Why isn't Landon Donovan going to the World Cup?

A friend of mine who is an avid soccer fan and a huge Landon Donovan supporter sent me this email over the weekend:

I’m still just stunned over the Donovan decision, Ferris. I hear he’s been injured and not playing well this year, and I can certainly understand that he wouldn’t start – and may not even play during the tournament. But leaving him off the entire 23-man roster? Inconceivable. Absolutely inconceivable. No one could ever convince me that Kyle Beckerman, Demarcus Beasley or even Brad Davis are better picks. I’m curious as to how my favorite football fan feels about this. Tell me your thoughts some time. In the meantime… 

FIRE JURGEN KLINSMANN!

(And you know me. I never call for the coach’s head. Well, until now.)

So here are my thoughts about Donovan not being on the roster.

1. It's not just about form: Donovan has not been playing great this year. He has struggled to impose himself in games in MLS this year. But there are other players who did make the World Cup roster how have also been struggling (like Josy Altidore). And Donovan has shown an ability in the past to rise up in big moments:



2. It's not just about Donovan's omission, but the players selected instead: It's easy to complain about Donovan not making the team. But then you have to ask yourself: who should have been left home instead? 

Klinsmann considers Donovan a forward (not a midfielder) and he named 4 forwards to the sqaud: Josy Altidore, Aron Johannsson, Clint Dempsey and Chris Wondolowski. Three of those 4 guys are in good form. And Josy is going to start every game as the primary striker for the US, so he wasn't going to be left out. 

3. Can't Donovan play midfield? Why wouldn't Klinsmann bring Donovan to play midfield? This is a tougher question to answer. Donovan may not have the blazing speed he did 4 years ago (he's 32 now). But his vision, passing, shooting and ability to disrupt defenses are all still there. Here, I think, is the strongest case for including Donovan. But, again, who do you leave out? 

He's not really competing against Kyle Beckerman, Michael Bradley or Jermaine Jones. They are all central midfielders, not attacking players (although they can all bring something to the attack when needed).

The remaining midfielders are Alejandro Bedoya, Brad Davis, Mix Diskerud, Julian Green and Graham Zusi.

Bedoya and Zusi are the most similar players to Donovan. They tend to play on the wings, cut inside, whip in crosses and track back on defense. Both are younger and in arguably better form than Donovan. Davis isn't really the same type of player as Donovan; he is a specialist who will be brought in late in games to try to serve in good crosses, free kicks and corner kicks (although Donovan is no slouch at those either).

So that leaves Julian Green. He is an 18-year old German-American who plays in the Bayern Munich system. He's played only a few minutes for Bayern and made his first appearance for the US just a few months ago. He's a highly coveted prospect and has a huge upside. 

But there are rumors that Klinsmann promised Green he would be named to the World Cup team if he promised to play for the US instead of Germany (who he was also eligible to play for).

So it seems to me it came down to Donovan vs. Green. And Klinsmann, rightly or wrongly, elected to go with youth and the future over experience and past success.

He also could have taken Donovan instead of Brad Davis, although Davis is one of the few naturally left-footed players and has easily the most cultured left-food in the player pool.

4. I still think there is more to the story: As you may know, about a year and a half ago, Donovan took a sabbatical from soccer and just cruised around the world. He had been playing high-level soccer for about 14 years straight and just needed a rest and break. Donovan is one of the more introspective players that I've seen and it really didn't surprise me that he did that. 

When he returned, he worked his way back into shape and into the lineups for both the LA Galaxy and the USMNT. Last summer he scored the most goals in the Gold Cup as the US won that tournament. 

But Klinsmann, while seemingly mellow and amicable on the outside, is an intense guy. He was a ruthless, dedicated player who played for the best teams in the world. One of Germany's top strikers during the 1990s, Klinsmann scored in all 6 major international tournaments he participated in, from Euro 1988 to 1998 World Cup. In 1995 Klinsmann came third in the FIFA World Player of the Year award, and in 2004 he was named in the FIFA 100 list of the "125 Greatest Living Footballers."

And I think Klinsmann doesn't like Donovan's attitude. I think there is a severe disconnect between the coach and the greatest US player of all time. I suspect he believes Donovan should have pushed and challenged himself more during his career and doesn't want what he considers a "soft" player on his roster.

I also think Klinsmann is keeping one eye on the 2018 World Cup by naming Julian Green (along with other young players like DeAndre Yedlin and John Brooks); they will gain invaluable experience this summer. Klinsmann recently got a contract extension that keeps him on as manager though the next World Cup. 

5. I would have named Donovan to the roster. But there is no guarantee that the US will qualify for the 2018 World Cup. And if you want to get out of what is the most difficult group in 2014, you need a player like Donovan on the team. Maybe not as a starter. But if the US needs a goal late in a game to advance out of the group or to the next round, I know I would want to be able to look down the bench, see Donovan there and be able to tell him, "Get warmed up."

And I would have taken Donovan instead of DeAndre Yedlin (a defender). I don't think Yedlin will play any minutes in the World Cup - he's too inexperienced and raw. 

6. Klinsmann has put the focus on himself: No matter how the US does, Klinsmann has made himself the focus of the team. He will get tons of credit if the US gets out of the group and advances beyond that. He will also be severely criticized if they do poorly.

And that, in the end, is the silver lining of this whole Donovan controversy. In 1998, the US coach cut his captain, John Harkes, just before the World Cup in France. It barely made a ripple in the sports news landscape. But in 2014, Donovan's omission was a big story all over the news (not just the sports pages). The United States is now a proper soccer nation. And that is a happy byproduct of this event. I just hope all the American viewers who tune into this summer's World Cup aren't disappointed by the US team's performance. And if they are disappointed, they will all blame Klinsmann. 

----------------------------------------------------

Here is the full US roster, BTW:

Goalkeepers (3): Brad Guzan, Tim Howard, Nick Rimando

Defenders (8): DaMarcus Beasley, Matt Besler, John Brooks, Geoff Cameron, Timmy Chandler, Omar Gonzalez, Fabian Johnson, DeAndre Yedlin

Midfielders (8): Kyle Beckerman, Alejandro Bedoya, Michael Bradley, Brad Davis, Mix Diskerud, Julian Green, Jermaine Jones, Graham Zusi


Forwards (4): Jozy Altidore, Clint Dempsey, Aron Johannsson, Chris Wondolowski

Show me the money

How much to American players make for playing in the World Cup? SI's Grant Wahl looked into this and published a great column online. Turns out, making the roster provides a nice bonus, but the farther the team advances, the more money the players will make.

