Was that Jermaine Jones with the horse-#### clearance that led to the goal? Not a huge fan of Jones so it's probably confirmation bias. Stream is too pixelated to tell who is who.

Fred isn't a very imaginative nickname.

If you're too sexy to play down the middle for Brazil, where DO you want to play?

"Right," said Fred.

Well, that explains how they got so wide open in the box.

Hope the referee's assistant has a disguise handy for his trip home.

That was either extremely lucky or expertly trapped.

Is Jones usually the guy to take corners?

Is Jones usually the guy to take corners?

Bradley's taken a few too. Neither has impressed today at least.

Is Jones usually the guy to take corners?

It's usually Donovan, or if he's in the lineup, Torres.

Kljestan for E. Johnson, then Edu for Williams, then Zusi for Jones. A better lineup that what started.

Dempsey looks just about done. This is will be his third full 90 in six days, right?

What the hell were the CB's doing?!

EDIT: More specifically, Omar Gonzalez. Cameron was slow, which I can forgive, but Gonzalez just completely missed that play.

Pathetic, I'm thinking we're not going to make the World Cup.

Terrible. Just terrible.

I would have taken a 1-1 tie, but I do want to point out that Klinsmann was supposed to make the team better in attack. In 23 games under him, the US has scored 2+ only 6 times. In Bob Bradley's last 23 games, it was 7.

Terrible. Just terrible.

The Shin Guardian:

Here's the thing. If you make all your subs around a "tired" central MF at the 60th, why do you think bombing FBs up field will be good?

I would have taken a 1-1 tie, but I do want to point out that Klinsmann was supposed to make the team better in attack. In 23 games under him, the US has scored 2+ only 6 times. In Bob Bradley's last 23 games, it was 7.

Bradley had the fortune of coaching Landon Donovan in his prime. JK gets the likes of Zuzi and Bedoya.

I haven't been too impressed with Klinsmann's tactics with the US... but the talent level is just really low.

In partial defense of Klinsmann, he's had to run the offense without Donovan. Bradley had him.

In further defense, critics have been touting Omar Gonzalez for 2 years and complaining about Klinsmann's failure to add him to the team.

Lastly, with all due respect to DA, who was impeached fairly badly today, this US team isn't very good. Our central defense sucks and we a truly creative player like LD.

Edit to add: Score another one for Nate Silver. Going into today, he had the US 38, Honduras 39. With home field advantage, Honduras should win. They did.

Bradley had the fortune of coaching Landon Donovan in his prime. JK gets the likes of Zuzi and Bedoya.

Bedoya has appeared in one game for Klinsmann, as a substitute in a B team friendly.

Lastly, with all due respect to DA, who was impeached fairly badly today

What side dish should I have with my crow?

Lastly, with all due respect to DA, who was impeached fairly badly today, this US team isn't very good. Our central defense sucks and we a truly creative player like LD.

It's pretty pathetic that the US hasn't produced a creative mid-fielder as good as Reyna in the last decade. That said, the over-all talent pool for the US has never been higher, and all the German-Americans are Klinsy's boys, he picked them, he recruited them.

All in all it just seems like things are not progressing under Klinsmann, for whatever reason, coaching, talent, voodoo, what have you.

Edit: playing Fabian Johnson as a defensive oriented mid isn't doing anything for anyone, move him forward he's one of the few US players that shows any sort of attacking acumen. And how does Chandler start in the Bundesliga? He was crap today along with most of the back.

Bradley had the fortune of coaching Landon Donovan in his prime. JK gets the likes of Zuzi and Bedoya.

Part of the problem is that guys like Zusi, Bedoya, Torres and Kljestan aren't really attackers, they are more used as two-way CMs for their clubs rather than attacking wing players where Klinsman like to line them up. Bob Bradley would usually use two box-to-box types, two attacking midfielders (usually Donovan and Dempsey or maybe Beasley) and two strikers; with Klinsmann we usually get something like a dedicated DM, 2-3 CMs, maybe a winger, Dempsey and a forward. Guys like Ching, Beasley or Conor Casey maybe weren't the most exciting attacking ever, but they were actual attacking players.

I hate friendlies.

I'm calling it right now, popped hammy for Gerrard monday.

Also, we shouldn't blame the lovely bloke Joe Hart for that howler. That was not his shame!

Meant to indicate that I don't believe Hart would flub something that simple, not that he was the one in goal at the time.

