Bob Bradley's lineup choices

Bob Bradley takes a lot of (usually deserved) flack for his inability to extract the full potential out of his (for the most part) talented lineup. Whether he just doesn't have a game plan or can't competently fill out a lineup card (or both) is not completely clear, but given the lackluster performance of the US Men's National team in recent international victories and losses, I thought it would be worth looking back at Bradley's lineup choices since the beginning of World Cup 2010 qualifying.

1) The Playoff

First, the US was tasked with a home and home total-goals series against Barbados. At home on June 15, 2008, Clint Dempsey put the US up 1-0 less than a minute into the game, and the home team never looked back. When the dust settled the US had won 8-0, with two goals each scored by Dempsey and Brian Ching. The next game, on June 22, 2008, was more or less a formality, and Bob Bradley trotted out a mostly second-string lineup that included such household names as Danny Califf, Drew Moore and Danny Szetela. The US won 1-0.

Group 1)

The US won their first four games of group play against Guatemala, Cuba, Trinidad & Tobago and Cuba again by a combined score of 11-1 before dropping a game in Port of Spain 2-1. They rebounded though, beating Guatemala again, this time 2-0, to win the group with a +11 goal differential (GD).

Hexagonal)

The US started strong in the final stage of qualifying beating Mexico 2-0 at Columbus Crew stadium on February 11th, 2009, coming from behind at El Salvador to salvage a 2-2 tie with two goals in the final 20 minutes, and trouncing Trinidad & Tobago on April 1st in what was something of a coming out party for Jozy Altidore, who became the youngest American to score a hat trick in a World Cup Qualifier (that was Jozy's second WCQ start; he has started 4 of the 5 that followed).



The Americans then began to stumble. They lost badly at Costa Rica, salvaged a come-from-behind "home" win versus Honduras in Chicago, and were thoroughly outplayed in Mexico on August 11th, but still almost came away with a point. Still, El Estadio Ricardo Saprissa in Costa Rica and El Azteca in Mexico are two very difficult places to play. In fact, the more troubling of the three games was the difficult time the US had beating Honduras at home. Most recently, in September, the US put together two unconvincing wins, another come from behind 2-1 effort at home, this time against El Salvador, and a 1-0 victory on the road at Trinidad & Tobago. Now, in less than two weeks, the US will head to Honduras to play in an environment no less hostile than those of El Azteca and El Estadio Ricardo Saprissa (OK, maybe a little less hostile than Azteca) before returning home to our nation's capital to play a Costa Rican team that will be desperate for a win. Given the desperate situation that Costa Rica will be in, and the danger inherent in going into the final WCQ needing a result, it is hard not to think of the game against Honduras as a must-win. But it isn't. It is just an important game that the US can, and should, win.

What did I learn?

I decided to look back at the whole qualifying campaign, because I wanted to put the summer, with all its flashes of brilliance, spells of mediocrity and sometimes baffling lineup choices into perspective. After taking a look back, a few observations jump out that might inform how we should think about these next two critical games:

1) Clint Dempsey used to be a forward. This one is important, because if you've watched the last few games, you know that he has been starting in the midfield and playing some pretty uninspired soccer. You also might know that he scored 4 goals in the first 5 games of qualifying play, way back in 2008. You might also remember him scoring critical goals in the Confederations Cup and winning the Bronze Ball award for being the third best player in the tournament. Those goals came late in the game, after substitutions had been made that pushed him up from the midfield to the role of a forward. In the second round, Dempsey has been used largely as a midfielder, on the right side of the field, as far away as he can be from the creative play of Landon Donovan. He has scored one goal (a great one against El Salvador) and has looked alternately lost and lazy.



2) Charlie Davies and Jozy Altidore have started 2 games together. The two young strikers who are going to save US soccer may seem like a lock to be starting together up top, but they've only actually ever done so in two WCQ games, and the US didn't play particularly well in either. Jozy did score a nice goal off a better Landon Donovan cross, but Davies and Altidore have not shown any real chemistry. They both run towards the goal whenever they get a chance hoping to get a through ball, when what the US needs is a player running wide, or laterally, or coming back towards the ball. Both have a nose for the net, which is certainly worth a lot, but they haven't shown themselves to have much more than that, or to be able to work together. I won't be surprised, or upset, if we only see one of them starting up top against Honduras.