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, here are the highlights:

• If you are a player on the final 23-man World Cup roster, you make a minimum of $76,000.
• FIFA gives out team bonuses in larger and larger amounts depending on how far the team advances in the tournament. The country's soccer federation can then distribute the money as it sees fit among the players. According to Wahl, in 2002, when the US advanced to the quarterfinals, "each player received $203,000. I have been told the figure would be more than double that amount if the team repeated the 2002 run in 2014."
• And here are the salaries of the MLS players who are competing for a spot on the final roster. As you can see, there is a pretty wide disparity among the players' salaries and just an extra $76,000 would make a big difference for some of the lower-paid players:
  
• Clint Dempsey: $6,695,189
• Michael Bradley: $6,500,000
• Landon Donovan: $4,583,333
• Omar González: $1,250,000
• Chris Wondolowski: $650,000
• Maurice Edu: $650,000
• Graham Zusi: $398,250
• Brad Davis: $392,062
• Kyle Beckerman: $378,750
• Clarence Goodson: $342,000
• Michael Parkhurst: $300,000
• Brad Evans: $293,666
• Nick Rimando: $235,833
• Matt Besler: $200,000
• DeAndre Yedlin: $92,000

61 Days until the World Cup - Answering some questions for casual fans

It's only 61 days until the 2014 World Cup kicks off in Brazil (I knew that without looking it up online, BTW). During the 2010 World Cup, I posted several blogs intended for non-soccer fanatics who were getting swept up in the tournament. I got some very positive feedback 4 years ago, so I'm giving it another go this year.

Here are a few questions casual soccer fans often ask me about the World Cup.

Why do we call it soccer in the US when the rest of the world calls it football (or futbol)?

Brian Phillips wrote a great piece in Slate 4 years ago answering this question. If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the short answer from the article:

It's an abbreviation of association football. Both soccer and American football come from the same set of precursor sports, which became popular in upper-class English schools in the early 19th century and spread across the Atlantic. All these games involved advancing a ball through an opponent's territory and scoring at the far end, but the rules varied from place to place. Ultimately, the version adopted as standard in the United Kingdom came to be known as association football, while another set of rules won out in the United States. Thus the Americans took to calling their gridiron variety football, and referred to the British sport by the slang term soccer, derived from the soc in association.

Who is the US playing in the World Cup?

The US is playing in what most commentators are calling the "Group of Death." That's a hyperbolic way of saying the US is in the toughest group on the tournament. Their opponents are:

• Ghana - Ranked 38th in the world, but Ghana have knocked the US out of the last 2 World Cups. 
• Portugal - Ranked 3rd in the world, they boast arguably the best player in the world, Cristiano Ronaldo.
• Germany - Ranked 2nd in the world, they have won the World Cup 3 times (only Italy and Brazil have won it more).

The US are ranked 13th. So you can see why this is called the Group of Death. Keep in mind, however, that part of the reason it's considered the most difficult group is because it includes the US. Portugal and Germany would feel a lot better about advancing if, say, Australia (g'day, mates!) were in this group instead of the US.

Can the US advance out of their group?

Yes, if they can earn 4 points. (In soccer, you get 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie and 0 points for a loss.)

Here's how the results could break the Yanks' way:

Germany ties Portugal
US beats Ghana

US ties Portugal
Germany beats Ghana

Germany beats US
Ghana ties Portugal

That would leave Germany with 7 points, the US with 4, Portugal with 3 and Ghana with 1. The top 2 teams advance, meaning the US and Germany would proceed to the knockout stages.

Who is favored to win the World Cup?

As the host, Brazil are the safest bet. The other favorites are Spain, Germany and Argentina. After that, you could make a case for France, Belgium, Italy, Columbia, Holland and Portugal having a chance.

What other questions do you have about the World Cup or the US team? Post in the comments below.

World Cup Final

I have documented in this blog my affection for the Dutch team -- even though they hadn't been playing the total football they've championed since the 1970s. So when the final started, I was planted on my couch wearing an orange Netherlands jersey I bought on a trip to Amsterdam 10 years ago.

By end of the initial 90 minutes, I was so disgusted with the thuggish tactics of the Dutch players that I peeled off my orange shirt and put on a blue one instead. But then, when Iniesta dove to get Heitinga sent off in overtime, I removed my blue shirt and put on a USA jersey. It was a very disappointing final match, although Spain did play better soccer (or at least tried to when they weren't being hacked down Holland) and deserved to win.

As for the Dutch, the entire tournament was like a Greek tragedy for them. For decades, they had been praised by fans, journalists and pundits for playing lovely, attacking football. Yet they were denied again and again the ultimate prize: being crowned World Cup champions. So at some point during the last several years, they repudiated all that had made total football great and instead played like the Detroit Pistons of the late 1980s. I half expected to see Bill Lambier sitting on the bench exhorting the players to foul and dive and whine even more.

The new, thuggish strategy worked -- Holland got to a World Cup final for the first time in more than 30 years. But in a cruel irony, they found themselves playing a team that had embraced many of the principles of total football -- the Spanish. And ultimately, the Dutch were beaten by a team that actually tried to play soccer and were punished by the Soccer Gods for abandoning all that is wonderful about the beautiful game.

The third place game turned out to be a much better match than the final. Uruguay and my favorite player of the tournament, Diego Forlan, fell 3-2 to the Germans. FIFA did agree with my assessment of Forlan and gave him the Golden Ball award as the best player in the tournament. He's 31 and unlikely to play in the 2014 World Cup, but I'm glad he got to shine in South Africa as he almost single handedly (well, not single handedly; his teammate Suarez had a single hand that was also pretty important) got tiny Uruguay to within one game of the final.

Speaking of Suarez, I had no problems with his handball to stop the ball in the game against Ghana. Any player would have done the same thing and would have expected to be sent off -- which Suarez was. It was like a player in basketball committing a hard foul on a fast break to prevent the other team from scoring an easy layup.

What I find much more troubling that sort of blatant cheating is the more subtle act of diving. I hate it and think it leaves a much blacker mark on the game than what Suarez did. I said in the last World Cup and I'll say again: there should be post-match reviews of diving by players. If they are judged to have gone down with no contact, they should be given a yellow card after the game. 

My suggestion will probably not be implemented (Sepp Blatter is not returning my e-mails). But I do think that by the next World Cup, there will be goal-line technology to judge whether a ball crossed the line or not. There may also be extra officials, either on the field itself or on the sidelines, to help the refs get more of the calls right.

