SSDD

And so it is over, just like that. For the seventh time in nine appearances, the Americans end their run short of the quarterfinals. Want to know why? Here's a hint:

Gerrard (3')
Birsa (12')
Boateng (4')

Actually, that's not a hint. That is why. The US were even for just 70 of the 180 minutes of first-half soccer they played this year; they trailed for the other 110. If Algeria had more accurate attackers, it probably would have been only 30 of 180, trailing for the other 150. (Oh yes, and officially, they led for 0 minutes, right? Because the only match they won came on a goal that was scored in stoppage time.)

Worse yet, if the USMNT had proper focus at the beginning of these matches, they would have had 9 points in the group stage, not 5, winning it easily (and perhaps resting a player or two against Algeria), and they would have beaten Ghana in regular time. Instead of being 4-0-0 at this point, they went 1-2-1 and are done.

Yes, the finishing was not so good against Ghana, but the problem was more the constant struggle to catch up. In three of the four matches, the US blew a play defensively within six minutes of kickoff; in two of those, the mistake cost them a goal. Against Slovenia, the mistake came almost ten minutes later. (sigh) For good measure, the eventual winning goal by Ghana came just two minutes into extra time.

Finishing? Yes, there were goals against Algeria and Slovenia that didn't count, but let's talk about the round of 16. The US had six shots on goal: one was Donovan's PK and the rest were directly at Richard Kingson, the backup keeper for Wigan. I follow Wigan. Yes, Chris Kirkland is pretty good, but Wigan aren't, at least not last season, and Kingson has no chance of cracking that lineup. This isn't like, say, beating Tim Howard. Too few shots actually tested Kingson.

Yes, Ricardo Clark made another mistake that led to a goal, but that wasn't the problem as much as Bradley's decision to start him, which led to a first-half substitution to replace him, which meant the US had only one late-match substitution for extra time (with the usual second-half kickoff sub for Feilhaber). Would it have made a difference? Yeah. Did you see how few people were attacking the goal late in the match? Altidore did seem to be out of gas; Gomez came in for him late, but it would have been nice not to start Findley and to put in someone who can actually do something at the attacking end.

Yes, the Americans acquitted themselves very well, and there were some players who did a solid job, but ultimately this was yet another USMNT that did not play to its potential in the World Cup.

So I guess it's Gold Cup time now ... two more of those (2011 and 2013) and then we can start talking about Brazil 2014. The nice thing is that many of these players may be in good shape for the next Cup run, but they'll have to finish when they get there. The US are past the point of being able to underperform and make excuses for it: at some point, they need to get it done.

Pandemonium

Halfway through the second match, against Slovenia, the US looked to be heading home after yet another disappointing showing. Bob Bradley would be "fired" (for some reason, the US chooses a new coach for every World Cup cycle), the stars would be derided for disappearing when the chips were down, and soccer would once again be the sport that everyone plays but nobody watches. 45 minutes later, the US had two things: hope and anger. Hope that they could still qualify for the knockout stage and anger that calls that affected the game could be missed so badly.

So, coming into the third match, we knew this: FIFA refs suck, just like officials in all sports do, and the USMNT would have to play extra hard to overcome that, just like every other side does. (It's no different than in other sports. Champions play through bad calls.) Of course, it wasn't all in our hands, at least not with respect to winning the group. Defeating Algeria would put the US through, but coupled with an England win by the same margin or less, Group C would go to the Americans, and that would mean an apparently favorable draw, possibly avoiding Germany in the round of 16 and maybe even getting South Korea in the quarters.

The bar where we watched both matches was full, naturally. It's a soccer bar anyway (opening at 7 during the tournament, which is no mean feat in a state where you can't even buy beer on Sundays, mostly), and with both the US and England in action, seats were scarce. (At this point, I was grateful to be self-employed.) I got the table, everyone arrived, I got my food, and it was time for soccer ... sort of.

The first half brought some surprises. For one, Bradley changed his lineup around in a surprising way, and it worked great. The US had only one major defensive lapse, and fortunately for them, the wide-open Algerian striker hit the crossbar squarely. Possession was used better, and the ball was frequently seen moving from flank to flank, rather than shot directly into a cloud of midfielders or launched over the top for yet another hopeless run.

Even better, the US produced a number of chances, the best being Clint Dempsey's goal that was incorrectly disallowed by the referee's assistant. (FIFA doesn't need replay and they're happy with that. Reminds you of MLB, doesn't it? And yes, Sepp Blatter is even dumber than Bud Selig, if you can believe that.) Yes, you'll read about it over and over again, but the point to take away from the half was that it should easily have been 2-0 or even 3-0. This wasn't like the Slovenia match at all.

But England had scored on Slovenia, and that pushed the US into third if nothing were to change.

The second half was more of the same: poor officiating (just ask Dempsey's face), US chances, and no goals. No change from the other match as well, and as the minutes ticked away and opportunities continued to be wasted, the tension grew. There was always someone encouraging the bar, but you could tell we were concerned.