3) Michael Bradley has been getting a lot of minutes. He has started 13 out of 16 games to be exact. That is more than Oguchi Onyewu and only one less than Landon Donovan. Some of those starts are as a forward, while Dempsey is relegated to the role of midfielder. He did score two goals against Mexico back in February and has not played consistently poorly, but he has done nothing to warrant such a lopsided share of the playing time over such players as Jose Francisco Torres, Stuard Holden and Benny Feilhaber, aside from being the fruit of the boss' loins. It would be nice to see him sat against Honduras, but that is probably wishful thinking.

4) Bob Bradley has used a lot of players and formations, and shown a willingness to experiment with the roster. Unfortunately, this hasn't completely translated into more minutes for the players that probably deserve them, but he may be coming around. The consistent use of Holden as a second half substitute may be an indication that a start is just around the corner for him, and Bradley has even started Torres occasionally, although without success as those games have been tough defeats for the US (although the result does not seem to be correlated with Torres' play). The sometimes makeshift defensive lines that he has trotted out for big games indicates that he may be willing to take a chance on Edgar Castillo sooner rather than later, which is a move that I support.

So what do I expect in Honduras? A slightly different lineup than the one that took the field against El Salvador and Trinidad & Tobago. Either Davies or Altidore will probably start on the bench, which is the right move. Bradley will probably start Ching instead of just moving Dempsey up to forward, which is a mistake, but perhaps this could lead to earlier minutes for Holden and a move up top for Dempsey somewhere around halftime. Other than that, the midfield will consisten of Donovan, Bradley (unfortunately) and probably Clark. I am not holding my breath waiting to see Castillo starting at left back next game, but it is certainly possible given the play of Jonathan Bornstein for the past two games. Specter, Bocanegra and Gooch should also get starts in the back. Howard in goal is a given.

As much as this isn't exactly the lineup I would run out there, this is a lineup that can win the game, defending well and counterattacking effecitvely. Here's hoping the game is actually televised stateside, as I definitely won't be risking any political violence to see the game in person.

US qualification scenarios: play for the win in Honduras!

With 2 rounds of CONCACAF qualifying and the US sitting atop the group with 16 points, the chances of a sixth straight World Cup berth for the US men might seem almost guaranteed. A closer examination of the remaining schedule, however, shows that the US still has some work to do in order to avoid a 4th place finish and a dreaded playoff with the 5th place CONMEBOL finisher.

The good news is that the US Men are one of two teams guaranteed to finish in the top four in the group (Mexico is the other). The bad news is that the US men have the toughest schedule of any of the current top four. The yanks play away at Honduras, where the Hondurans are unbeaten in World Cup qualifying games, and home against a Costa Rican side that will likely be playing a must-win match.

That said, here are all of the possible scenarios which can lead to the US qualifying for South Africa in 2010:

1) The US beats Honduras: As unlikely as this is, the USMNT is going into this game with the full knowledge that their fate is in their own hands. If they can beat Honduras in San Pedro Sula, they will have already punched their ticket to South Africa.

2) The US beats or ties Costa Rica: While a tie against a tough Honduran side certainly does not hurt the US' chances, it does nothing to change the fact that the US probably needs to not lose against Costa Rica on October 14th at RFK Stadium.

These are the ways that the US can guarantee themselves a qualification. If the US ties or loses to Honduras and loses to Costa Rica, they can still qualify with some help from the 5 other teams in the group:

3) The US ties Honduras and loses to Costa Rica, but

a) Costa Rica ties or loses to Trinidad & Tobago: This scenario leaves the US with 17 points. Costa Rica would need to win both of its last two games in order to pass the US.

b) Mexico either loses both of their remaining games, or loses one and ties one: This is extremely unlikely as Mexico has the easiest schedule of any team in the group, playing home against El Salvador and then Away at Trinidad & Tobago.

c) Mexico ties both games and the US loses to Costa Rica by one goal: The US finishes ahead of Mexico on goal differential (GD). If the US loses to Costa Rica by 2, the US and Mexico are tied on goal differential and I have no idea what happens.

d) Honduras ties or loses at El Salvador: El Salvador is a strong squad, and tough to beat at home. This is certainly a possibility, though we don't want to count on it. Honduras needs a win in the final two games to pass the US.