My message board communication leaves much to be desired.

Does anyone think that Japan has a better team then the US?

I do.

As do I. And Nate Silver as well.

Hindsight being 20/20: Maybe don't start a backline that's never played together before. Of course if Bocanegra was in there instead of Gonzalez and we had the same result, we'd be saying "why didn't he play Gonzalez!"

Hindsight being 20/20: Maybe don't start a backline that's never played together before. Of course if Bocanegra was in there instead of Gonzalez and we had the same result, we'd be saying "why didn't he play Gonzalez!"

The frustrating part about this is that he waited so long to start trying out new CBs, so many of the early games under Klinsmann he was still constantly running Bocanegra, Goodson and Onyewu when he could have been trying out a lot more new players. The one new CB he did try early on was Orozco, who was a really questionable choice and not at all surprising when he didn't work out.

What side dish should I have with my crow?

You can skip the crow, but you might want to hold off on buying a lottery ticket until tomorrow.

That said, the over-all talent pool for the US has never been higher

I really can't agree with this. Part of it is that the game has changed. We need to think of the talent pool in the context of the game today. Talent is no longer DaMarcus Beasley breaking with pace on the wing. It's control of the game with technique. The US is FAR behind on that, thanks to the multiple problems with talent development as I mentioned on the previous page.

Even if Klinsmann wanted to succeed by putting speed on the flanks and up front, and rely on counter-attacks at pace, he couldn't do it. The US doesn't have that option with anyone in the pool today (Gatt's possible in the future, but not now). I think he's actually done a good job of reaching outside the box to increase the type of talent we need, it's just not there.

Also, I'm not sure how much people appreciate that LD is by far the best player the US has ever produced. Losing him is huge.

Have to agree with Mefisto on that entirely.

You can skip the crow, but you might want to hold off on buying a lottery ticket until tomorrow.

No, I ran my mouth for two pages and none of it was correct. Crow is on the menu.

Good points Mefisto I concede I follow the sport casually and what you said makes perfect sense. The US has improved, but others have improved faster.

Does anyone think that Japan has a better team then the US?

I do.

As do I. And Nate Silver as well.

This is a much more interesting question if we're talking about the women instead of the men.

Part of it is that the game has changed. We need to think of the talent pool in the context of the game today. Talent is no longer DaMarcus Beasley breaking with pace on the wing. It's control of the game with technique. The US is FAR behind on that, thanks to the multiple problems with talent development as I mentioned on the previous page.

This is a really, really good point that I think ought be reiterated a couple of times.

Part of it is that the game has changed. We need to think of the talent pool in the context of the game today. Talent is no longer DaMarcus Beasley breaking with pace on the wing. It's control of the game with technique. The US is FAR behind on that, thanks to the multiple problems with talent development as I mentioned on the previous page.

This is a really, really good point that I think ought be reiterated a couple of times.

I have a fairly rudimentary hypothesis that one of the reason American goalkeeping development seems to be years ahead of it's field positions is that goalkeeping skill can be honed somewhat independent of the skill around it. Conversely, I suspect that controlling a game through technique and understanding of movement is wholly dependent on the skill of the squad in its entirety. Messi wouldn't be Messi if he'd spent his youth period training with a bunch of New Zealanders.

As I have no exposure to high-level training I have no idea if this holds any water at all but something that seems to jibe with what I am inferring from Mefisto's post.

As I have no exposure to high-level training I have no idea if this holds any water at all but something that seems to jibe with what I am inferring from Mefisto's post.

I think there is something to this. Derrick Rose wouldn't be Derrick Rose without the streets of Chicago. Same with many, many, many NBA players. The game on the street teaches you flair, composure, hones your muscles and the brain/muscle connection into instinctual play. Yes pickup ball of any sort has its limitations once you reach the professional level -- but it's the classic "you can't teach that" skill that seemingly eludes so many US players.

Isn't Freddy Adu the poster boy for this discussion?

Conversely, I suspect that controlling a game through technique and understanding of movement is wholly dependent on the skill of the squad in its entirety. Messi wouldn't be Messi if he'd spent his youth period training with a bunch of New Zealanders.

Absolutely. Even a good player finds it hard to look good when his teammates can't play. The more sophisticated the skills (e.g., finding space, anticipation, etc.) the more this is true. One of the problems with bad coaching at the youth level in the US is that it's easy to see if a player is big and fast, but it's very hard to recognize field vision, positioning, "soccer smarts", etc.

