorts to long, hopeful outlet play in the hope of keeping the score respectable, it will simply be more of the same. If the USMNT comes out and plays with a noticeable intent to match the skill and possession of its superior opponents it may find that doing so, even in a losing effort, is a learning experience worth its weight in gold. We shall see.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Mission Statement
This has been a long time coming, and I'd like to start out with honesty. As is likely apparent, I've never thought that Carlos Bocanegra was a world class defender. In the beginning, however, I was willing to give him a chance as a left back given the USMNT's perpetual search for the answer at that position (David Regis anyone?). Accordingly, I give Bocanegra credit for dutifully throwing his athletic 6-foot, 170-pound frame into the fray for the US men since his first senior CAP on December 9, 2001 against Korea Republic.
But, after more than six yars of needless fouls, tactical errors, and horrid passing out of the back, enough is enough. Something must be said and questions must be asked. Why has Carlos Bocanegra's reward for years of uneven play and near constant turnover of possession been his elevation to the position of team captain? Is there a reason why Carlos Bocanegra has not gone the way of Carlos Llamosa, Tony Sanneh and other failed US defenders? Are we, all followers of and participants in American soccer, to think that not only will poor positioning and mindless clearing of the ball be condoned, but sanctioned and praised as well?
The answer to that question cannot and must not be "Yes." Is it too much to ask that the US should strive to develop a centre back in the mold of Franz Beckenbauer, Lothar Matthaus, Paolo Maldini, Ronald Koeman and Fabbio Cannavaro? It is too much to ask that we could strive to meld strength with skill? vision with speed? technical ability with tackling ability? We must break cleanly away from the Northern European style that has dominated American soccer for the last century.
If there is to be hope for the future, hope for World Cup victories on European soil, we cannot rely on size, brute strength and vigorous effort alone to be the hallmarks of our style of play. The past must be set aside and a new trail must be blazed.
This site, therefore, will attempt to identify, catalogue, and analyze the anachronistic elements still present in the American style of play. I do not begin to assume that I can provide the answers to these questions, but I believe that the questions need to be raised. I hope that this site can become a collaborative effort through which American soccer supporters can discuss together the future of the beautiful game in our country and join together in seeking excellence.
You might then ask why Carlos Bocanegra is the rather narrow target of my accumulated ire, and in response I leave you with this scene, Exhibit A in the case against antiquated and ugly soccer, brainless defending, and Mr. Bocanegra in particular...
The date is June 22, 2006. The USMNT is in Nuremberg, Germany to face the Black Stars of Ghana in the third and final match of the 2006 World Cup first round. Ten days before, the US men walked off the field in Gelsenkirchen disappointed and dispirited after a 3-0 thrashing at the hands of Jan Koller and the Czechs. Just five days before, however, the US men pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and battled the mighty Azzurri to a 1-1 draw, keeping hopes alive for a birth in the second round. And so, on this sunny day in Nuremberg, US hopes for the second round hinge on a US victory and an Italian defeat of the Czechs. The US men, however, know just one thing: a win over Ghana is the necessary result.
The match begins and the US starts nervously. Ghana's speed and pressure clearly have the US rattled, and Ghana's tactics are rewarded in the 22nd minute when Claudio Reyna is caught in possession leading to Dramani coolly slotting home past Kasey Keller for a 1-0 lead. Slowly but determinedly, the US creeps back into the match and equalizes behind DaMarcus Beasley's inviting cross and Clint Dempsey's emphatic finish in the 43rd minute. With the chance to regroup and reorganize at halftime looming, and with Italy leading the Czech Republic 1-0, American fans across the globe breathe deep sighs of relief. A strong second half would see the US through to the knockout stages.
From the crushing 3-0 defeat to the Czechs, the US men found themselves just 45 minutes from realizing their four-year goal. Little did we know, that calamity was set to strike. As the clock struck 45 minutes and extra time began, Ghana played a hopeful ball deep down the US left flank where Bocanegra ran stride for stride with the Black Star winger. As the ball sped toward the corner, Bocanegra - facing the touchline, eschewed the safe play of knocking the ball out of bounds in order to allow the tired US defense to reposition itself. Instead, breaking rule one of rudimentary defense, Bocanegra volleyed the ball straight into the air, back over his head towards the center of the field and the US goal. Challenged by the Black Star winger while the ball was in the air, Bocanegra unconscionably compounded his error by heading the ball to the dead middle of the 18-yard box into the path of the onrushing Black Star centre forward, forcing Oguchi Onyewu into the clumsy challenge that resulted in a dubious penalty. Mere seconds later, the ball buried in the back of the US net and the halftime whistle blown, shock was evident on the Americans' faces.
Spirits deflated, needing two goals and not one, the US men spent the second half gamely dashing themselves against the entrenched Black Star defense without reward. Meanwhile, in Hamburg, the Italians celebrated a 2-0 victory over the Czechs. For the US, the long road to South Africa 2010 had begun, and American supporters were left to wonder if the glorious quarterfinal run of 2002 was just an anomaly.
While it is, of course, inaccurate to state that the USMNT's fate turned on only one moment out of 270+ minutes of soccer, it is impossible to overstate the breadth and depth of Bocanegra's absurd error. There is no explanation for such a decision at the highest level at that particular crucial moment, and the site of him barreling needlessly into the back of a Mexican forward resulting in a free kick and a Johnny Magallon goal in the February 2008 friendly belies any argument that Bocanegra has learned his lesson. There is, I posit, no rational or cogent reason for granting this unschooled laborer a continued role in the US defense let alone entrusting him with the captain's armband. Enough is enough. The tactics that are successful in overcoming Trinidad & Tobago and Canda in CONCACAF qualifying will not succeed against soccer's aristocracy. The time for renovation and evolution is now as the US begins a new qualification cycle. We must begin to learn from and to correct our mistakes. Paging Michael Parkhurst....
