Goalkeeper Face

Have you ever played in goal?

If you have, no doubt you'll recognize the expression on Kasey Keller's face.

Check out the whole YCJ site. Great Pictures.

MFLS Update

So, I've dropped four spots to 10th position since the Confederations Cup.

So, I thought Taylor Twellman was on the Gold Cup roster and benched him.

So, a third of my team is Dallas Burn players.

So, I'm a good 170 points out of first; 150 points out of the top 3, for cryin' out loud.

So what! So what, I say!

We've not even reached the All-Star break yet. Still plenty of time for a run up the table.

Recent Changes:

* Purge of Burn players (which hurts, as they are my team)
* Add Spencer and Simutenkov up front
* Add Beasley in midfield
* Add Jonny Walker in goal.

I'm in good shape. I hated to do it, but I decided to sell McBride, rather than bench him until he's healed from his facial fracture. I got value for him though. Simutenkov's been consistent all year.

Sold Jason Kreis, not because he's not good, because he is. He has, however, absolutely no help whatsoever right now. Poor guy. He deserves a title and he's gonna miss the playoffs.

It's not too late to join. You can enter a team now and compare yourself on a week by week basis with your division rivals.

Soccer Haiku #3

Ah, mighty Kasey!
You did all you could have done.
Blast those samba drums!

Gold Cup Semifinal . . . ARRRRRGGHHHHHH

Well, I was right. At least until the 88th minute. Once again our boys snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Yeesh.

STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS MATCH REPORT™ :

U.S Lineup:
Keller, Hejduk, Bocanegra, Gibbs, Convey, Stewart (Beasly 83), Mastroeni, Reyna (Mulrooney 71), Lewis, Donavan, McBride (Mathis 30)

Brazil Lineup:
A bunch of guys with only one name.

I liked our lineup, although I expected Ralston would have earned himself another start.

The U.S. had the better part of the play for the first 20 minutes. We looked dangerous, but never tested the keeper. Good ball movement, but not quite the crossing we needed to be a threat.

Then Brazil started realizing they weren't going to beat us by dancing with the ball. They started stringing passes together and had two very serious chances. First was a nicely slotted ball through the right side, brick walled by Keller. The second chance was a well taken shot from the top of the box, which was handily turned aside by the right post.

I was right in my assessment that the US would come out playing physical defense. Not dirty by any means, but good clean hard tackling. It was great to see. Even greater to see was the referee, Mr. Bartres of Guatemala, handing out an early yellow card to Brazil for diving. Despite my clearly partisan joy at seeing the card handed out, I'd like to say (with objectivity as pure as the driven snow) that such a call is good for the game no matter who gets busted for it.

The Brazilian momentum lasted about 20 minutes, with quite a few good chances(coughcough KELLER! coughcough) and about 65% of the possession. Generally the defense did a creditable job shutting down most of Brazil's attacks, if not preventing them in the first place.

McBride took an elbow in the 27th minute and Bruce Arena immediately pulled him in favor of Clint Mathis. Brian had quite the mouse under his left eye. Not the first time we've seen that, of course. I imagine Brian had no intention of coming out and would have willingly played through it if given the chance.

Pablo Mastroeni picked up a yellow for a blatant foul that reminded me of Pat Fischer of the 1970's Washington Redskins (that is to say, a desperate shoulder-grabbing takedown from behind).

The U.S. attack picked up a little steam in the last five minutes of the half, but still no shots on goal.

All in all, 0-0 was a fair score at the halftime whistle.

Kasey once again was put to the test early in the second half. Bocanegra was tight on his man but still gave up a scorching near-post shot that KK just managed to deflect wide. Brazil owned the first 15 minutes or so, and all we could do was defend for a while. The way we were packing it in defensively you'd have thought we had a one goal lead.

Mastroeni again fouled his man from behind after getting beaten in his own end, and was lucky not to see red.

The aggressive defense from the first half disappeared early in the second; we seemed happy to mark space for a while and just let Kasey pull our fat out of the fire (again and again). Keller is huge against Brazil for some reason. He is pure nemesis. When this man is 60 years old he'll probably still be getting caps whenever the U.S. and Brazil get together.

Bocanegra, I've noticed, is the best tackler in the penalty area we've had since Alexi Lalas was a regular.

Brazil put the ball in the net in the 60th minute after some extremely lax defending on a free kick, but the play was (fortunately and probably incorrectly) judged offside.

Finally and utterly against the run of play, Reyna played a free kick from the right side of the field, about 40 yards out. Of all people, Carlos Bocanegra found some ups and headed the ball down and in. 1-0 for the good guys in the 63rd!

I'll have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure that is Boca's first international goal. By the bye, have you checked out the columns he's been writing on ussoccer.com? He's been keeping a journal at both the Confederations Cup and the Gold Cup. Very entertaining stuff. The kid can write, who knew?