People on Ives' site are calling for Stuart Holden. Yikes.

Absolutely. Even a good player finds it hard to look good when his teammates can't play. The more sophisticated the skills (e.g., finding space, anticipation, etc.) the more this is true. One of the problems with bad coaching at the youth level in the US is that it's easy to see if a player is big and fast, but it's very hard to recognize field vision, positioning, "soccer smarts", etc.

Amen.

TE, Jr. is on a U8 "B" team in our local town, which means in our part of the state the team is "flighted" at about Flight 6, meaning (in theory) there's about 30 teams/towns in our part of the state ahead of them skill-wise. The kids on his team are generally pretty enthusiastic about soccer, but by no means are they "big and fast"--they all fall into a bit of a nether region for their age... some "don't look good in jeans" (as the saying goes), others are too small, or too slow, etc. They're playing in an indoor league between seasons against Flight 1 teams and the raw talent level difference between the two is obvious--the U8 kids on the Flight 1 teams are taller, faster, have more booming kicks, etc. They clearly stand out.

But from watching higher-flight teams this past fall and winter, all this "bigger/faster" does is translate into route one soccer. Some kids/teams will pass and try to build up possession, but mainly it's "are our kids bigger/faster than your kids, and do we have a better goalie?" It's Stoke with 7-year-olds.

The coaches TE Jr. has are pretty good and they do try to work with them on possession, passing, etc. but it's hard when all they see "working" is lump it forward and chase after it and hope you get there first/overwhelm the defenders who aren't really taught how to defend. It also doesn't help that "soccer parents" are--by far--the worst when it comes to "cheering"; most try to flat-out coach from the other touchline and (being 7), the kids don't know to just ignore them and pay attention to only their coaches.

You can see in some of these kids the field vision & positioning (albeit at a nascent stage), but because they don't have the physical presence yet, it's almost impossible for them to be successful with crosses into the box/threaded passes, etc. But you do see them trying, and it's wonderful to see, even when it doesn't work. The problem is those skills are not what will get you picked for the "A" team or get you noticed; thumping the ball forward/running fast will.

If you take this one level/area and apply it to the whole of the US soccer system, you can see the problem.

I'm not sure what the solution is, because if route one football is going to get teams victories in U8, U9, U10-level soccer, given the insane competitiveness of the teams/coaches/parents, then route one football is what's going to be played/learned/engrained. Perhaps if the MLS teams had more comprehensive youth academies you'd be able to stamp out some of that, at least for a small portion of the population, but I'm sure that would come with its own set of problems, etc.

436 is a pretty good nutshell description of the flaws in youth soccer. I'll add a couple more:

1. College and ODP coaches emphasize size and speed just as much as U10 coaches do. Most D1 colleges pretty much won't look at a smaller player in the absence of great speed. Technique is secondary. The rot continues all the way up.

The net effect is that the kids who have real skill actually get discouraged from playing, while those who are big and fast get rewarded.

2. The "pay to play" system reinforces the flaws. Coaches need to justify the salary they get paid, which comes out of the parents. Thus, they need to win, and long-term development gets secondary attention.

"Pay to play" also makes it harder to draw the poorer kids, even when clubs try to offer scholarships. The sheer need to find money corrupts the process.

#426, #431, #432, and #434 all raise excellent points.

The game has definitely changed at the highest levels, as it always does. There's still a lot of variability, though. Look at the England-Brazil friendly for a perfect example. Brazil, the kings of technique and flair, have in recent years been on a path of incorporating more and more physicality and directness into their play (the Dunga influence). England, long associated with the other end of the spectrum, have been desperately trying to move the other direction but have found that their technique, inventiveness, and ability to keep possession aren't ready for showtime. Tactics and style are always in flux, but I wonder how much of what we think we need from our talent pool is a product of short-term groupthink.

I think there's a temptation to look at the teams that win the tournaments and the cups and declare their style of play to be indicative of a new trend. The dominance of Barca and Spain heralded the dawning of the era of tiki-taka, of course. But...other than some disciples such as Arsenal (who were tiki-taka before it was cool, man!) and Swansea, the Spanish style hasn't spread very far beyond Spain. And even within Spain itself, there's a healthy contrast in styles between the two top teams. Barca are Barca, and Real Madrid are built around a far more direct approach to goal plus their calling card of ferocious counterattacking speed.