4) The US loses to both Honduras and to Costa Rica, but

a) Costa Rica loses to Trinidad & Tobago: Costa Rica is at 12 points, and needs at least a tie and a win to get 16, where the US currently sits.

b) Costa Rica ties Trinidad & Tobago and the US does not get blown out: The US currently has a +5 GD to Costa Rica's -4. A 1-0 loss to Honduras and a 4-0 loss to Costa Rica would be enough to erase that advantage. A 3-0 loss to Honduras and a 3-0 loss to Costa Rica would also. If the US can avoid losing by 3 in each game, that will be sufficient to qualify as long as Trinidad & Tobago can tie Costa Rica.

c) Mexico loses twice

d) Mexico loses a game and ties a game, and over the final two games (Mexico GD - US GD) < 2: In other words, if Mexico loses and ties, the US must lose less than two goals to Mexico on net.

e) Honduras lose at El Salvador by a lot: Honduras currently leads the US in GD by a goal. Since we are operating under a scenario in which Honduras beats the US on October 10th, the US could still qualify if that game and the Costa Rica game are close, and Honduras gets blown out by El Salvador.

Those are all of the possibilities. While it seems that the odds are in the US' favor, a couple of points are worth noting.

First, we probably won't know until the night of October 14th whether or not the US receives one of the 3 automatic bids. A win at Honduras is extremely improbable. A tie at Honduras only guarantees qualification if we get some help from Costa Rica on the 10th, and that is extremely unlikely.

Second, if the US wants to qualify, it probably cannot afford to lose to Costa Rica. This can be immediately deduced from the fact that the odds of a win in Honduras are unlikely, coupled with extremely low chances of most of the favorable scenarios following 3) and 4) above. If the US does lose to Costa Rica but manages a tie against Honduras (scenario 3), the only reasonable chance the US has to finish in the top 3 is if Honduras cannot beat El Salvador. I certainly don't want to be counting on that result in order to avoid a playoff against Argentina.

Third, if the US loses both games, they are all but guaranteed to finish 4th in the group. None of the possibilities following scenario 4) are even close to likely.

All of which is a long way of saying: Bob Bradley, if you're reading this, play for the win in Honduras! A tie does the US almost no good, while a win puts them through to South Africa.

Absurd

Don't put too much emphasis on the score

The US Men recently won two World Cup qualifying matches in a span of 5 days, and are sitting on top of the group with only 2 matches left to play. While fans of the US were ecstatic to get 6 points in two games (3 of them on the road), many were also distressed to see less-than-dominant performances against the two worst teams in the Hexagonal. Everyone has their opinions about who played well or poorly and what the US did and did not do right, but in a sport like soccer which does not lend itself to the production and distribution of reliable game-by-game statistics, it is difficult for anyone to actually prove a point. Did this US really play that poorly? Does Bob Bradley really deserve to get fired?

Given the lack of hard evidence that the US played poorly over the last two games, many fans are tempted to look at the scoreboard and conclude that the Yanks must have done alright. For example, a couple of representative quotations from the online forums at ussoccer.com:

" I like to think we're doing something right at least being top of our group, and have come away with 6 points in the last 2 matches."

"The last time I checked a win is a win. It is almost like american fans expect perfection. We won and should be happy."

This is a common trap for soccer fans, and it is also a way of thinking from which we have to get away if we want to actually be able to tell how are team is likely to fare in future games, rather than how they fared in games that have already been played. This is especially true if even US coaches and players start to believe that they are playing well just because they are winning.

THe reason is that in soccer, more than almost any other sport, the score is a remarkably poor indicator of how two teams fared over 90 minutes. Games like baseball, football and basketball produce a wealth of statistics that are ready for analysis before a game is even concluded. If I think a basketball team won despite not playing well, I can look at statistics like shooting percentage, rebounds (offensive and defensive) and turnovers. A baseball team can win despite getting fewer hits than an opponent by bunching those hits together, and we as fans can read a box score and see that this happened. We have no such luxury in soccer.

How can we objectively measure how two teams played? Shots on goal is not as good an indicator of success at the quality of those chances, but quality is quite a subjective judgment. Time of possession tells part of the story, but is difficult to measure as it is sometimes difficult to tell which team, if any, has possession of the ball (for the same reason, it would be difficult though useful to count turnovers). It is also important where on the field this possession occurs, and if one team has a few more minutes of possession at the end of the game because they take a few more seconds on each throw-in or goal kick.

After any game, there are several "what-if" scenarios. What if he had caught that pass, or what if that three pointer had gone in? Those events could have changed the game. However, in games in which many shots are made and teams score multiple times, those events are less important in determining the final outcome of a game. Not so in soccer. If a team wins 1-0 and their opponent had a shot that hit the cross bar, that team was an inch or a gust of wind away from a 1-1 tie. Can we honestly argue that the fact that they won 1-0 is a good indicator of how they played? No, we can't, and we as fans and commentators should look for other ways to evaluate how teams have played, so we can better tell how they are likely to play in the future, and what changes they could stand to make.