Finally, the play. Injury time. Howard throws the ball out to Donovan (something keepers figure is more accurate than kicking with this ball), Donovan finds Altidore, Altidore feeds Dempsey, Dempsey can't chip and simply smacks it off the keeper, Donovan swoops in .... GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAL!

Have you ever seen an explosion of emotion? An entire bar of American fans (well, with one or two English or English/American fans) stands as one and screams in delight. From the agony of defeat to the thrill of victory with just minutes remaining ... and not only do the Americans win (clinched a minute later when the Algerian captain is wrongly sent off), they finish top of Group C, and instead of drawing die Mannschaft, they get second-placed Ghana.

Yes, it's in Africa, but hey, Algeria is also in Africa, and there were plenty of US supporters there. In Saturday's match, the US should be able to advance ... and then with either Uruguay or South Korea waiting in the quarterfinals, the US has a path to the semis for the first time since 1930. Can they make it? If not now, when?

So what should the score have been, if the US had, as they say, clinical finishing?

19' - Gomez shoots directly at the keeper rather than into the net. He collects the rebound and finds Dempsey for an easy goal. This, of course, is the one denied incorrectly. Way to go, FIFA. Nonetheless, Gomez should have scored initially.

36' - Donovan shoots, the rebound comes straight out, and both Altidore and Donovan swing high and send the ball well over the net.

56' - Dempsey with a beautiful chip that crashes off the post; the rebound returns and he puts it well wide.

67' - Buddle places a header directly at the keeper with the entire net at his dispoal.

That's four goals right there (counting the missed Gomez shot, not the offside call).

Further, you have three calls that were flat-out missed:

19' - You already know this one. Dempsey scores and the assistant calls it offside.

48' - Dempsey is elbowed in the face in the box. No foul.

80' - Dempsey is smacked in the face by the Algerian captain, Yahia, who already has a yellow card. This should have been a PK and a second yellow, but instead is nothing at all. (Karma strikes back as Yahia is sent off later for doing nothing at all, a case of mistaken identity.)

The US dominated Algeria and scored but one goal, exactly like a football team with 400+ yards of total offense and a single touchdown. You get no credit for possession, only for balls in the net. Let's hope we see more American celebrations for that on Saturday.

World Cup: so what now?

We're in first and you're not. Uh, not "we" we, "they" we. You know, them.

Well, now that the first set of Group C matches is complete, we know ... well, very little. With Slovenia's 1-0 victory over Algeria, the US find themselves tied for second in Group C. Not a bad position to be in, but it could be better. (Ask Slovenia.)

What do we need to do?
End up with 5 points or more. Yes, you can get through with 4, but you can also fall short with 4, and we don't want that, do we? Get 5 points, and you're advancing. You might even win your group.

So that means we need a win and a draw in our last two matches. Two wins, of course, would be better: with 7 points, we're through automatically. (The most you can have and not advance is 6, and that would require a three-way tie and a bad tiebreaker. That hasn't happened since the World Cup went to eight groups and sixteen teams advancing in 1998.)

Everyone, beat these guys, or else.

Right. So we advance with 5?
Pretty much, unless a) everyone beats Algeria and b) everybody draws with everyone else. Then it comes down to goal differential, which is basically how badly we beat Algeria, and then after that, goals scored (which is why you root for low-scoring matches in your group).

But that probably won't happen, as we can expect England to beat Algeria and Slovenia to advance. So 5 gets us through.

And if we lose one?
Well, that makes it tough. If we lose to Slovenia, then they have 6 points and are through (because we could get no more than 4 and either Algeria or England would also be limited). If we beat Slovenia, then we enter the final day (when both matches are played simultaneously) with 4, England has 4, Slovenia has 3, and Algeria has 0.

Now it gets fun. We would only need a draw with Algeria (a draw between England and Slovenia puts England through with us, a win puts the winner through with us) ... but England would also need only a draw and could be playing accordingly. If Slovenia upset them and we lost to Algeria, it would be that tiebreaker thing again. In general, tiebreakers are bad, because it means you have to win by a certain number of goals to stay out of trouble, and you won't know for sure because it may change if the other match changes. (Yes, it worked for us in the 2009 Confederations Cup, but that took a lot of help.)

So who do we root for on Friday?
Besides someone who can help with grammar? (For whom do we root?) Root for the US and don't worry about England v Algeria ... rooting for a low score isn't bad, or a one-goal win for England (in case we do finish tied with them), but just let it happen. Again, if we win both matches, we advance.

Do we want this man testing Tim Howard? No.

To play the Germans?
Most likely, yes. England is still favored to win the group (check the updated stats on the right side of the page), so we'd likely face the winner of Group D if we advance, and if that's someone other than Germany, we'll all be shocked. (Also note that we are basically in a dead heat with Slovenia in terms of advancement probability. What does that mean? We need that win on Friday.)

What if we don't make it?
Then we spend the next four years hearing about how we suck in the World Cup because we don't care enough. The US has a couple of recent Cups where we fared pretty well and several where we pooped the bed. A top-16 side needs to advance to the knockout stage; nothing less should be acceptable.