This is not to say the US shouldn't try to develop more technically skilled players who can keep the ball well and play through/around the sorts of teams they encounter in the majority of their CONCACAF matches. They need more of that type of player in order to make qualification a smoother exercise. On the other hand, they shouldn't give up on developing players who are tremendously fit, powerful, and direct either. Not only do those guys have their uses in qualifying, they can often be more effective than the tiki-taka types once the US actually reaches a major tournament.

That difference between CONCACAF qualifying and tournament play is one of the many difficulties facing Klinsmann in developing a long-term plan for this country's soccer program. During qualifying, the US goes into the match as the favorite against every opponent but Mexico. They will therefore be expected to take the game to the opposition rather than sit back and hit the the other team on the break. Once the US reaches the World Cup, though, they're going to be underdogs against at least one and probably two of the other sides in their group. If they try to take the game to those teams, their inferior technique will be exposed and they'll get carved to bits.

So Klinsmann has a tough row to hoe here. He basically needs two distinct teams to significantly improve on Bradley's results: a qualifying team that's more comfortable in possession and creative enough to break down CONCACAF opponents, and a World Cup team that's tighter defensively and quicker and more ruthless on the counter. As the Big Tuna might say, Klinsmann hasn't got the groceries to cook either meal.

The US is basically a typical top African team right now, but with much better goalkeepers. Take away Howard and Guzan, and they'd fit right in at the ACN; all about power and physicality, with just a slight sprinkling of creativity and skill concentrated in a handful of individuals. They don't have enough skillful players to reliably dominate possession and make good use of the ball, and they don't have enough quality in defense, wide positions, and up top to soak up pressure and play on the break.

I can't say I see the situation changing all that much until maybe the next generation of US talent comes along. By which time Klinsmann will almost certainly no longer be in the job. So good luck to him, I guess. I don't envy the task he's got on his hands.

Absolutely. Even a good player finds it hard to look good when his teammates can't play. The more sophisticated the skills (e.g., finding space, anticipation, etc.) the more this is true.

SPURS THINK FACTORY
Gylfi Sigurdsson nods furiously in agreement.

YOUTH THINK FACTORY
On the less strictly provincial subject of the criticisms of soccer development raised in #436 and #437, you might be surprised to learn that those same arguments have been circulating in the English press, virtually verbatim, for years and years. And they have all the money, academies, and broad cultural enthusiasm that the US lacks! So it's not a uniquely American problem. Maybe that's not so reassuring, insofar as we can't just throw money at the problem, or just get more young athletes to choose soccer over other sports, to make it go away.

Mexico - Jamaica on ESPN2 if anyone is interested.

Doesn't really seem to me like the USMNT has much of either type of player (athletic verse technical), they don't have many big fast guys and they don't have many technical players either, dunno where the blame lies but I'd guess the blame is shared across the board, from the pool of players that get developed to the development itself.

I saw kids on the fields of NYC during my time there that were clearly in love with the game, like they'd be there every single time I had a softball game or ultimate game. Does US Soccer have any urban presence at all? It really seems focused on the white 'burbs imo and no offense to those kids but they aren't the ones that are going to take us to the next level. All the best suburban athletes play football, baseball or basketball, in that order.

Jamaica is going to regret missing that nearly empty goal ...

Wow, there are easily more riot police guarding Jamaican fans than there are Jamaican fans ...

Some time to go, but if things stay as they are, what's the more disappointing result?

US loss to Honduras away?

Or Mexico tie with Jamaica at home?

[edit]

Ugh ... *another* golden chance squandered for Jamaica ...

Mexico tie. They're the best team in CONCACAF and they are at home.

FWIW, Jamaica shook up their team for this game after crashing out of the Caribbean Cup. And when you're going into Estadio Azteca in a game you are expected to lose, what do you have to lose? So Mexico had little to go on with how they play as a starting XI. Of course that cuts both ways and the Reggae Boyz have no experience together either.

Wow, there are easily more riot police guarding Jamaican fans than there are Jamaican fans ...

Man, you'd think the Jamaican fans would be so mellow, you could guard them with a giant teddy bear.

Uh ... 6 minutes added?

"Senor Alejandro Ferguson"

HAPPY BOB MARLEY DAY, JAMAICA!!!

Probably the most intriguing set of initial results in any Hex to date.