There was a lot to like about the 2010 World Cup. The late-game heroics by the US team. The emergence of Michael Bradely as a top midfielder. Tshabalala's strike against Mexico in the opening game. Carlos Teves' cannon (also against Mexico). Giovanni von Bronkhorsts' unstoppable shot against Uruguay. The plucky New Zealand team (who were the only team never to lose a game at this World Cup -- it's true). Some great individual players, like David Villa (Spain), Bastian Schweinsteiger (Germany), Kiesuke Honda (Japan), Carlos Puyol (Spain) and Wesley Sneijder (Holland).

But what the tournament showed me is that soccer is really still a team sport. Nearly all the "best" players in the world who were featured in the Nike "Write the Future" commercial had poor showings at the World Cup. The squads that played as a team tended to do more and go further than those who may have been too reliant on their big-name players. Of course, you've got to have great players on your team to go far, and the final 4 all had some fantastic players -- but most were not mentioned before the tournament in the same breath as Rooney, Ronaldo, Messi or Ribery.

The next World Cup is 4 years away -- that seems like a long time. Mary will be 12 years old and John will be 8 (note that both of them were born in World Cup years -- coincidence? I don't think so). But there will be plenty of soccer to fill up my free time between now and then, and much of it may be played by John.

He took to soccer like a fish to water, not only watching many of the games with me, but playing soccer in the house. We have a long hallway between his room and Mary's. John has spent hours kicking and dribbling a soccer ball from one end of the hall to another, shouting "gooooaaaall" when he puts the ball between my legs and into his sister's room. I'll be signing him up to play on a soccer team this fall. And I'm sure I will enjoy watching his games more than I enjoyed any of the World Cup games I've seen during the last month. It won't even be close.

World Cup: Final Match

I got half the final match-up right: the Netherlands got out of their side of the bracket (upsetting Brazil and beating Uruguay) but Argentina fell to Germany. Spain then got past Germany setting up the final match of 2 countries with rich soccer histories but no World Cup trophies.

There is an interesting history leading up to how these 2 teams play today. In the 1970s, the Dutch (led by forward Johan Cruyff) played what is known as "total football." It was a revolutionary style of soccer where the each player could play any position on the field. So a defender could surge forward and join the attack, while a forward could drop back and defend. The Dutch national team played this attractive, aggressive form of soccer as well as anyone but fell twice in World Cup Finals (in 1974 to W. Germany and in 1978 to Argentina). Their flowing style of play, coupled with losses in finals, made the Dutch teams of the 1970s the favorite team of romantic, intellectual soccer fans worldwide.

Cruyff later went on to play at the Spanish club Barcelona, where the club adopted the same free-flowing, attacking style of play. Cruyff later became coach of Barcelona. And since his playing and coaching days, Barcelona has been dedicated to playing a similar type of total football.

Many of the players on Spain's WC team currently play at Barcelona (Víctor Valdés, Carles Puyol, Gerard Piqué, Sergio Busquets, Pedro, Andrés Iniesta, Xavi and David Villa). Leo Missi of Argentina also plays for Barcelona.

So in the WC Final, the Spanish team will likely be playing a form of Dutch-style total football. Ironically, the Dutch team will be playing a more conservative style of play. In fact, some commentators argue that this Dutch team has defiled the tradition of total football and should not be counted on to carry on the tradition of past teams. Slate explains:

"This year's team, for all Wesley Sneijder's individual panache, has been even more stolid, relying excessively on Arjen Robben's ability to cut inside from the right. The Dutch have depended on Dirk Kuyt's lumbering work-rate, Mark van Bommel's spectacularly dirty midfield play, and a lot of sheer luck to survive, while their manager, Bert van Marwijk, has taken every opportunity to distance his squad from the legacy of total football. We're here to win, he says, nothing else."

As a long-time fan of the Netherlands, I have been rooting for them throughout the tournament. But watching them play is not as fun as I had hoped. The Slate piece got it right: they play a fairly conservative style, that allows its flair players (Sneijder and Robben) to conjure a moment of brilliance to win their games. And credit to them -- this has worked. Holland have not lost a game during the WC.

And I still think they will win on Sunday (2:30 pm EST, ABC). Their dual midfield enforcers (de Jong and van Bommel) will do enough to stymie Span's creative and elegant midfielders and Holland will nick a goal to win their first World Cup trophy. I'll be happy for the Dutch people, but I'd be happier if they had been able to do it playing total football.

---

My new favorite player is Diego Forlan. He was considered a bit of a bust at Manchester United years ago, but he's gone on to a successful career in the Spanish league and he put Uruguay on his shoulders and carried them to the semi-finals. He scored some wonderful goals and always played with vigor, style and energy. Plus he looks like Bjorn Borg's soccer-playing cousin. Meg even asked if I had a man-crush on Forlan. I had to plead guilty.

---

Finally, here's a great video from Nike that thanks the US team for playing like Americans:




Enjoy Sunday's final!

World Cup: Semi-Finals & lots of videos

Soccer has continued to be all over American media this week. Landon Donovan was on the Late Show with David Letterman as well as the Daily Show with John Stewart.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Landon Donovan & Bob Bradley
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The World Cup continues tomorrow with a match up worthy of a final: Brazil v. Netherlands. Brazil has won more World Cups than any other nation (5) while the Netherlands are considered the best country never to win the World Cup. Earlier this week, I predicted the following for the next rounds:

Uruguay over Ghana
Argentina over Germany
Spain over Japan (I got this wrong -- Japan lost to Paraguay on penalty kicks)
Netherlands over Brazil

I still think all of these predictions will be correct, but I'm feeling very uncertain about the Netherlands over Brazil. The Dutch have not lost a game, but neither have they looked like the best team in the tournament, which is how Brazil have been playing. This is a bit of a wish more than anything, but I'll stick with Clockwork Orange.

One of the greatest Dutch players ever was Dennis Bergkamp. Below is a wonderful goal he scored in the 1998 World Cup against Argentina. The goal itself is sublime -- watch his touch and perfect shot past the keeper. But listen to the Dutch announcer's orgasmic call of the play.



Speaking or orgasmic goal celebrations, if you haven't seen this it's a terrific video of reactions all over the world to Donovan's stoppage time goal against Algeria. (Some of these were shown in the Daily Show clip above as well.)



As for the US team, I still feel like it was a great WC, but that it could have been so much better. Winning the group was a big deal, but Ghana were beatable. And the tough part about the World Cup is that it's another 4 years until the next one. But the US has some good young players to build around and could be even better in 2014. Read here the take of the best American soccer blogger, Ives Galarcep, on US prospects for 2014.