So let's not talk about it. Beat Slovenia, move back into a tie for first, and put the tiebreakers to bed.

Quick thoughts from 0-4* World Cup debacle

*Yes, I know we drew 1-1, but watch the match again (if you dare) and tell me that 0-4 isn't a more likely result.

-- aaaaa cross cross cross the ball aaaaa cross the ball aaaaaa STOP ATTACKING IN ONE-SIXTH TO ONE-THIRD OF THE WIDTH OF THE PITCH! They let you use the WHOLE FIELD for a reason. Watch the English do it. Again. And again. And again.
-- A side known for counter-attacking should, perhaps, not be holding up the ball to allow an attack to build. ESPECIALLY NOT WHEN ALL THE ATTACKERS ARE NICELY CLUSTERED IN ONE AREA.
-- If you are on the back line or are a defensive midfielder, Tim Howard says to you "$(&*(& #(*&*& @!_ _@() &#) )# *#()$ )*)@#!" At least that's as close as I can get to transcribing it accurately. That man was incredible today.
-- I can't blame Dempsey for lobbing a halfhearted shot on net (the one that trickled in for the draw). He probably got tired of waiting for midfield support that never arrived.
-- Adding to the tactical errors, Bradley waited until beyond the last minute to make changes (as usual). No idea why Buddle came on instead of Gomez. After all, it was 1-1, and the US did have a couple of opportunities (although one or two were ruined when they refused to pass to the open Holden on the wing, you know the sub with fresh legs who could make a run). Gomez is more the instant offense type, isn't he?
-- I do understand the point of the "third" substitution (Gomez), basically, to stall at the end and ensure there would be no last-second goal, but it just adds to the oddity of Bradley's substitution patterns. In a match where at least five guys were playing so poorly, was there not one other guy you could put on the field? (Sadly, on the back line, no. What you see is about all you get, and this is the problem with having a guy like Bornstein on the roster: when someone else is struggling or has picked up an early card, you have no one to replace him.)

The US had one or two legitimate chances and missed them both (did anyone else think perhaps Altidore should have let the ball pass through to the open Dempsey, who would certainly have slotted it home?); if it weren't for an unbelievable break, this would have been an opening loss, one that could easily have kept the US out of the knockout round. That still may happen, too. I doubt 3 points will get you forward, and even 4 may be too few.

Of course, the US have no excuse to come away with fewer than 7. It is time to put up some numbers, to put home some goals, and to stop making Tim Howard cover everyone in the box. Algeria and Slovenia must be beaten, and the US side must pick up some momentum. Squeaking by the group stage and getting hammered in the knockout round will be a big step back from the side that were 45 minutes from winning the Confederations Cup.

P.S. England has still never beaten the US in World Cup play. Lolz!

Totally not screwed

The World Cup draw was held today. Normally, in these things, the USA is screwed, mostly because FIFA is really only concerned with distributing competition in geographic terms. (This is probably because of the heavy concentration of talent in Europe. Think of it as soccer's equivalent of the BCS: the current system strongly benefits Europe, and Europe has significant influence in FIFA, so it's not likely to change any time soon.)

What happens is that if you aren't the host country or a top team, you're grouped essentially by region, so you can't play anyone else in your region. Unfortunately, we end up grouped with other CONCACAF countries and usually the weaker Asian teams, so instead of being able to draw them, we draw a couple of European teams. In theory, this wouldn't matter for a top side: obviously to win the World Cup you have to beat a number of quality teams. In practice, we're not that good yet, so we could use a balanced draw rather than a geographic draw.

Well, this is what we got:
Pot 1) England. Well, it wasn't Brazil or Spain. Of course, given how we played Brazil and Spain in the Confederations Cup, maybe those would have been better draws. South Africa would have been the dream draw here. Instead, we get a difficult opponent.
Pot 2) USA. This is just to show where we came into play.
Pot 3) Algeria. Jackpot. Arguably the weakest team in Pot 3. They've not played in the World Cup in 24 years and were not a particularly strong qualifier from Africa. They do have some home-continent advantage, but I don't think it will be enough to threaten.
Pot 4) Slovenia. Another great draw, considering that France and Portugal were in this pot. Slovakia would have been a better draw, but Slovenia and Algeria should be enough to guarantee advancement for the US.

Will the US be strong and healthy enough to advance beyond the round of 16? There's no way to tell right now, but it should certainly be a consideration. This is a team that was a match from early elimination in South Africa this year, yet found itself at halftime of the championship match ahead 2-0 against Brazil.

On the flip side, we're strong enough that the Confederations Cup should be a disappointment rather than an accomplishment. In past World Cups, struggling with a draw like this would be unfortunate. Now, it would be a disaster.

The minimum expectation should be six points and a second-place finish. A reasonable expectation would be seven points and a tiebreaker for group finish (drawing with England, goal differential deciding the group winner). Winning the group? That would be good ... but not incredible. Incredible would be advancing to the semifinals.

I think we'll make the quarterfinals. In six months, we'll find out.