Tim Ream’s banner year is a good test for Klinsmann’s club form matters credo…
Neil W. Blackmon
A whole lot to dive into today as we are now within two weeks of knowing which 30 American players Jurgen Klinsmann will take to the Stanford Send-Off Series camp. From those thirty, barring injury replacements, Klinsmann will select the 2014 United States World Cup team. Exciting, exciting stuff. Let’s get started.
Let’s start where we left off last week, with the USMNT defense…
I made the argument last week the US should bring seven defenders, not the more traditional conservative eight, to Brazil. There are various reasons for this mostly having to do with current roster positional flexibility and you can read that piece here if you haven’t already. Since that piece went up, a few developments have happened that are worth tracking.
First, Tim Ream was named player of the year at Bolton Wanderers. As Brian Sciaretta points out in the linked piece, this is an outstanding accomplishment for the 26 year old and validates his move across the pond. It also increases his transfer market value this summer. Does it secure him an invite to the 30 man camp at Stanford? That’s a more tricky question. Certainly Ream offers more positional flexibility to a roster already flush with flex options, and more depth is never a bad thing. The more fascinating question, I think, is that Ream’s success this year at Bolton tests the envelope on Klinsmann’s “club form matters” credo. Does Klinsmann fail to reward Ream with a roster shot and not even invite him to the Stanford camp, even with a defense that is Matt Besler, DaMarcus Beasley and question mark after question mark? That would surprise me. I’m not suggesting players would respect Klinsmann less if he turned an in-form club player like Ream away from the 30 man– but I do think it’s worth thinking about. Especially because…
Two players who were, as of a month ago, either way out on the periphery of the 30 man roster or decidedly not in good enough form to warrant much of a deeper look by the boss appear to be back in the mix. Jurgen Klinsmann was full of praise for Timmy Chandler this week as the forlorned right back returned to action for his club. Chandler hasn’t played much- largely because of injury– and he hasn’t featured for the national team since Roger Espinoza ran circles around him last year– but here he is, seemingly poised for a thirty man call up to Stanford in two weeks. Frankly, I’d be surprised if he isn’t on the thirty man roster, given the US’ precarious situation on the right flank, and especially because the US needs a two-way fullback if they intend to utilize a diamond formation at the World Cup this summer. But you have to wonder how much “club form matters” if Chandler’s involved.
Due respect to the David Regis arguments, but Harkes was the poison in the 98 well.
Furthermore, there have been some reasonable tweets directed my way that wonder what a Chandler call-up potentially does to US team morale and spirit. Chandler has seemed relatively disinterested in wearing the US shirt since his embarrassing qualifier performance in Honduras. Would that negatively impact team unity? Does that matter? I don’t think it is an analogous situation to David Regis, whose late inclusion to the 1998 US World Cup side that finished last is documented by Jonah Freedman here, though (probably more astutely) in the Julian Green context. Chandler has, after all, been a part of the US team at various times throughout the World Cup cycle– something that was not the case with Regis. And I hesitate to think Regis, despite his candid comments about how difficult it was to adjust, was a genuine locker room poison to the 1998 World Cup side. John Harkes had done most of the damage himself by allegedly sleeping with a teammate’s wife. That was a disastrous situation when Regis was called in, even if Regis didn’t help matters. Nonetheless, it is worth monitoring the situation.
Finally, John Brooks has played very well at Hertha Berlin the last couple of weeks, The season, as Brian Sciaretta notes here, has been a rollercoaster for Brooks. He’s been in and out of his manager’s doghouse for effort and mental mistakes, but appears to have righted the ship at the optimal time. Klinsmann is on record stating he’d “love to call Brooks in if he could.” That, to me, suggests Jurgen is at bare minimum considering extending a 30 man invite to John Brooks. This would likely come at the expense of a player like Mike Orozco, who had a fine World Cup cycle in the national team shirt, or Tim Ream, who we discussed above. And I think it would be a silly move. Merging sports a bit– Brooks is what the NFL would call classic “combine guy.” The measurables are off-the-charts and the ceiling is immense. But at some point results on the pitch in the national team shirt have to matter too, and Brooks has yet to put in a quality performance in a US shirt, despite multiple opportunities. I’d sit on him until next cycle, and think about an extended look at the 2016 Copa America, a tournament the US can afford to emphasize given the new European friendly rules.
Shifting to attack, maybe now is when Eddie Johnson gets concerned?