ESPN's the Sports Guy had a good (but typically long) review of the US's run in South Africa. "When Donovan scored that Cup-saving goal against those spineless playing-for-a-tie-when-they-needed-to-win-by-two-goals Algerians, the moment resonated like no other goal in American soccer history. We didn't have anyone telling us how we should feel, what the implications were, what the moment meant. We knew what it meant. We wanted more games. We wanted our boys to keep playing. Someone scored. We celebrated. We jumped up and down. We ran around the room. We were alive for another game. For once in a fragmented sports world, we all happened to be rooting for the same thing."

And Grant Wahl nicely summarized the US team's World Cup for Sport Illustrated. "The U.S. would benefit from a little more skill and a little less emotion when the whistle blows for Brazil 2014. Teams that rely on emotion have a hard time maintaining it for an entire tournament, no matter how righteous it may be. Skill endures. In the end, this U.S. team did its fans proud in South Africa but has left them dreaming of what might have been."

Don't give up on the US team. And don't give up on the World Cup. There are some awesome match ups the next 2 days, starting with Brazil v. Netherlands tomorrow and continuing with Argentina v. Germany on Saturday.

World Cup: USA v. Ghana

Soccer is not really a game that lends itself to statistics. Time of possession, shots on goal, number of corner kicks are often indicators of how well a team plays, but not always.

Still, there was one number that struck me tonight that tells much of the story of the US's 2010 World Cup:

3 minutes.

That's how long the US team actually held the lead in all 4 of its games. It fell behind and rallied to tie against England and Slovenia. And it was tied for nearly all of the game against Algeria until Landon Donovan scored the game winning goal with about 3 minutes left in the game. And against Ghana today, the US fell behind again and never had the lead.

On the one hand, it's a bit remarkable that a team that rarely played from a position of strength (i.e., having the lead) managed not only to advance to the knock-out round, but to win its group.

But on the other hand, playing from behind or chasing the game-winning goal for 390 minutes was eventually going to catch up with the Americans. And today, they ran out of luck and gas.

The game today was a thoroughly winnable game. If the US played the entire game like they did 2nd half they very well may have won. But problems that plagued the team throughout the tournament came back to bite them today, and the team wasn't able to overcome them.

• The US gave away another early goal.
• Rico Clark had another sub-par day in midfield. Bradley recognized this and used Clark's yellow card as an excuse to sub him out.
• The US forwards failed to score. Bradley never found a suitable partner for Josy Altidore, who did well holding the ball and drawing fouls, but at some point your starting forward has to score a goal.

On balance, the US World Cup campaign should be considered a qualified success. Topping Group C and losing in overtime in the round of 16 is better that traditional powerhouses like France and Italy did. But this was a game the US should have and could have won. And Uruguay, who will now face Ghana in the next round of games, would have been a tough but beatable opponent.

The following players had a very good/great World Cup:

• Landon Donovan is in the zone right now. Some European club is likely to offer up piles of money to pry him away from MLS.
• Michael Bradley was a monster in the middle of the field. He ran tirelessly, won balls, distributed well, and was a threat near the goal. He may wind up in the English Premier League.
• Benny Feilhaber should have seen more playing time. He may also move to a bigger club.
• Josy Altidore, while he didn't score, was a handful for defenders every minute he was on the field. I lost count, but he may have caused more players to receive yellow cards than any other player in the tournament.
• Steve Cherundolo was arguably the US's most consistent player. He rarely put a wrong foot on defense and contributed to the attack effectively. 
• Maurice Edu seemed to fortify the US every time he was on the field.

These players were a mixed bag:

• Clint Dempsey did score the key goal against England, but that was really a gift from poor Robert Green. He did tons of work, on offense and defense, and had plenty of scoring chances. But I think most would have liked to see more from the US's most dangerous offensive player (besides Donovan).
• Tim Howard game up big in the England game and earned man of the match. And his pin-point pass to Donovan directly set up the last-gasp goal. But there a few times the US defense made mistakes and could have used a dramatic, acrobatic save from Howard.
• Jay Demerit played every minute of the tournament for the US had played in his typically hard-nosed fashion. But mental lapses led to more than one goal.
• Carlos Bocanegra played both left back and center back, but was not as steady as many fans would like their captain to be.
• Jonathan Bornstein is much reviled by many US fans, but he played well when called upon.

Bob Bradley's World Cup was also a mixed bag. It's hard to complain about the US team winning their group and advancing to the knock-out stages. But it's also hard to feel that different player selection might have improved the US's chances. Sticking with Rico Clark and Robbie Findley proved to be a mistake, and giving more playing time to Edu, Feilhaber and Herculez Gomez might have helped the team's ability to hold the ball, be creative and score more goals.

The World Cup may be over for the US, but there are plenty of other compelling teams and games still in store. Here's how I see the rest of the tournament playing out:

Germany over England
Argentina over Mexico
Netherlands over Slovakia
Brazil over Chile
Japan over Paraguay
Spain over Portugal

In the next round:

Uruguay over Ghana
Argentina over Germany
Spain over Japan
Netherlands over Brazil

Final four:

Argentina over Spain
Netherlands over Uruguay

Final

Argentina over Netherlands

And Diego Maradona will run naked through the streets of Buenos Aires while the Dutch suffer yet another World Cup heartbreak.

World Cup: Final 16

I'm not going to quit my day job. I only got both the advancing teams right in 2 groups 

Group A: South Africa, Mexico, Uruguay
Group B: Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea
Group C: England, US
Group D: Germany, Serbia, Ghana
Group E: Netherlands, Cameroon, Japan
Group F: Italy, Paraguay, Slovakia
Group G: Brazil, Portugal
Group H: Spain, Switzerland, Chile


I guess 10/16 isn't too bad.

Here are the remaining match-ups (remember that it's the knock-out phase; if a game is tied after 90 minutes, they play an extra 30 minutes; if it's still tied, they have a penalty kick shoot-out):

Uruguay

vs.

South Korea

-

Jun 26 10:00am (ET) on ESPN

United States

vs.

Ghana

-

Jun 26 2:30pm (ET) on ABC

Germany

vs.

England

-

Jun 27 10:00am (ET) on ESPN

Argentina

vs.

Mexico

-

Jun 27 2:30pm (ET) on ABC

Netherlands

vs.

Slovakia

-

Jun 28 10:00am (ET) on ESPN

Brazil

vs.

Chile

-

Jun 28 2:30pm (ET) on ESPN

Paraguay

vs.

Japan

-

Jun 29 10:00am (ET) on ESPN

Spain

vs.

