World Cup Thoughts - Part 2

To continue with our World Cup thoughts, let’s look at some of the teams that didn’t make the WC Final Four.

United States – The quarterfinal finish at the 2002 World Cup most likely created unrealistic expectations for the 2006 edition of the US National Team and that may explain the reaction of the media and the fans to the first round exit in Germany. Although the US has been ranked in the top ten of FIFA’s World Rankings for an extended period of time, that ranking system has been openly criticized as flawed and it does not accurately reflect the world order in soccer. The fact that FIFA doesn’t use it to seed the teams in the World Cup draw ought to tell us how much belief that organization has in its own system.

When the groups for the World Cup were selected last December, I knew the US wasn’t going to advance to the second round. Italy and the Czech Republic were horrible match-ups for the Red, White and Blue. The Italians are masters at limiting opponents’ chances on goal (as they did yesterday versus the Germans in Dortmund) and the USA’s conversion rate of chances to goals has historically been poor. I couldn’t see the Americans scoring a goal versus the Azzurri. As it turned out, the Italians decided to score one for them. To be fair, the US did play well in this match and unfortunately the referee decided to kill the game off with multiple red cards.

The Czechs’ advantages over the Americans are size, speed and skill. The US simply doesn’t have anyone who can cope with Jan Koller, Pavel Nedved, etc., and the American defenders are clearly out of their league. In reality, the early goal from Koller ended the contest. The US opened up the play and exposed themselves to dangerous counter-attacks. To have won this game, the US needed to score first.

Ghana was the wildcard in the group. You never know what you are going to get out of an African side. They tend to be physically imposing, but usually show their inexperience versus the traditional soccer powers. This was the final game for the US in group play, and I thought in all likelihood that the game would be meaningless. I was wrong on that account and the US did have a chance to advance out of the group stage with a victory (and some help) over Ghana. While another refereeing decision did contribute to the Americans’ downfall, the US was unable to muster enough chances on goal to win the game. US soccer hasn’t reached the maturity level in which it can exploit inexperienced sides like Ghana. In fact, Ghana always looked like the better team.

So should US soccer fans be disappointed with the first round exit in Germany? Sure, there were some disappointing aspects about the way the team went out including some dubious refereeing decisions, as well as poor performances in two of their three games. But to have expected the team to advance to the second round in the wake of the 2002 World Cup was unrealistic. Everything fell into place perfectly in ’02. In their first game, the Portuguese were caught sleeping and before they knew it, they were down 3-0. During the entire tournament (except against the Germans), every time the Americans had a chance on goal, it seemed as if they converted it. That high conversion rate was completely uncharacteristic of American soccer and that remains a central problem with the national team today. In the end, the US team couldn’t break down defenses well enough to create viable scoring opportunities. When they did get their chances, they couldn’t convert them.

The 2006 US National Team is a better team than the 2002 edition even though the results don’t bear that out. They are more skilled, better on the ball, and more able to control the tempo of a game than any American team in history. Because of that, I’m not as disappointed as some in what happened in Germany this summer. I think the progress of American soccer over the last 15 years is very impressive and what Bruce Arena has done with this collection of players is amazing. Let’s remember, outside of goalkeepers, there isn’t a single American player who has ever been close to being the best in the world at his position. Players like Landon Donovan, DaMarcus Beasley and Claudio Reyna may be close to household names in the US, but they are simply faces in the crowd on the world stage.

Due to the zonal system of qualification for the World Cup, the US basically has automatic entry into the finals every 4 years so it will be very interesting to measure the 2010 version of the US National Team with this year’s side.

England – The media hype about England’s chances of winning the World Cup was probably at an all-time high in recent months, but as usual, it was just hype. There was never any substance to the argument for England as tournament victors.

One of the main reasons that England is invariably discussed as a World Cup favorite every four years is that the English people see soccer (football) as a birthright of the nation and that England should simply be the best because they are England. Most of the media in the UK (except for The Fiver!) pick up on this and thus create expectations for their team that simply cannot be met by the current crop of players. An examination of England’s results over the last several years shows that the national side is clearly in a second tier of countries vying for World Cup glory. That notion isn’t acceptable to the English public, but a 4-1 thrashing at the hands of Norway in a friendly earlier this year and a 1-0 World Cup Qualifier loss to Northern Ireland last Fall cannot be overlooked. Can you imagine Brazil with those results? No, I didn’t think so.

Another contributing factor to the hype around the England team is the players themselves. Sure, they’re fine players, but they aren’t the superstar talents that the English media would have you believe they are. They are media created superstars, not soccer superstars. Players like David Beckham, Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard, etc. are lauded as superstars by the media simply because they are English and have achieved relative success in the English Premiership. As I said, they are good players, but they aren’t the best in the world. No matter how many times the media tells you they are (that includes Marcelo Balboa of ESPN), it doesn’t make it true.

Compare the talents of England to those of a country that plays in relative anonymity, Portugal. Not only did Portugal eliminate England from this World Cup, but also they eliminated them from the 2004 European Championships and humiliated them in Euro 2000. Most casual soccer fans know who Luis Figo is and maybe Cristiano Ronaldo, but the rest of the team is probably a mystery. However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t good. Some “experts” thought that the English midfield was one of the best in the tournament, but if one compares them to their counterparts from Portugal, one can see that they don’t match up well at all. Of course, the results on the field demonstrated this even further.

Regardless of the hype and unrealistic expectations, England never played up to their true abilities. They created very few offensive opportunities and seemed to play very slowly. English soccer is usually at its best when played at a frenetic pace, but perhaps the summer heat stifled their ability to play that way. The heat was certainly a factor in 2002 when they wilted versus the Brazilians so there’s no reason to think it wasn’t an issue this time around. Now that England is out of the tournament, team manager Sven Goran Eriksson is taking the heat and that’s a shame. He’s been acclaimed as one of the best managers in the world and the England team has done well under his stewardship, but there’s a segment of the English population that can’t accept a foreign born coach for their team. Let’s see if they get what they want with recently appointed, and second choice at least, manager Steve McLaren.

Part 2 of my World Cup Thoughts has turned out to be longer than I thought it would, so I guess there will be a Part 3 covering such teams as Argentina, Brazil, and Spain.