Eddie Johnson left DC United’s match with a knock this week and has scored as many goals in 2014 as all of the writers and readers of this website combined. There’s merit to the empirics, which suggest Johnson has been Klinsmann’s preferred backup to Jozy Altidore throughout the World Cup cycle and he’s produced in the national team shirt. But there’s also merit to the Brian Ching history– where Ching simply couldn’t get fit again after a leg injury and wasn’t off to a good MLS start, and found himself out of the final 23 in heartbreaking fashion at the final hour. If Johnson is omitted, there will be people who disagree. And I’d respect that disagreement. But the possibility of that happening isn’t out of the question anymore.
Complicating matters, Terrence Boyd, another “combine guy”, is playing fantastic of late. He has four goals in his past two matches and is up to eighteen on the year. That means that Boyd, along with Chris Wondolowski (if you keep Dempsey in the MF/F hybrid role) are the two US forwards who are playing with confidence at the present time. Those guys are always valued come World Cup time and I’d suggest a thirty man invite is likely. What happens after that is probably up to Eddie Johnson.
The “US must beat Ghana” narrative, visited with data!
Finally, a well-known narrative right now suggests the US-Ghana result will be outcome determinative, meaning the US can absolutely get out of the group if they vanquish the Black Stars (and a bevy of assorted demons) but will almost certainly not get out of the group should they fail to secure a result of any sort in that match. I thought it might be interesting to examine that narrative through the lens of history, understanding of course that they US probably have drawn their most difficult World Cup group in their history.
The United States participated in three World Cups in what we’ll call, for simplification purposes, the “non-modern” era. We’ll discount those results, which included a run to the semifinals in 1930, and only look at the US history at the World Cup in the modern era, which began at the 1990 World Cup. Here’s how the Yanks performed in openers at each tournament, with overall tournament results mentioned thereafter.
1990 World Cup, vs. Czechoslovakia, LOST, 0-3 in group
The Americans, playing with largely college students and semi-professionals, were routed 5-1 by a strong Czech team. Paul Caligiuri, whose rocket shot against Trinidad and Tobago had sent the Americans to the World Cup and lifted US soccer out of its own dark ages, cut the lead to 3-1 in the 61st minute, but the Americans would concede twice more and begin their World Cup odyssey with an immense defeat. That tournament was more about being there, however, and the Yanks played a terrific match in their second game against hosts Italy, losing 1-0 in Rome, before closing the tournament with a hard-fought 2-1 loss to Austria in Florence.
1994 World Cup, vs. Switzerland, DRAW, 1-1-1 in group, advanced to Round of Sixteen
Eric Wynalda made this set piece:
Ridiculous. The Americans sat back and held the Swiss off in the second half. Most US Soccer fans know what came next: the Yanks stunned pre-tournament favorite Colombia at the Rose Bowl before coming back to earth a bit four days later and falling to Romania. The Americans finished third in the group, on goal differential, but that was still a time where FIFA allowed high ranking third place teams into the Round of Sixteen, so the Americans advanced. They lost to eventual champion Brazil on a smoldering hot Fourth of July, despite playing large stretches of the match with a man advantage.
1998 World Cup, vs. Germany in Paris, LOST, 0-3 in group
Group F at the 1998 World Cup is a great example of how draws can be deceiving. Yes, Yugoslavia were a talented team, but how united they were given political strife and drama at home is up for debate. The Germans were a splendid one seed but beyond that, all the US had to do in this tournament was defeat Iran and the thinking was they’d have a chance to advance. Goal difference was emphasized headed in, and the Americans sat deep against the Germans, hoping to absorb pressure. Unfortunately, Andreas Moller scored early for the Germans and the US were eventually scored on again when they attempted to open play up and chase an equalizer in the second half. This tournament was almost the reverse of the current setup, because the pre-tournament emphasis for the Yanks was the second and third matches. Unfortunately, getting off to a poor start carried over into the Iran game, and the Iranians played as if beating the Americans meant winning the World Cup. The US fell 2-1 and were eliminated before even taking the field against Yugoslavia to close the group.
Brian McBride’s Mexico heroics were all set up by a win over Portugal.
