World Cup - Thoughts on the Americans' Performance

Well the commentary on the United States's performance at the World Cup has ranged from utter disappointment to sheer ecstasy. When I talk to Europeans or South Americans they always say something like "well done" or "you must be pleased with their performance" and when I talk to other Americans (who actually follow the sport) they tend to say something like, "it's pretty disappointing" or "we should have done better." I agree... with both.

Before the World Cup, I said that the US should hope to get out of the group, and that that was a realistic expectation. Anything further should be seen as a bonus. Well that's just what happened. And if we look at our play throughout the tournament, it can't be said to have merited much more than an octavo-final appearance. We played badly against England and escaped with a draw. We beat Slovenia despite playing a horrible first half, except that the referee got confused and it wound up being a draw. And despite being stifled by a defensive Algeria side for 90+ minutes, we managed to scrape out a late goal. I agree that our play in those three games merited an appearance in the knock-out stages, but it didn't merit much more than that.

So then where does the disappointment come from? It comes primarily from two unfortunate elements of the seeding system for the World Cup groups and the understanding that because of that the US will most likely never again have such an easy path to the late stages of the world's biggest sporting event. Given the way the seeding for World Cups works, the US has virtually no chance of ever being the top team in its group. A combination of playing in CONCACAF, where the teams are weak, and the fact that a team has to do well in the World Cup to become one of the seeded teams means there is likely to be very little turnover in terms of who the seeded teams are. The only chance the US have of being seeded is if they host the tournament, but by then the seeding system will most likely have changed so that the host nation is excluded from being seeded. After all, from now on, the host nation will have to go through qualifying.

The other bad bit about the seeding is that the US is always selected from a pot that includes North America and Asia - the two weakest footballing continents (although they both fared better than Africa at this World Cup). This means that the US and Mexico are always drawn in a group with one of the top 8 teams plus one European team and one team from Africa or South America. Four years ago we got Italy, Ghana, and the Czech Republic (then ranked 2nd in the world). The year before that we were lucky to be drawn with the hosts but we still had to play Portugal and Poland. Imagine if that group had included Brazil or Argentina instead of South Korea! The US could never play a team like North Korea or Honduras (the two weakest teams at this Tournament) in the first round. It also means we would have to pull an massive upset in the first round (as we did this time because of the 2nd tiebreaker), or have a massive upset happen in the opposing group, to avoid a seeded team in the 2nd round.

What makes this year disappointing is that not only did we pull a massive upset in the first round this year, but there was an upset in the group containing our would-be quarterfinal opponents that saw France go out and Uruguay win the group. It meant that after the group stage, we were the highest-ranked team in our corner of the bracket. If it weren't for an England goalkeeping error and the inability of the Slovenian back-line to hold a two goal lead, the US would never have made the second round. We need help from the draw to get through to the second round. The only times we have done so in the modern era have been with incredibly easy groups (1994 when we were seeded as hosts, 2002 when we were with the hosts, and 2010 when we got the weakest teams from both the European and African/South American pots).

So it is a success that we got out of the group stage, but given the particular situation of this World Cup, we can be disappointed that we didn't make it into the later rounds. Now for my top performers for the US at the World Cup.

6 of the Best:

6. Jozy Altidore - He may not have scored but he did everything else. He hit the post against England after making Carragher look like a buffoon. His hold up play was excellent throughout, and the combination of pace and power presented real problems to opposing defenses. He assisted the second goal against Slovenia and won the foul that lead to the third (disallowed) goal. He was also instrumental in the winner against Algeria, playing the ball into the box that eventually popped out to Donovan.

5. Johnathan Bornstein - Started games three and four and was excellent. He is much maligned among Sam's Army (the name of the US MNT supporters' group), but he was super-solid defensively and even managed to put in a few good crosses. He was particularly good in the game against Ghana.

4. Maurice Edu - Only Bob Bradley knows why he didn't start against Ghana. If he had perhaps the US would have played Uruguay in the quarterfinals. He looked to be every creative midfielder's worst nightmare, always popping up in the right places to win the ball. Of course, he did score that infamous non-goal as well. The US looked 10x more comfortable when he was on the field, and he freed up Michael Bradley to get forward (see the equalizer against Slovenia).

3. Tim Howard - If it weren't for him, the US would have been down several goals against England, and we wouldn't have kept a clean sheet against Algeria. He may not have hit top form, but he showed how great he is by doing fantastically well while being far from his best.

2. Landon Donovan - He's the main man in attack and he showed he's capable of supplying the attacking impetus for the entire team. While Dempsey went missing for long spells at this tournament, Donovan was always looking for the ball, making good passes and surging runs. Three goals to boot, and you have a captain's performance at the World Cup finals. He must certainly captain the team in four years' time.

1. Michael Bradley - According to the more understandable Capello Index (the Castrol Rankings are just ridiculous), Bradley was the 12th best player in the group stage of the World Cup. I fully agree. He was everywhere. He not only covered an enormous amount of distance, but he won balls, made great passes, disrupted opponents' attacks, and when he played without Edu at his side, was the only calming presence in the middle of the park. He's got at least two more World Cup's in him, and at only 22, hopefully a long career in Europe as well. If Pops takes the job at Fulham, he could well make the move, and I would expect him to be a huge hit in the Premier League, as he has been in both the Eredivisie and the Bundisliga up 'til now.

5 World Cup Flops:

5. Oguchi Onyewu - He was at his imperious best against England, but after a dismal display against Slovenia, he was rightly benched. Against the better teams that play an aerial attack, he's great. Against anything else, he's out of his depth.

4. DaMarcus Beasley - A whopping 13 minutes through four games plus extra time show just how far he's fallen in the pecking order. One of the huge hits from eight years ago, he knows looks a fragile technically incompetent winger. No wonder he's managed to fall out of favor even in the Scottish Premier League.

3. Francisco Torres - The 45 minutes he saw on the pitch were 44 more than he deserved. He was absolutely horrid throughout and looked a far cry from the speedy, creative, bright player he was throughout World Cup Qualifying. We'll hope it was the nerves and that his national team career can get back on track. If he can get it back together he'll be good in the future, but he was a disaster at this World Cup.

2. Robbie Findley - My cries of dismay as he was announced as part of the starting lineup for the Ghana game turned out to be well-founded as he spurned the best chance of the first half. Appropriately substituted at half-time, it was one more half than his play had merited. He showed his utter lack of anything but pace throughout the entire tournament and it's a wonder what Bradley ever saw in him. He may be better than Ching, but that doesn't mean he actually should have ever been on the field.

1. Ricardo Clark - It's difficult to have a much worse World Cup than Ricardo Clark. He was responsible for the England goal after 5 minutes, and responsible for the Ghana goal after that same amount of time. He also managed to get himself booked. He lacked control, passing, positioning, and game intelligence - in other words, pretty much everything. I suppose Felipe Melo is about the only person who has a case for having had a worse World Cup, but even he had an assist and played four decent games.