Portugal

-

Jun 29 2:30pm (ET) on ESPN

The game to watch this weekend is clearly US v. Ghana. I would call this game a pick 'em. My heart says the US will win, but Ghana is tough to break down defensively. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to penalty kicks, unless the US forwards start scoring (all the US goals thus far have been scored by midfielders).

But there are plenty of other mouth-watering matches. Germany v. England, for historical (both geopolitical and soccer) reasons, is a must-see. Argentina v. Mexico is a rematch of a thrilling 2006 World Cup encounter. Finally, Spain v. Portugal is another high-powered game.

World Cup: USA v. Algeria

If you didn't watch the game live, I don't know what to tell you.

Or even worse, you followed the game live but gave up before the final whistle and turned the tv/radio/match tracker off. (If you were following the game online you were part of 2nd highest internet traffic day of all-time.) If you gave up on the US team shame on you. Because those guys never, ever quit. They knew that had to win and luck (and the refs) seemed to be against them. But Bob Bradley made aggressive, offensive subs and the US players responded by pushing, pushing, pushing for 90+ minutes.

The US got a bit lucky in the opening minutes when the Algerian cannoned a shot off the crossbar. But the US were extremely unlucky to have yet another goal wrongly disallowed and unlucky not to punch one in during regular time.

Still, the US kept coming and coming, sending wave after wave of attack. And finally, finally, with just minutes left they countered perfectly. A tepid header from Algeria went right into Tim Howard's hands and he immediately initiated a counter-attack by throwing the ball to Donovan.

Donovan charged toward goal with teammates running with him. An Algerian defender hesitated for a moment, considered whether to body-up Donovan, but another US player forced him to retreat. This allowed Donovan the space to pass to Altidore on the right. Altidore slipped a nice pass to the marauding and painfully unlucky Dempsey whose touch toward goal was deflected by the Algerian goalkeeper. But Donovan had intelligently continued his run (remember that this was after 90+ minutes of running his socks off) and smashed the ball into the net. Watching Donovan's tears after the game was incredibly powerful. He and the team had invested so much energy and emotion in all of the games so far that he could barely contain himself.

Nor could. I collapsted on the floor after the goal. I think I aged about 5 years during this game. And that's after aging 5 years during the US vs. Slovenia game.

Obviously I could not be more excited or happy about this. The US won the game and won their group. And they deserved to win. Just think how good the US would be if they finished their chances a little better and if the refs actually made the right calls. No team, with the possible exceptions of Brazil and Argentina, wants to play the US. They fight, claw, scratch, run, tackle and bleed until the final whistle blows.

Here's a good post-game take from Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated. His most interesting point is about who the US could play next: "If Germany can win Group D, the U.S. would probably meet Serbia or Ghana, avoiding Germany, with the winner of the U.S.’s second-round game to face the victor of Uruguay-South Korea. Long story short: Which quadrant would you rather be in, the one with Serbia/Ghana-Uruguay-South Korea or the one with Germany-Argentina-Mexico? I think we know the answer to that one."

That's all I've got for now. Don't give up on this team. Take off work or school and watch the rest of their games. Because they won't give up.

World Cup: Win and you're in

The English soccer team visited an orphanage today. "It's heartbreaking to see their sad little faces with no hope," said Jamal, age 6. (Thanks to Sean for sending that my way.)

The England team seems to be in a bit of a crisis mode. Although, they can always be heartened by the fact that they're not the French team. Here's what's happened to Les Blues:

• They garnered a meager 1 point out of 2 games, putting the team in danger of missing the next round.
• Had their veteran striker sent home after an expletive-laced tirade at half time of their loss to Mexico.
• Another player give the finger to a group of reporters.
• The entire team refused to practice this weekend.
• The team director has resigned.
• Beleaguered coach Raymond Domenech had to separate a player and the fitness coach at a practice that was not interrupted by the players refusing to participate.
• French star Thierry Henry announced he was leaving the team immediately after their next game to join the New York Red Bulls of MLS.

OK, I made that last one up, but it actually might happen; Henry has long been linked with a move to the Red Bulls.

Of course, for anyone who believes in karma, this is all very pleasant to watch unfold. The French only qualified for the World Cup thanks to a very obvious handball on Henry that led to a goal which knocked out the Irish.  Read more about the French meltdown (including videos) from Dirty Tackle.

Anyway, back to Group C.  The Americans (0-0-2) are second in with two points, trailing Slovenia (1-0-1) and ahead of England (0-0-2) on goals scored going into Wednesday’s first-round finale against Algeria (0-1-1). England will match up against Slovenia. The US would advance with a win and possibly with a draw. The games will be played simultaneously, so find a bar with multiple TVs, get a TV with picture-in-picture or set up your computer next to your TV to stream one of the games.

As for Friday's game, while I'm still irate over the horrible call that cost the US the game-winning goal, the US put themselves in that spot with poor play in the first half. If the US played the entire 90 minutes with the poise and intensity they did in the second half, they could beat anyone. Maybe coach Bradley can arrange for the scoreboard in the stadium to show the score as 1-0 Algeria when the game starts, so the players will think they're already a goal down.

Finally, happy Father's Day to all the dads watching, playing in and coaching in the World Cup.

World Cup: USA v. Slovenia

Worst. Ref. Ever. 

I try (often in vain) to be objective when I evaluate referees in soccer games. For example, at first glance I thought the second Slovenia goal was offside. But when I watched the replay, I had to admit that the refs had got it right: the US had kept the Slovenian onside and the goal rightfully counted.

With that preface, let me say that the decision by the ref at the end of the game to wave off the game-winning goal was one of the worst decisions I've seen in a lifetime of watching soccer. Disgraceful. Shocking. Diabolical. Awful. Shameful.

To recap: The US had just tied it on a wonderful goal by the coach's son, Michael Bradley. Donovan curled a lovely free-kick into the Slovenia box, where it was met by midfielder Maurice Edu (not to be confused with Freddy Adu). The ball flew past the goalkeeper for what appeared to be the game winning goal. Inexplicably, the ref whistled -- well, I don't know what he whistled for. There was no offside -- not even close. If there were any fouls to be called, they were all on the Slovenians. Michael Bradley, for example, had a defender's arms wrapped around him from behind.

And I'm not alone here. The Guardian writes: "Quite why the referee's whistle had gone is not clear - there was no offside and the only fouls being perpetrated were by Slovenians holding on to assorted American jerseys. Mystifying decision."

And Sports Illustrated: "This was an all-time game marred by an all-time officiating blunder."