More intense pressure from Brazil. Good clearing header by Convey to save a goal. A bit of the defensive tenacity started to return for the United States. Earnie Stewart in particular. I wish Earnie was about 10 years younger. I think the next world cup will be his last, and I hate that.

Mulrooney in for Reyna in the 71st. I don't understand this, unless Claudio took a knock or is still not quite fit after coming back from knee surgery. I don't think Mulrooney has seen a cap in quite some time. Must be a University of Virginia thing (oh wait, he went to Creighton . . . hmm).

Our two best defensive players (Keller and the right post) combined to rob Kaka in the 73rd.

Gibbs was unlucky to give up a free kick from 25 yards out in the 76th (Mr. Bartres can't see all the dives, after all) that was hit way high by Baptista.

Finally a little pressure by the U.S. in the 78th. Frankie did well on the right wing and was fouled rather hard by Carlos Alberto (no, not THAT Carlos Alberto), but the free kick was wasted.

DeMarcus Beasley in for Stewart with about 7 minutes remaining. I thought we'd see him tonight. Short of being hit by a bus, I don't see him missing many important games for his country in the foreseeable future. Earnie nearly went out in style, cracking a shot from 35 yards just before going off. It went wide, but not by too much.

Bocanegra got a cheap yellow on a really good tackle in the 85th minute. Why not, he's done everything else tonight! He's the man of the match without much argument.

Frankie with a great defensive play with three minutes left to keep Brazil frustrated. Ewtherton had a sitter with Kasey out of position until Frankie saved the day.

No matter. For about the millionth time since I've been following this team, the inevitable last minute goal was given up. A beautiful through pass found Ewerthton, who beat Gibbs and got off a good shot. Keller, of course made a tremendous save, but couldn't prevent a rebound which Kaka slotted in easily from six yards out.

I wish I had a buck for every time this has happened since I've been following my National team (since 1989, in case you're wondering). The heartbreak of watching the United States play soccer comes often but not early. They always wait until the 90th minute to break your heart.

Extra time was just a blur to me. I can't really describe it because I was busy biting my nails down to an obscenely short length. I saw the handball by Gibbs. I don't blame him in the least. Who among us wouldn't have done the same thing? I held out brief hope that Kasey would attain an even more godlike status by once again breaking the heart of an entire nation. But I kinda knew we'd blown it.

It's like being a Cubs fan. You know what's going to happen, but you still love them, and you know every once in while they'll produce some magic that will keep you coming back again and again and again and again (e.g., Caliguri against Trinidad & Tobago in 1989, The 1998 Gold Cup semifinals win against Brazil, WC 2002 against Portugal and Korea).

But it doesn't mean it doesn't hurt when they let one like this slip away.

This one hurt.

My Gold Cup Prediction: Semifinals

My Gold Cup Prediction: Semifinals
Mexico 2:1 Costa Rica

United States 3:1 Brazil

If the US/Brazil score sounds bold, keep in mind that Brazil sent their Olympic team. By definition, an Olympic team is an Under 23 side. I saw Brazil play in the group stage, and while they were entertaining and bold, they also had trouble finishing. With Keller in goal, scoring becomes exponentially more difficult. Especially since Keller gets 9 feet tall and bullet proof when playing against Brazil, historically speaking.

Also, the US side won't be afraid to push these young'uns around defensively, thus disrupting the flow of samba-ball.

Alright. I'll report back later, to either gloat or eat crow.

The US v El Salvador Gold Cup Opener . . .

. . . is not televised!

Outrageous!

Oh sure, it's on closed circuit television, sure enough . . . thank you so much for that. I'm willing to bet good money there's not an establishment within 300 miles of here carrying this game on CCTV. Yeesh.

Which means I'll have to follow it on U.S. Soccer's Matchtracker, which is a step below listening on radio (not that the match is on radio, either, I'm sure).

I shouldn't complain, because it wasn't too long ago that the idea of seeing televised soccer at all was a pipe dream. These are the salad days for the longsuffering American soccer lover, my friends, make no mistake about it. When I was kid I craved soccer coverage even more than I do now, and there was nothing. The only time you were going to see soccer was occasionally on PBS (Mario Machado doing English First Division games, Toby Charles doing Bundesliga games . . . ahh sweet memories), or perhaps the rare NASL broadcast. Maybe highlights of the World Cup final. Maybe.

So I really shouldn't complain.

I shouldn't complain about the NATIONAL TEAM PLAYING A MAJOR REGIONAL TOURNAMENT ON HOME SOIL NOT BEING TELEVISED FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

I shouldn't, but I will.

Marc-Vivien Foe Autopsy Released


http://sports.myway.com/news/07072003/v3332.html

Bunker Hill and the Siege of Stalingrad



For the life of me, I will never ever understand why a team would get a one goal lead and then immediately fall back into a defensive shell and spend the rest of the game protecting the lead.

