The US celebrated in Natal. Can they do so in Salvador?
Neil W. Blackmon
“For us now talking about winning a World Cup, it is just not realistic.”
— Jurgen Klinsmann to Sam Borden of the New York Times, December 2013
Yes, he said that. He defended it too.
No, he wasn’t wrong. And it’s a sad commentary far worse than anything Ann Coulter or Pete Prisco or Dan Shaughnessy wrote about soccer this week that all a former national sports journalist of the year with a wildly popular television show heard when Klinsmann said that was an (largely accurate) opinion on Kobe Bryant, an opinion that prompted that journalist to tell Klinsmann, a Californian, to “Get the Hell out of America.”
But he said it. And in saying it, and then defending it, Klinsmann shielded his players- still engrossed in the US Soccer “Send-Off Series” friendlies– from the seemingly endless debate and drivel surrounding the other huge statement he made of late, that of leaving the greatest field player the US have ever produced, Landon Donovan, off his 23 man World Cup roster.
No, I don’t get that decision. And you’re painfully mistaken if you don’t think bringing Landon Donovan would have helped the United States in this tournament, particularly in the last game in Recife, where an exhausted US barely held the ball and when they did, plodded through the midfield unable to exploit a team with a dangerous lack of width.
Yes, I’d like a US Soccer Federation more ambitious than its stated goal in March: “Get out of the Group.” Isn’t ambition the reason the US Soccer Federation fired the largely successful, World Cup group winning, Spain conquering (before it was cool) Bob Bradley and finally, on try number three, hired Jurgen Klinsmann?
No, you’re not wrong that “get out of the group” is the goal of most every nation, to some extent.
The US fans in Natal seemed more confident in this team than anyone back home.
Yes, the United States got out of the group. And yes, you’re at least half-right that this was a, if not the, Group of Death. We saw Spain and tiki-taka die, a death too fast and sudden to leave much time for mourning, in another group- the one the Brazilian telecasts called the “Group of Death,” but the Americans still received a brutal draw. Ghana were a quarterfinalist in 2010 and more complete at this tournament, at least on paper. Portugal were vulnerable and the smarter of us knew it, but Cristiano Ronaldo won the Ballon d’Or and the Champions League. Germany had no fullbacks and questions at forward, but when they hold international tournaments Germany tend to make the semifinals. And the US survived.
And no, most writers, television talking heads, experts, soothsayers, octopi and cupcake bakers didn’t think the US would get out of the group. Here at TYAC, of all contributors, only Jon Levy had the Americans escaping the group stage. We weren’t alone.
At Sports Illustrated, only James Young, a contributor during the World Cup, picked the US to escape the group. Sentiments at ESPN, the “It’s Always Sunny in the crap part of Soho” Magnolia Bakery cupcake optimism of the Men in Blazers notwithstanding, were nearly as grim. Hell, they even hired Nate Silver, he of 538 “pretty politico girl at the DC Starbucks hitting refresh on her Mac at 5:30 AM ten months before the midterms” fame, to statistically show us how little a chance the Americans had. The actual number reminded me of that math class the kids who aren’t good at math take their freshmen year of college (ME) and made my head hurt. It wasn’t good.
But they survived. Clint Dempsey scored in thirty seconds and John Brooks headed home when all but a point seemed lost and the US vanquished Ghana, the team that forever vanquished them, and stole three points. Brooks’ disbelief was fitting, shared by so many in the stands and met with happy tears and hugs and spilled beers at pubs and parks and in living rooms- lots of living rooms, apparently– at home.
Big in Brazil.
Some of us might have taken three points against Ghana a year from now had the US dropped the final two games, but the Yanks played marvelously in Manaus, that strange, humid, wonderful Amazonian Paris, and nearly qualified on the bounce. Suddenly three points against Ghana should have been six in two and while I rode a plane home my e-mail filled with Bradley vitriol and more reasoned “what ifs.” What if Yedlin dribbled into the corner or Jermaine Jones made a better pass or Michael Bradley maintained possession like he’d done so well for a World Cup cycle? What if Kyle Beckerman reacted faster or Omar Gonzalez hadn’t been caught up field or Geoff Cameron would have seen Varela sooner or DaMarcus Beasley had help on Ronaldo? Still, a draw. And applause.
The Americans didn’t have enough in Recife. Visibly exhausted, they succumbed to German ball pressure and a lack of any ideas on the wings and fell, 1-0. It took admirable performances from Omar Gonzalez and DaMarcus Beasley and Jermaine Jones (again) and Kyle Beckerman (again) and Tim Howard (again) to keep things that close. But it was a surreal day- one that started with a deluge and flood and a late US Soccer bus and a team that couldn’t even warm up on the field and ended with American players and fans alike applauding Ronaldo, who had broken their hearts only four days prior.
Four points and goal differential, it turned out, was enough to get through.
Yes, we shouldn’t have underestimated this team.
But no, we shouldn’t be satisfied.
At this point, nearly a quarter century removed from Paul Caligiuri’s goal that lifted US Soccer out of its own dark ages, we should expect to reach the Round of 16. At this point, the bar is and should be that high. Last World Cup, albeit in a softer group, the US won a group. You can if and but your way to any conclusion: the US were two stoppage time minutes from elimination, they were gifted a goal against England, Slovenia made a tactical mess of their lead- but the reality is Bob Bradley’s group won a World Cup group and this team survived a “Group of Death.” By most counts, that’s the second “Group of Death” a US team have weathered this century, with 2002’s daunting group of Portugal, host South Korea and a talented Polish team arguably as challenging as the US task this summer in Brazil. That’s enough of a sample size to expect the US to get through every time.