There were other poor calls as well. Robbie Findley (who had a poor game overall) was given a yellow card for hitting the ball with his face in the first half.  And Altidore was hauled down just outside the penalty box in the second half with a pretty clear path to goal; that should have been a red card, not just a yellow. On the other side, Clint Dempsey was lucky not to get a yellow in the first minute of the match for an elbow to the head of a Slovenian player.

Aside from the frustration at not getting the win they deserved, the American team has to wonder why they are so poor in the first phase of their games. They've coughed up two goals in the first 15 minutes of both games and it's tough to go far in a tournament making mistakes like that. I blame the coach's insertion of Jose Torres, who is skillful on the ball and takes nice free kicks, but both Slovenian goals were the result of poor midfield tracking of players.Bradley recognized this and put in Edu in the second half.

But full credit to the US for fighting back in the second half. You might not see a better goal than the one Donovan scored to open the first half. If the goalkeeper had just stood his ground, he probably would have stopped the ball with his face and suffered a concussion. Instead, he flinched and the ball nearly ripped the roof off the net.

The second goal was a thing of beauty. Donovan played a nice ball into Altidore, who did well to win the aerial battle and play the ball into space. Second half sub Herculez Gomez ran across the penalty box, dragging a defender with him. That run left space for Bradley to run onto the ball. Many players would have blasted the ball into the keeper's gut or over the crossbar. But Bradley hit it with with a wonderful combination of touch and strength and arched it over the helpless keeper.

So obviously the US would have loved to get a win. And they deserved the win, showing great heart and spirit in the second half and scoring what should have been a goal.

The US is not eliminated with this result. In fact, even if they had lost they would still be alive to make the second round. But a win would have put them in a very good position to make the knock-out stage. And I think that the best outcome for the US in the England v. Algeria match would be a 0-0 tie (but I'm not sure). That game starts 2:30 EST on ESPN2. 

Watch ESPN video highlights of today's game here.

---

Yesterday, I made a big deal at work to make sure nobody told me the scores of the Greece v. Nigeria and Mexico v. France games. I was taping them at home and planning to watch with the family during dinner.

I sat down to watch the early game (Greece v. Nigeria) with Meg, Mary and John ready for a night of World Cup soccer with the whole family. Mary took a bit of her dinner, then asked, "Daddy, did you know that Mexico beat France today in the World Cup?"

I stared at her blankly for a minute, then admitted that I actually hadn't heard that yet. "Mr. Williams, my tennis coach, told me today at camp." She smiled warmly, thinking she had really impressed me with her soccer knowledge. I didn't have the heart to tell her that I had been avoiding the score all day. And it turns out our DVR hadn't recorded the Mexico v. France game anyway.

World Cup: The Next Game for the US

I won't pretend to know much of anything about the team the US will face on Friday (9:30 am EST, ESPN): Slovenia. The New York Times sees a squad very similar to the US: a physical, well-organized, defensive team that depends on the counterattack to score.

All I can tell you is that the US should expect to tie and probably even win. And the players know the importance of getting a result out of this match. "In all likelihood, if we lose, we're out of the tournament. That's the reality of the situation," explained Landon Donovan.

Tim Howard is apparently fine and is expected to play on Friday, although in interviews he has been pretty cagey about revealing the extent of his injuries. I just hope he's healthy enough to play and play well.

There is the possibility that the US will field a more attack-minded lineup against Slovenia. Ricardo Clark might make way for Benny Feilhaber or Jose Torres, both of whom are less defensive players, more comfortable on the ball and better passers than Clark. Any other changes to the US starting 11 would be a bit of a surprise, although Stuart Holden might get a start as well.

England and Algeria play later on Friday, so the US can really put pressure on England by securing a win. England, it should be said, have an easier opponent in Algeria, who lost to Slovenia on Sunday. In fact, should England win, Algeria would be all-but-eliminated and might phone in their game against the US next week. But it 2002, the US only needed a tie against Poland, who had been effectively eliminated before their last game. The US ended up needing (and getting) a surprise win by S. Korea against Portgual to advance to the knock out stages.

I should also note there has been a shift in the coverage of England in the press and I think it reflects the pressure the English players are under. Before the tournament, most of the chatter in England was about how far the team could go in the tournament. But since last week's tie, the focus has been on what England will have to do to get out of the group. Each team should still expect to advance, but each will have to keep its nerve on Friday.


Finally, the World Cup has been the topic of much conversation in the Ferris home and the games are frequently on TV. Yesterday morning, while Meg and I were getting ready for work in the bathroom, John was lying on our bed in his pajamas watching the early game. Every few minutes he would announce the score to keep me and Meg in the loop. "It's still zero to zero. No goals yet!" Unfortunately we all missed the thrilling end to that game (when New Zealand equalized in the dying seconds of the match) but I'm sure John will be watching more games with us as the tournament continues.

World Cup: Fun Stuff (Warning: Results of today's games included)

So if you don't want to know the outcomes of today's games (New Zealand v. Slovakia or Ivory Coast v. Portugal) read no further.

Still with me? Here we go:

Fun Item #1: Later today, one of the strangest match ups in WC history will kick off: Brazil vs. North Korea. Brazil is, of course, a favorite to win the whole thing and its players are known around the world. North Korea's team, much like the country itself, is shrouded in mystery and is a Marmaduke-sized underdog to the Brazilians. I half expect the N. Koreans to line up with 6 defenders, 4 midfielders and no forwards. Here's a video of the N. Korean team working out in a public gym! This game has got strange result written all over it.

Fun Item #2: Earlier today, the most exciting finish of the tournament occurred, when the "just happy to be here" New Zealand team stunned Slovakia. (BTW, New Zealand have the worst nick-name of any team to play in this World Cup: the All-Whites. Apparently it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It's a nod to their Rugby team's name, the All-Blacks. Still, the ESPN commentators insisted on calling them Kiwis during the match.) The goal came with just seconds left in injury time as New Zealand were pressing for a tying goal and got one from one of their defenders who had pushed forward. The game finished moments later a 1-1 draw, which was a great result from the team many considered the worst in the tournament. Watch the final goal here.

Fun Item #3: Relive the thrilling goals from the US v. England game -- in LEGO!

Fun Item #4: For the ladies, Kickette offers the 5 hottest US players here.  Or vote for the hottest player in the entire tournament here.(Vote for Gooch!) 

Fun Item #5: For the guys, rate international soccer WAGs (wives and girlfriends of soccer players) here.