Why? Why would one do that? What purpose does this serve, if not that of giving away a perfectly good lead? If I was given to cliche, at this point I would invoke the old favorite: "Ya gotta dance with the one that brung ya." Fortunately for all involved, I am categorically not given to employing cliche, so I will elaborate further.

If you had the offensive skill to actually score a goal, why not go with that flow and try to actually try to score, stay with me here, another goal. You did it once, you can do it again. If the other team scores, oh well, go get another goal. It won't always work out that way, but it will work out more often than keeping 11 guys on your side of the field. And when it doesn't work, it sure will be fun trying, and, just as important, fun to watch. It will be fun for all involved, except maybe the coach. But he's paid to be constantly unhappy anyway, so what they heck?

As a wise man (I believe it was Mel, the cook on "Alice") once opined: "The best defense is a good offense."

But I digress. Here is a brief list of things that are wrong with the "Bunker" theory of football:


1. It rarely works.

2. If it does work, it causes no end of stress, both physical and psychological, for the supporters.

3. Either way, it is UN-ENTERTAINING!

4. It encourages pinheaded sports pundits who insist that soccer is boring.

5. Most importantly, the whole idea is just plain wrong on principle. It's just plain wrongheaded. Soccer is about attacking, creating, scoring and entertaining. Anyone who advocates such a style of play is the Anti-Pele.

Granted, there are times when you have to bunker in, as when the other team throws everything plus the kitchen sink at you, tactically speaking. But in that case, bunkering in is merely a temporary necessity, a defensive contingency. That's ok. It's when sitting on the lead and re-enacting the Siege of Leningrad becomes a philosophy of football that I begin to have a problem with it.

Further, if you find yourself with a team that has no ability to attack effectively, but you have one or two really fast players who were born to counterattack, then such a strategy may be your only real option (see: U.S. National Team, the Bora Years). Fine. But most of the games I see this happening in are between clubs that could very well play attractive, attacking soccer, but choose not to.

I've been pondering for years what kind of soccer will eventuall be known as the "American Style". I think it will end up being characterized by fast, flashy, attacking soccer, a solid midfield general who can distribute effectively, minimal defensive solidity, and spectacular goalkeeping. I wouldn't mind that at all. But I really don't want to the American game to be known for 89 minutes of defense interrupted by the occasional goal. I really don't.

Not that scoring is the sine qua non of a good soccer match. As long as both teams are trying to attack, and shots are taken, only to be denied by good goalkeeping and an occasional ringer off the woodwork, a 0-0 match can be one of the most exciting things in sports (see: Mexico v USA, World Cup qualifying, November 2, 1997).

But having said all that, my original thesis stands: bunkering in as a way of life is boring and has no place in the game.

Soccer Haiku #2


Amado, get up!
That towel hit your tummy;
Your eye was not hurt.

Kindergarten


From the "Things that give soccer a bad name department" comes this nonsense from the Metros v Earthquakes match on 2 July:

Amado Guevara, Honduran forward and part-time dramatist (see this link for an example), is taking a throw-in in front of the Earthquakes bench. For reasons that one can only speculate upon, Ramiro Corrales,who used to play for the Metros before coming to the Earthquakes, leans forward from his seat on the bench and pulls Guevara's shirt, keeping him from taking the throw-in. He then swipes at Guevara with a towel.

What in wide wide world of sports is that about? This is ostensibly a professional game, and Corrales is acting like it's Saturday afternoon in the beer-league at the local park.

But that wasn't all. It gets better, or worse, as it were. Guevara, reacting to getting touched by Corrales' towel (touched, mind you, not popped , like you wind up a towel and pop someone hard and make it hurt), puts his hands to his face and falls to the ground as if he'd been shot by an elephant rifle. The compulsory bench clearing scuffle ensues, with all the macho posturing, pushing and finger pointing that such an activity requires under union rules. Corrales is given a red card for interfering with the game, Guevara for taking a repulsive dive. Guevara will probably receive a hefty fine from the Screen Actors Guild as well.

All of this is a shame. And even more so because the game itself was so utterly compelling on its own. The final score was 4-4, with goals in stoppage time from both teams, one to take the lead by Clint Mathis, and one to tie the game by Landon Donavan. The sandbox nonsense was not necessary to make this game entertaining.

Whenever I discuss soccer with my Dad (not a fan, he), he always mentions the fact that soccer players are sissies because they roll and writhe and act like they're dying every time they get touched during the run of play. I counter with the idea that this is not an aspect of the American game, and that if he gave the sport a fair chance, he'd find it at least as entertaining as American Football, which is slow and boring by comparison.

If he'd have seen this game, he could have rightly said that we're both right about soccer. Unfortunately.