For video evidence see the the 1:20 mark of this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6brdMprmsQ&feature=related
But, after more than six yars of needless fouls, tactical errors, and horrid passing out of the back, enough is enough. Something must be said and questions must be asked. Why has Carlos Bocanegra's reward for years of uneven play and near constant turnover of possession been his elevation to the position of team captain? Is there a reason why Carlos Bocanegra has not gone the way of Carlos Llamosa, Tony Sanneh and other failed US defenders? Are we, all followers of and participants in American soccer, to think that not only will poor positioning and mindless clearing of the ball be condoned, but sanctioned and praised as well?
The answer to that question cannot and must not be "Yes." Is it too much to ask that the US should strive to develop a centre back in the mold of Franz Beckenbauer, Lothar Matthaus, Paolo Maldini, Ronald Koeman and Fabbio Cannavaro? It is too much to ask that we could strive to meld strength with skill? vision with speed? technical ability with tackling ability? We must break cleanly away from the Northern European style that has dominated American soccer for the last century.
If there is to be hope for the future, hope for World Cup victories on European soil, we cannot rely on size, brute strength and vigorous effort alone to be the hallmarks of our style of play. The past must be set aside and a new trail must be blazed.
This site, therefore, will attempt to identify, catalogue, and analyze the anachronistic elements still present in the American style of play. I do not begin to assume that I can provide the answers to these questions, but I believe that the questions need to be raised. I hope that this site can become a collaborative effort through which American soccer supporters can discuss together the future of the beautiful game in our country and join together in seeking excellence.
You might then ask why Carlos Bocanegra is the rather narrow target of my accumulated ire, and in response I leave you with this scene, Exhibit A in the case against antiquated and ugly soccer, brainless defending, and Mr. Bocanegra in particular...
The date is June 22, 2006. The USMNT is in Nuremberg, Germany to face the Black Stars of Ghana in the third and final match of the 2006 World Cup first round. Ten days before, the US men walked off the field in Gelsenkirchen disappointed and dispirited after a 3-0 thrashing at the hands of Jan Koller and the Czechs. Just five days before, however, the US men pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and battled the mighty Azzurri to a 1-1 draw, keeping hopes alive for a birth in the second round. And so, on this sunny day in Nuremberg, US hopes for the second round hinge on a US victory and an Italian defeat of the Czechs. The US men, however, know just one thing: a win over Ghana is the necessary result.
The match begins and the US starts nervously. Ghana's speed and pressure clearly have the US rattled, and Ghana's tactics are rewarded in the 22nd minute when Claudio Reyna is caught in possession leading to Dramani coolly slotting home past Kasey Keller for a 1-0 lead. Slowly but determinedly, the US creeps back into the match and equalizes behind DaMarcus Beasley's inviting cross and Clint Dempsey's emphatic finish in the 43rd minute. With the chance to regroup and reorganize at halftime looming, and with Italy leading the Czech Republic 1-0, American fans across the globe breathe deep sighs of relief. A strong second half would see the US through to the knockout stages.
From the crushing 3-0 defeat to the Czechs, the US men found themselves just 45 minutes from realizing their four-year goal. Little did we know, that calamity was set to strike. As the clock struck 45 minutes and extra time began, Ghana played a hopeful ball deep down the US left flank where Bocanegra ran stride for stride with the Black Star winger. As the ball sped toward the corner, Bocanegra - facing the touchline, eschewed the safe play of knocking the ball out of bounds in order to allow the tired US defense to reposition itself. Instead, breaking rule one of rudimentary defense, Bocanegra volleyed the ball straight into the air, back over his head towards the center of the field and the US goal. Challenged by the Black Star winger while the ball was in the air, Bocanegra unconscionably compounded his error by heading the ball to the dead middle of the 18-yard box into the path of the onrushing Black Star centre forward, forcing Oguchi Onyewu into the clumsy challenge that resulted in a dubious penalty. Mere seconds later, the ball buried in the back of the US net and the halftime whistle blown, shock was evident on the Americans' faces.
Spirits deflated, needing two goals and not one, the US men spent the second half gamely dashing themselves against the entrenched Black Star defense without reward. Meanwhile, in Hamburg, the Italians celebrated a 2-0 victory over the Czechs. For the US, the long road to South Africa 2010 had begun, and American supporters were left to wonder if the glorious quarterfinal run of 2002 was just an anomaly.
While it is, of course, inaccurate to state that the USMNT's fate turned on only one moment out of 270+ minutes of soccer, it is impossible to overstate the breadth and depth of Bocanegra's absurd error. There is no explanation for such a decision at the highest level at that particular crucial moment, and the site of him barreling needlessly into the back of a Mexican forward resulting in a free kick and a Johnny Magallon goal in the February 2008 friendly belies any argument that Bocanegra has learned his lesson. There is, I posit, no rational or cogent reason for granting this unschooled laborer a continued role in the US defense let alone entrusting him with the captain's armband. Enough is enough. The tactics that are successful in overcoming Trinidad & Tobago and Canda in CONCACAF qualifying will not succeed against soccer's aristocracy. The time for renovation and evolution is now as the US begins a new qualification cycle. We must begin to learn from and to correct our mistakes. Paging Michael Parkhurst....
For video evidence see the the 1:20 mark of this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6brdMprmsQ&feature=related
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