World Cup: US v. England

Let's clear up one thing first: the pub Rob and I went to yesterday didn't actually run out of beer. They had run out of beer on tap, but somehow managing to find plenty of bottled beer. I was actually more worried about them running out of ice. Rob and I were watching in a large tent outside the bar where several large flat screen TVs had been set up. It was a typically hot summer day in Houston and the tent was packed with soccer fans, sitting and standing shoulder to shoulder. The combination of the heat of the day and number of people made the tent incredibly hot. I kept scooping ice out of the buckets full of beer bottles and letting it melt on my head and down my back to try in vain to stay cool.

But it was a great atmosphere. US fans outnumbered English fans about 6-1 but every one was in great spirit and was completely into the game. I sat next to an English fan and he and I chatted throughout the game and shook hands afterwards. (Update: You can pick me out in the center back of this photo from the Houston Chronicle. I'm to the right of and English fan wearing a white shirt; mine is red.)

As for the game itself, I have to start with the goalkeeping. Last week I said of Tim Howard: "Goalkeeper: Tim Howard is the clear #1 keeper and one of the top 10 in the world. He will have to play well to keep the English at bay." I think he proved why he is considered among the best in the world with his man-of-the-match performance yesterday.  (No word yet on how serious his injury is or if he will play against Slovenia on Friday.) I also said in an earlier post: "Every English fan wishes they had Tim Howard in goal." I think Robert Green's horrific gaffe proved why that is also true.

I wonder, as Green was watching the ball trickle over the goal line, if he had a moment like ones in the Nike "Write the Future" ads. I bet he imagined himself like Wayne Rooney in the ad, disgraced in England and living out the the rest of his days with a scruffy beard in a trailer park. 

Rooney himself had an OK game. The US defense were clearly concerned about him and did a good job keeping him from getting clear looks at goal.

The US also did well not to fold after coughing up a goal in the first 5 minutes. You may recall that 4 years ago, the US gave up a similarly early goal and went on to lose their opening game 3-0 against the Czech Republic. The Americans kept their heads up, fought back and got lucky on their goal just before half time. But every team needs a little luck to succeed in the World Cup. The good teams take advantage of their good fortune, just like the US did in hanging on for a draw against a favored opponent.

I thought the English coach, Capello, made a few curious coaching decisions. He pulled James Milner after only 30 minutes (coaches rarely make subs that early unless a player is injured) and he had to sub defender Ledley King at half time (recall that King is the guy whose knees are so balky that he doesn't practice during the week). King's replacement, Jamie Carrager, was absolutely skinned by Altidore in the second half and bailed out by a reaction save by Green and the goal post.

The English team is probably disappointed that they didn't go on to win a game in which they scored just minutes in. And the Americans are probably pleased and proud they battled to back to tie. Overall, I think a tie was a fair result as neither team played measurably better than the other.

Slovenia beat Algeria earlier today 1-0, so they now top the group. The US plays Slovenia on Friday and will expect to win to earn the full three points from that game.

If you want to read some good post-match comments from some online soccer writers, here are a few  links:

The Guardian: "But if the USA were not producing too much to trouble the opposition defence, then neither were England. Rooney was conspicuously quiet, struggling to get into the game or even to get hold of the ball, and there were signs of an old problem returning with Gerrard and Frank Lampard being pushed back too deep and the front two becoming isolated as a result."

Sports Illustrated:  "The key group game for the U.S. was always going to be the next one against Slovenia, and that remains the case. If the favored Americans can avoid a letdown against Slovenia, they could take four points into the third game against Algeria and be in a golden position to advance from the group–and perhaps even win it."

ESPN: "The U.S. admittedly got lucky but played well enough to deserve its good fortune."

World Cup: U-S-A! U-S-A!

ESPN's the Sports Guy made a good point about rooting for sports teams a few years ago. I can't find a like to the column but his point was this: when we root for a sports team, we're almost always rooting for the jersey the athletes are wearing. Because the guys playing for the team are just employees -- it's their job. And chances are, in a couple of seasons these same guys you were rooting for so vociferously will be playing for your most hated rival.

This happened in baseball when Johnny Damon switched from the Red Sox to the Yankees. It happened in MLS when Landon Donovan moved from San Jose to LA. There are still examples of guys who play for the same team their entire careers and become very strongly identified with that franchise, like Kobe Bryant with the Lakers or Peyton Manning with the Colts.

But how many Packer fans ever thought they'd see Brett Favre trotting onto the field wearing the purple and gold of the Minnesota Vikings? Favre was considered the embodiment of the Green Bay Packers. But really, he was just wearing a green and yellow jersey for many years. It was his job.

This is leading up to why the World Cup is such a special, unique sporting event. Nearly every single player in the WC makes his living (and a very handsome one) playing for his club team. Just like in American sports, a player will leave one team for more money to play on another team. Cristiano Ronaldo became the highest paid player in the world when he left Man U for Real Madrid. Holland's Wesley Snjeider has played for Ajax, Real Madrid and Inter Milan (3 of the biggest clubs in the world) just in the last 4 years.

But if you ask any player in the world, his biggest dream is to play and do well in the World Cup. It's the pinnacle of any soccer player's career and no player is ever considered among the best unless he succeeds at the World Cup. Yes, the players often have large incentives built into their contracts with their countires. But I bet most players would play in the World Cup for free.

In one sense, the WC resembles the Olympics in that athletes compete for the love of the sport and their country. But in the WC, the stakes are much higher. If you are an American fan rooting for American athletes in the Olympics, you have lots of options. If Apollo Ono doesn't do well in speed skating, maybe Lindsey Vonn will medal in the downhill.

But if your team doesn't advance out of the group stage, the World Cup is over after 3 games. And once you get to the knock out stages, one bad game (or even one bad bounce of the ball) and the tournament is over.

In that way, the World Cup is much like the game of soccer itself. The wait for the World Cup (every 4 years)  can be agonizing; the wait for a goal in a game can be agonizing. Some teams never make it to the World Cup; some teams never score in a game. A World Cup can turn for a team in an instant; a close game can turn for a team in an instant. It's periods of tension punctuated by brief moments of brilliance or agony. You can tell this when you see the look on the face of a player who has just scored a vital goal: the combination or euphoria, relief, joy, exhilaration and disbelief is unlike any other feeling in sports.

Now, the US doesn't fit the model of most other countries on the planet when it comes to soccer. There are some hard core fans (like me) who follow US soccer religiously. But we are clearly in the minority. So the World Cup is the one time in an American soccer player's life when he can actually feel the entire country get behind him and his team. This World Cup is generating unprecedented coverage in the US and the players seem to be aware of that. And they know that a win against England on Saturday, while not critical for their chances to advance from the group, has the potential to sweep much of the country up in soccer fever in a way that it hasn't since the Women's World Cup in 1999.

