chris perry has already tempted me to try and correlate us soccer's unexpected victory over soccer giants, spain, wednesday afternoon to the possibility of huffman (church) pulling the same type of upset over it's current situation and defeat...something. but i'll not do it. not today. well, not in this opening paragraph anyway. we'll see where this goes.
the victory was stunning in a lot of ways, but not so stunning in others. let's take a look.
(pause while half of the six people that read this blog check out because i am going to ramble about something they care nothing about)
(they'll be sorry when i bash the new preacher late in the post)
ok...we're back. here's the take home point to the glory that was the triumph wednesday afternoon. it shouldn't have felt so surprising.
for years now, us soccer has been touting "project 2010". the idea behind it being that, four years later, every ounce of potential and energy would be squeezed out of the developing young players that disappointed in the 2006 world cup. that roster would be infused with even newer and more exciting talent coming through the us soccer pipeline. qualifying for the tournament, itself, would be a breeze and nothing more than an afterthought to the ultimate goal. to "compete" in the 2010 world cup as if us soccer had "arrived". the us would never be the favorite, but the world would not see the us knocking off stiff competition as fluky, moreso an announcement that this country must now be understood as a legitimate threat and consistently be found in the top ten of the fifa world rankings. it hasn't worked out that way.
the roster at this week's confederation cup is not drastically different than four years ago. our best player is still landon donovan, and he still isn't good enough (unfortunately, his age now suggests he never will be) to force his will on another team. and therein lies the biggest problem. the us guy doesn't have a star position player. not one. the us always has a quality, if not world-class, goalkeeper, and this team is no different with tim howard. but a goalkeeper can't win games for you. he can only keep you in them. to win the games you must find a way to use your available resources in a way that trumps the other team's resources. in that regard, the us is always behind the eight ball. on paper against big time teams, our talent is nowhere close to a spain, england, brazil, etc. not close. the us does not have one world respected player not in goal. not one! using the idea of and the goals set forth by project 2010, the us is failing to make the global impact necessary to be a legitimate power.
so, where does the fault for this lie? who knows. it makes no sense to me that we can't develop a left or right back that can go forward and impact a game like a sergio ramos from spain. it makes no sense to me that, with all the kids in this country that play soccer growing up, we still haven't found a replacement in our midfield for tab ramos, the last us player that always looked comfortable with the ball at his feet, even in traffic. it makes no sense to me that we can't develop a striker with more skill than "man, he's strong. look at that jozy go. too bad he can't dribble." or a guy that's only good in the air. is it how we train? is it a lack of quality competition once you graduate high school in this country? it's not that we don't have athletes. we have guys that can run. we have big, strong defenders. to use a baseball term, we just don't have any "five-tool" guys. guys that can do everything well. landon's as close as we have, but he has too much of a tendency to disappear into unselfishness when he finds himself in "big" games.
here are the highlights to wednesday's upset...
tim howard - freakishly good, as he is capable of being every game.
oguchi onyewu - terribly solid. controlled the middle most of the game.
landon - wasn't a superstar, but has played two consecutive solid games.
the so-so's...
jozy - his goal was one good, strong turn and a lucky break from the spanish goalkeeper. he kicked the ball right down the middle and the keeper was leaning wrong. otherwise, he turned the ball over way too much. goal counts, though.
michael bradley - never exciting, but did his job for the most part.
rest of the backline - solid, bend-don't-break defense all night.
the one shining moments...
clint dempsey - he is the yunel escobar of this team. lots of talent. unfortunately, is aware he has lots of talent. allows talent to carry him only so far. never actually exploits talent to carry him to next level. has the potential to own this team. will never happen. got lucky that sergio ramos lost him for the second goal. can thank benny and landon for getting the ball to him.
listen, i appreciate the team's effort, but spain was the better side all game. way more talent. way more possession. way more chances. way more shots.
but in soccer, none of that matters if you can score the first goal. after that, you can defend like crazy with ten guys (like the us did, give them credit for that) and make it immensely difficult for the other team to score (which the us did, give them credit for that).
and so it happened. an underachieving soccer country (based on it's own goals) lived up to it's stated potential for one day. the true test will be sunday when they play a team in brazil that's just as talented as spain and will not take them for granted. when they play a team that has already embarrassed them 10 days earlier. if they can beat brazil sunday, now that will be worth an epic post.
as for the humc comparisons, we'll hold off on that. currently, the church doesn't have anything like project 2010 to measure itself against. we are trying to work out of "project...hey, what was our project again???". when we start setting goals and making plans for our future, maybe then we can compare ourselves to us soccer.
'til then, watch the game sunday afternoon and you tell me, score notwithstanding, who the better team is/was. if my man, benny, gets to play the whole game, the us will stand a better chance of being in the conversation.
do you hear me, bob bradley? benny feilhaber for 90 minutes, please!!!
hey, he didn't say anything about the pastor!
would you just go watch some soccer?!?!?
4 comments:
I, reader number 1 of the latter group, actually read through this post. Not because of your parenthetical goading, but because I actually enjoy reading ALL of your posts. And, just by being in the same house as you, I have to like soccer (and every other sport save hockey, thank god; no offense, chris). I hope those readers who just scan for the words pastor, preacher, huffman, humc, etc. can get your sarcasm and read in between the (parenthetical) lines. I'll bet they will, and that's why this will be the only comment on here from someone who knows nothing about sports.
And now, there is a comment. :)
No offense taken, Sarah. Those who don't watch hockey...their loss. :-)
Kevin, what is the deal lately with your man crushes on young guys with tons of talent and potential but not quite getting to it just yet (ala Jordan and Benny)?
Hey, your comment about HUMC not having a Project 2010 is comment enough. To quote the Mythbusters, "Well, there's your problem."
You mean this post isn't about Michael Jackson?
*quits reading*
"lately"? ;)
potential fits into the equation, definitely, and young does to a lesser degree.
i think my infatuations usually have most to do with "difference-makers", though. guys (unlike landon) that can force the way they play tangibly onto their respective playing field and tilt the scales in favor of the teams i root for or respect.
ichiro, lebron, tim hudson all fit into this category for me and all escape the young and potential tags at this point in their careers.
if bobby cox didn't truly break jordan, he'll do that soon. if bradley can look past benny's occasional defensive inadequacies, benny could do it as soon as tomorrow.
we'll see.
Post a Comment