And if that isn’t, consider that this has been a cycle characterized, more than anything, with moving forward and changing expectations.
Klinsmann promised a more proactive, engaging and attacking style. Here, more words than deed. But to some extent, credit the manager for his pragmatism. Lacking the personnel and too competitive, as a whole, to overhaul immediately, Klinsmann has been the consummate pragmatist, emphasizing defense and slowly eliminating the defensive breakdowns and lapses that plagued US teams in the past.
This cycle included a win at Azteca. It should also include a quarterfinal at the World Cup.
Klinsmann promised increasingly difficult friendlies. This was odd, in truth- it wasn’t as if Bob Bradley ducked the tough matches- but Klinsmann took on all comers and delivered several groundbreaking results, even if in the end, they were just “friendlies.” The US played a high line in Paris and failed, but was tactically fascinating. The US beat Italy in Genoa, a remarkable feat even if the soccer was bland. There was a draw in Russia against a Capello side that didn’t lose a point at home in World Cup qualifying. A win over Bosnia and Herzegovina witnessed two of the nicer US goals of the World Cup cycle, and saw the Yanks defeat another quality opponent in Europe. Michael Orozco scored at Mexico’s Estadio Azteca and the Yanks finally had their result in that black cauldron of cycles past. And the US defended like the Alamo at the same building in qualifying, earning a draw where before it had only known defeat, no matter how beautiful a goal Charlie Davies scored in 2009. This was a cycle about changing expectations.
Klinsmann also wanted to move forward from the past. Whether that be the rather unfortunate, undignified break with longtime captain Carlos Bocanegra, the fact he “reassigned” his longtime friend and assistant Martin Vazquez three months before the World Cup began, or the shocking decision to omit Landon Donovan from the World Cup roster, Klinsmann has rolled the dice and defended his decisions with one overarching mantra: the here and now matters most, the past and sentiment least. In this light, Klinsmann’s recent comments that “the real tournament starts now” following the Yanks’ group stage survival are more indicia of his continual forward gaze.
Gone and missed, but the US can still win.
So forward we go, and with expectation. Expectation because this is a manager who centers so many decisions on his own vision of the future, and it’s only fair that we join him in clearly outlining our expectations. After all, a central complaint Klinsmann has made about soccer writers and fans in the United States is they use “kid gloves” too often. They aren’t aggressive and critical often enough.
Sounds good, coach. How about we start now?
Yes, the US should advance to the Round of 16.
Yes, realistically, the US might not be able to win a World Cup right now.
But that doesn’t mean the US can’t beat Belgium. In fact, the United States should. The United States needs to beat Belgium.
If it happens, it’s unlikely to be with proactive, attacking soccer. The US attack this World Cup, undoubtedly damaged by Jurgen Klinsmann’s refusal to bring players who offered speed and width, as well as the lack of a backup striker (Brek Shea, Landon Donovan, Eddie Johnson come to mind immediately), have minimized US scoring chances from the run of play. Since Jozy Altidore got hurt in the 23rd minute of the tournament, the States have struggled to ease pressure holding onto the ball. Although they’ve attempted to counterattack- this hasn’t been a longstanding strategy under Klinsmann, for whatever reason, and the lack of any genuine speed on the flank has been damaging. In open play, the USA’s best attacking strategy has often involved plodding attacks through the center of the field, usually involving Jermaine Jones (who has fortunately delivered the goods) charging as the classic ‘third man running’ – with the hope being a run from the edge of the area will get through or Jones can simply make something happen himself. None of this is particularly encouraging, and the US lack of options off the bench makes it even more difficult.
Last World Cup ride for Dempsey? Could be tomorrow.
And yet, there are reasons for optimism. The narrowness of Belgium’s attack will play into the USA’s defensive strength in the center of the pitch. The fact Belgium’s starting forward is in miserable form and Belgium’s system isn’t really designed to allow him to sit as deep as he wants to receive the ball and turn will help too. The fact that the Belgians lack symmetry between their wings and their central midfielders, and have zero proper fullbacks, also offers hope. Belgium’s banged up backline features plenty of technical and aerial prowess, but offers little pace and hardly anything on the overlap in attack. And the Belgians aren’t an international soccer power who is used to this stage. The Americans have more Round of 16 experience, as a nation, and on this team, than the Belgians. There’s no “well, Germany will find a way to win” history with Belgium.
In other words, this is a very winnable match for the United States. This is a huge chance to move forward in a World Cup cycle about moving forward.
No, the Americans aren’t as talented player for player. But Clint Dempsey, Tim Howard, Kyle Beckerman, Jermaine Jones and more than the lot of them, DaMarcus Beasley, could be playing their last World Cup game for the United States. That’s a lot of “want to.”
Yes, I believe the Americans can win.
It’s time we all believe. Better yet, it’s time we expect.
Neil W. Blackmon is Co-Founder of The Yanks Are Coming. He can be reached at nwblackmon@gmail.com and you can follow him on Twitter at @nwb_usmnt.