2002 World Cup, vs. Portugal, WON, 1-1-1 in group, advanced to Quarterfinals
Perhaps the Americans simply love playing favorites at the World Cup. Heavy underdogs against Figo and a monstrous Portugal side in Suwon, the US scored early through John O’Brien, stunning the Portuguese and putting them on the back foot throughout a frenetic first half. It was gorgeous soccer and by the break, the Americans led 3-1, adding an own goal and a fine strike from Brian McBride before Beto pulled one back just before the break. The Americans held on, surviving a Jeff Agoos own goal to win 3-2. The win gave the Americans momentum and confidence, and they needed every ounce of it in a hard-fought draw with hosts South Korea in the second match. A tie in that fixture gave the Americans breathing room, and they advanced despite being outplayed, outhustled and tactically overwhelmed by Poland in the final group stage match. The Round of 16 saw Brian McBride score a goal that I’ve written changed the US-Mexico rivalry forever, and the Americans outplayed Germany in the quarterfinals before losing 1-0 in a game that will forever be mired in controversy. This wasn’t a group of death– but it was close– Portugal were heavily favored at the start of the tournament and South Korea were going to be difficult as hosts. The irony? The US lost to what was on paper clearly their weakest opponent in the group– and that loss was a decisive one. But when you win the opening game…
2006 World Cup, vs. Czech Republic, LOST, 0-2-1 in group stage
Perhaps the Americans also just aren’t a good match up for a team of Czech players. Having been crushed by Czechoslovakia in 1990, the Americans fancied their chances at a modicum of revenge in 2006 against the Czech Republic. Drawn into the “Group of Death”, the Americans knew that a result against the Czechs was going to be essential to their chances at advancing to the Round of 16 for the second consecutive tournament– a feat the federation had never achieved. All was lost from the start. Bruising mountain of a man Czech striker Jan Koller scored just past the four minute mark and the Americans, shell-shocked, played dreadfully. They fell down two-nil after a Tomas Rosicky goal late in the first half and were victimized by Rosicky again after putting on an additional attacker at the break. The game was the first sign that the US team had been had– no longer overlooked, the Czechs were prepared and the Americans were too reliant on aging or unfit players. A brave draw a man down against host Italy followed– another nod to the history of 1990– and gave the Yanks a chance to get out of the group in the final match against Ghana, but it wasn’t to be. Claudio Reyna slipped and slumped to the pitch to set up the first Ghana goal and after Clint Dempsey equalized from an offside position, Oguchi Onyewu was the make-up call victim, called for a somewhat phantom foul in the area which Ghana captain Stephen Appiah buried to give the Black Stars a 2-1 lead they wouldn’t relinquish. It was a bitter pill for the Americans, who entered the tournament ranked in the top five in the world, a ranking that remains the highest in federation history. See what happens when you lose the opening game….
Robert Green helps the US earn a point against England in South Africa.
2010 World Cup, vs. England, DRAW, 1-0-2 in group stage, Won Group, Lost in Round of 16
The coincidental pattern with US World Cups in the modern era is that they feature matches against teams they feel they must defeat in one tournament, and matches they feel it would be great to get a result in the following tournament. 2010 was the latter, with the Americans playing seeded England to open their foray into South Africa. Most folks know what happened: England scored early, Clint Dempsey leveled thanks to a classic English goalkeeping gaffe by Robert Green, and the remainder of the game was mostly a stalemate. Jozy Altidore had a marvelous chance to win the match in the second half but Robert Green, forever remembered for his howler, made a spectacular stop to save a point for England.
If the Yanks received any momentum from the England draw, you wouldn’t know it based on how the Slovenia match started, but it took Koman Coulibaly to prevent the Americans from winning that match after a furious second half comeback. With two draws in the books, the Americans faced a must-win in the final match against Algeria, and waited until the 92 minute to do so, Howard to Altidore to Dempsey to Donovan to Ian Darke screaming and cool Youtube videos and all that.
So what to take away from this history?
First, the US have won only ONE World Cup opener in the modern era. They’ve lost three and drawn two. That’s not a great record.
Second, the US haven’t advanced when they’ve failed to take at least a point from their opening match. This shouldn’t be surprising, as only the most elite sides in the world– say, Spain 2010, can weather that sort of thing– but it does suggest that historically the Americans can’t survive a group without an opening match result.
Finally, this is a tournament and draw more akin to the Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia and Switzerland draws where the US are playing a team that, looking at the group holistically, they should feel they can defeat. There’s legitimate argument as to whether Ghana are better than Portugal– and that’s fertile fodder for the comments section, but to advance, you’d have to agree the Americans must garner at least a point in Natal.
The comments, as always, are yours.
Neil W. Blackmon is co-Founder and co-Editor of The Yanks Are Coming. You can reach him at nwblackmon@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter at @nwb_usmnt.