I broke down the English team the other day. Here's how I think the US team will look and perform on Saturday (2:30 pm EST on ABC).

Goalkeeper: Tim Howard is the clear #1 keeper and one of the top 10 in the world. He will have to play well to keep the English at bay.

Defense: Steve Cherundolo is a cagey veteran who will play on the right and venture forward into offense. Jay Demerit is a Matt Damon look alike who is a tough and tenacious center back. He will be paired with Oguchi Onyewu (Gooch) or Clarence Goodson. The towering (6'4" 220 lbs) Gooch is still recovering from a serious knee injury and may not play. If he does, his form will go a long way to determine how well the US defense can fend off Wayne Rooney, Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard. Carlos Bocanegra is the left back and captain of the team. He is not especially fast and will use his positioning and experience to manage speedy English wingers.

Midfield: This is the strength of the US team. Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey will attack from the wings. They are also prone to cutting inside, surging forward toward goal and switching sides. Their form will dictate the success of the American attack.  The center of the park will be manned by the coach's son Michael Bradley. He is a smart, tough ball-winner who can also shoot well from distance. Any charges of nepotism are completely unfounded. Teaming with Bradley will likely be Maurice Edu or Ricardo Clark. Both are rangy tacklers who will work with Bradley to break up English attacks down the middle. They are fairly similar players whose primary weaknesses are holding the ball under pressure and making pin-point passes.

Forward: 20-year old Josy Altidore seems to be recovered from last week's ankle injury and will likley start. He is a big strong kid who is used to the rough and tumble English game. Red-hot Edson Buddle is who I expect to play along side him. But it would not surprise me to see the fleet Robbie Findley instead. Findley's speed may be used to stretch the English defense.  Findley would also be an option off the bench, as would Herculez Gomez, who was kicked to the curb by MLS a year ago but found new life in the Mexican league. He has scored primarily as a sub for his Mexican team and has done the same for the US in recent exhibition games.

If every US player is healthy and if they play a relatively mistake-free and smart game, the US team can beat England. Last summer, in fact, the US beat Spain, who was the #1 ranked team in the World at the time, in the Confederations Cup. So on their day, the US players can compete with the world's best. That said, I (and most US fans) would be happy with a tie. A loss would be a disappointment, but would not end the US WC hopes.

Whatever the outcome on Saturday, I still expect the US to advance out of their group. Failure to advance would be a crushing disappointment. 

Here's who I think will advance from all the WC groups:

Group A: South Africa, Mexico
Group B: Argentina, Nigeria
Group C: England, US
Group D: Germany, Serbia
Group E: Netherlands, Cameroon
Group F: Italy, Paraguay
Group G: Brazil, Portugal (unless Drogba pulls a Willis Reed, then Ivory Coast instead of Portugal)
Group H: Spain, Switzerland

World Cup: Analysis of England

On paper, the England team is better than the US. Wayne Rooney is one of the best strikers in the world and is easily their most important player. If Rooney gets hot and start pumping in goals, the English could beat the US and go far in the tournament.

Rooney's teammates play for the biggest clubs in England: Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham, Manchester United. Many have played in previous World Cups and in the elite European club tournament called the Champions League.

And Fabio Capello, the Italian who coaches the English team, has a substantial managerial resume that includes some of the top club teams in Europe (AC Milan, Real Madrid, Juventus).

But... the English team isn't invulnerable.

A Guardian writer, when asked what England's weaknesses are (the obvious strength being Rooney) replied: "I'd say goalkeeper, right back, mobility in central defence, no left-footed wide player, only one good striker and general innate system of play. Anything else?"

I think he may be overstating the team's weaknesses, but England are not unbeatable. And they are surely tie-able (is that even a word?).

The likely starting 11 for England will reveal their weak spots:

GK: Green or James or Hart
No one really knows who will start in goal. David James is 39 and is nicknamed "Calamity James" because his is prone to comedic goalkeeping errors. Joe Hart is talented but young and inexperienced. Green has only played 10 times for England. Who knows? Maybe the 3 keepers will play rock-paper-scissors to decide who starts. Every English fan wishes they had Tim Howard in goal.

D: Johnson, King, Terry, A. Cole
Ledley King is like Steve McNair, who used to skip practice to preserve his body for NFL games on Sundays. King has a painful knee ailment that causes him to skip most training to save himself for games. John Terry is probably this biggest jerk on the English team. In 2001, he was fined by his club team after drunkenly harassing grieving American tourists in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. And just this year, he was stripped of the captaincy of the English team after it was revealed that he had an affair with the former girlfriend of another English player, Wayne Bridge. Bridge subsequently refused to play for the English team. Since this affair became public, Terry has struggled for Chelsea (his club team).

M: Lennon, Gerrard, Lampard, J. Cole
Gerrard and Lampard are 2 of the best midfielders in the game. But they rarely play well together for England. It might be because they play very similarly, or because they each have such massive egos that they can't allow the other to succeed. 

F: Rooney, Crouch or Heskey
As noted, Rooney is one of the world's best goal scorers. But Capello has yet to settle on a strike partner for Rooney. Crouch is a 6'7" beanpole who doesn't even start for his club team (but scores often for England). Heskey has played more than 50 games for England but scored only 7 goals. 

Rooney, meanwhile, has a fierce temper. He was red-carded in England's quarterfinal match against Portugal 4 years ago and has seen red for Man United as well.

Might we see this next week? US fans probably hope so... 

Really, the result against England is important but not critical. As I've said before, if the US can muster a tie, they'll be in good position to get results from Algeria and Slovenia and advance to the knock-out stage.

One more thing: the term soccer, much derided by Euro-snobs who insist on calling it football, actually has its roots in England.  The word soccer grew out of the phrase Association Football, which is what the sport was called in the 19th century in England. "Soca" was an abbreviation for Association (Assoc.) and at some point picked up the extra -er on the end. Although it was not used as heavily as football in England, it was apparently a common term for the game in 19th century England.

When English football started being played in the US, there was already a sport called football here, so soccer became the chosen word in the US. While most other countries call it football (or a local variant, like futbol in Spanish speaking countries) other countries still use other words besides football. In Canada and Australia, the game is also called soccer. And in Italy it's called calcio (which translates roughly to kick).

So the next time some Euro-snob complains about the ignorant Americans who call it "sawker," tell him to blame the English -- they're the ones who came up with term in the first place.