Back to the US' last two matches. Our guys outplayed El Salvador, but not by as much as we would have liked. El Salvador's only goal was practically an own goal by Bornstein, and the US had a goal called back on a bogus offsides call. The game "should have" been 3-1.

But what if Dempsey's goal had been called offsides? He was on, of course, but most line men would have mistakenly put up their flags in that situation. The US still would have been down 1-0 when Altidore headed the ball into the back of the net in extra time. But what if the referee had blown his whistle after 46 minutes instead of 47? Most refs don't give much time at the end of the first half, and the US was probably lucky to get a full two minutes. The Yankes could have easily gone into halftime down 0-1.

All this isn't to suggest that the US was lucky to beat El Salvador or that we didn't deserve to win. Our guys outplayed theirs, and the best team won. The point is that the score doesn't tell us that. Because the US could have easily outplayed El Salvador and lost 0-1 or tied 1-1. And no one would be pointing at the scoreboard and saying "we won, so we must have done something right".

In T & T, the US was outplayed in the second half. Great work in goal by Tim Howard and a shot off the crossbar are the only reasons the US didn't go into half time down by at least a goal. In the second half our guys played better, but they weren't dominant, and the only goal came on a long range strike which, while an excellent shot, could have been stopped (by Tim Howard, for example). Once again, the US could have easily tied or lost. And while the US once again probably deserved to win, the point is that if they had lost that game, they still would have deserved to win, but wouldn't have.

Very little would have had to happen differently for the US to get 0, 1 or 2 points out of those last two games. That is a cause for concern, and saying "well we won so we must be playing ok" doesn't set my mind at ease. The lesson is that in soccer as opposed to other sports, the final score is a remarkably bad indicator of how a match actually went. And especially in 1-0 games, we might as well throw the score out the window when talking about what the boys did right or wrong.

USA 1 T&T 0: Player Comments

Last night the United States Men's soccer team went down to Port of Spain, Trinidad and did exactly what it had to do (and nothing more) in order to earn 3 points on the road. And before everyone starts belly-aching about how pitiful a performance this was (actually, everyone including myself has already started doing this all over the internet), let's try to remember that this was a road game in the final round of World Cup qualifying. These games are never easy, especially for the big bad United States. Every small country in the Caribbean is gunning for us, and an upset over the USA would be on the order of independence from Spain in terms of historical significance for the fans.

That said, last night the Men's National Team played poorly on the whole, and a couple of individual highlights weren't enough to prevent the sour taste with which we all went to bed (in addition to a strong sense of relief at having gained 3 points). Rather than the usual numbers rating system, here's a sentence for each of the players:

• Jozy Altidore: Don't force it, not every ball needs to be played into the box.



• Charlie Davies: You're great at knowing when to shoot, you need to learn when to pass.



• Clint Dempsey: Tell Bob Bradley directly that you don't want to be a midfielder, he's obviously not picking up on the passive aggressive approach.



• Ricardo Clark: Great shot, but you should take more of them; the rest of your game is pretty forgetable.



• Michael Bradley: You're probably only playing because your dad is the coach, but if you establish yourself as a defensive central midfielder you should have a future with the team even when your old man gets canned.



• Landon Donovan: I can't remember the last time you played and didn't either score or assist on a goal.



• Jonathan Bornstein: A big improvement over your game against El Salvador, but I'm hoping you'll be backing up Edgar Castillo from here on out.



• Oguchi Onyewu: Looking a little rusty, but I hate to think how this game would have gone without you on the back line.



• Carlos Bocanegra: You don't always need to kick the ball as far as you can.



• Jonathan Specter: Still not quite there, but are the future at right back.



• Benny Feilhaber: You're a decent player, but you're a very poor man's Jose Francisco Torres.



• Brian Ching: You are exactly the striker we need when the team is playing like crap: someone who is willing to throw their body around and chase down errant long balls.



• Stuart Holden: If the free market worked, you would have Clint Dempsey's job by now.

Great Moments in US Soccer History: The Shot Heard 'Round The World

With the US down in Port of Spain getting ready for an important (though less crucial than the one played on November 19, 1989) qualifying match, I thought it would be appropriate to revisit the shot that, for fans of my generation, started it all. Here, in all it's glory, is Paul Caligiuri's left-footed volley that qualified the United States for its first World Cup in 40 years:



I chose this particular YouTube offering due to the still-to-turn-gray Bob Ley pretending he has ever seen soccer before with his call "look at this gentle shot puts it onto his left foot and LIFTS IT IN!" Also classic is his description of the subdued US cheering section as "delirious".

US Soccer has come a long way in the last 20 years, let's hope for a similar result tonight!