Well that was monumentally disappointing.
At just about every level, the US failed on Wednesday. The gameplan was horribly flawed, the execution (with a couple of exceptions) was poor, and the result was negative.
The gameplan was terrible. I don't know why Bob Bradley decided to have his central midfielders (Clark and Bradley) give up so much ground and set up so close to the 18-yard line, but that gave Mexico, a team that wants to possess the ball, free reign to do just that. A big part of the reason the US was able to beat Spain is they forced Spain to push out wide, they didn't concede the middle of the field. Against Mexico, they inexplicably yielded the middle. The only reasoning I can come up with is they weren't afraid of Mexico hurting them with long shots, and wanted to make sure they couldn't dribble or give and go the ball into the penalty area without a lot of traffic. Either that, or it was an attempt to lessen the effects of the altitude and environment of the Azteca. If it was the former, that's at least defensible. If the latter played any part in Bradley's thinking, then he had to get the players back early to train at altitude.
So yes, the players entered the match with an arm (or a leg) tied behind their backs, but then they went out and played flat for the better part of 90 minutes, and pretty much the entire first half. With the excpetion of lone goal scorer Charlie Davies, always stout goalkeeper Tim Howard, and man of the match Oguchi Onyewu, no one else played anywhere close to well. All 4 midfielders were awful. Donovan had the pass to Davies for the goal, then disappeared. Dempsey was one of the only players willing to try and make something happen with the ball, but he failed do convert on most of his attempts. Bradley and Clark brought nothing to the table offensively, as their play was frought with quick turnovers right back to Mexico. And worse, they did nothing to stall Mexico's possession in the midfield. Bocanegra didn't seem ready to match the pace of Mexico, and Cherundolo was terrible.
By the way, that was Bradley's most indefensible lineup gaffe. Jonathan Spector impresses the heck out of everyone at the Confed Cup, and he gets benched for this game? Seriously?
The result, while disappointing, isn't the problem. The US could have come out of this game with 0 points and still maintained the momentum of the Confed Cup. The problem is the team came out flat, whether they were cowed by the atmosphere or simply didn't get up for the game, it was a horrid display, given how far they had come earlier this summer.
Like was said before the game, this wasn't a deathblow to the USA's qualifying chances. However, an unexpected wrinkle was thrown into the mix when Honduras smoked Costa Rica 4-0. That means the top 4 teams are separated by just 3 points (remember, top 3 go on and 4th has to win a play-in contest with a South American team). Mexico was in a much more dire position back in June, they needed wins at home against Trinidad & Tobago and the US to get back into things. They got both wins. The US now needs wins at home against El Salvador and at Trinidad & Tobago. They SHOULD win both games, and if they take care of business, they should be good to go for 2010. A win and a draw, and they'll face some pressure, but they still should be okay. Any less than 4 points, and all of a sudden things start to get a little dicey.
The US had a chance to make history and prove they were a force to be reckoned with, but it was not to be. Now they have to lick their wounds and focus on being a better team (maybe even one that can possess the ball and hold onto a lead) going forward.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Memo to Bob Bradley: Go for it!
Note: If you're interested in actually watching this game, it's on Telemundo. The English language broadcast isn't happening. ESPN termed the price the Mexican Football Federation demanded for the game as "extortionate".
Tomorrow is the first step for the new US Soccer team.
Sure, it's the 6th game out of 10 in CONCACAF qualifying and, yes, the US has played other, meaningful games as recently as earlier this summer (no, the Gold Cup doesn't really count), but this is their first real game since they turned the world on its ear over 135 minutes in the Confederations Cup. That run was billed as America's coming out party and the US serving notice for 2010 in South Africa.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. First, the US still needs to qualify for South Africa. They're in very good position, but the berth isn't locked up. Second, there's just under a year until the World Cup actually kicks off. So much can change in a year. If the US is content to coast on their Confed Cup showing, 2010 will go a lot like 2006. Third, the US will not get a chance to play many important games between now and the World Cup. All that's left are qualifying matches and friendlies (and friendlies are dog manure). And of the qualifying matches, the only one left that can approach playing a team like Brazil or Spain is the one tomorrow afternoon. At Mexico. In the Azteca stadium.
Now, the US does NOT in any way need a win tomorrow to qualify for the World Cup. The US doesn't even need a draw to feel good about qualifying. As explained in a blog post on ESPN's US Soccer blog, no CONCACAF team has not qualified for the World Cup with at least 15 points since the region got 3 automatic berths for the 1998 Cup. The US currently has 10 points with 2 home games remaining. Take care of business at home, and they'll practically punch their ticket. Even if they win one of the home dates and draw the other, that leaves them likely needed just a draw out of their remaining 2 away dates, neither of which involves Mexico or Costa Rica. So, by the math, the US does not need any result in tomorrow's match.
Which brings us to Mexico. Despite the 5-0 stomping of the US B/C team in the Gold Cup final, this is a team in turmoil. They ahve had 4 coaches since the 2006 Cup, and their current coach, Javier Aguirre, was suspended for 3 games of the Gold Cup for kicking an opposing player. Mexico also sits 4th in the 6 team group (the top 3 earn automatic berths to South Africa), and has never lost to the US in a home qualifying match (all-time record: 22-0-1) so there is a ton of pressure on the home side for this match.
For all of these reasons, the US needs to push for the win. They need to show that they can deal with a 2nd tier team in their most hostile home arena to give themselves the continued confidence that they can play with and beat the top teams on neutral (read: non-European) ground. This is by far the US team's best chance to break the Azteca hex, and there is no reason not to go for it, as a loss doesn't damage their chances of qualifying.
What does this mean for coach Bob Bradley? A couple of things:
1) Don't go conservative with formations. Don't start the game with a 4-5-1. I'm not asking for a 4-3-3, just the 4-4-2 that worked so well at the Confed Cup.
2) Start Benny Feilhaber in the midfield with Bradley, Dempsey, and Donovan. The temptation (I believe) will be to start Clark with the other 3 as Clark's strength is disrupting the other team's midfield, and if you're playing for the tie, that's a big part of that strategy. Instead, let's see the US pushing for that early goal. Feilhaber isn't in 90-minute shape yet, so have Clark ready at the 45th or 60th minute, but push hard for that first goal.
3) Start Jonathan Spector at right back. Spector impressed both with his defense and his long ball service at the Confed Cup. He's earned the start in Azteca.
The easy, by the book play is to play for a tie in this road qualifier. Don't settle, Bob. Go for the throat. Let's see if this team can face a team that has everything to play for, and rip its heart out.
Tomorrow is the first step for the new US Soccer team.
Sure, it's the 6th game out of 10 in CONCACAF qualifying and, yes, the US has played other, meaningful games as recently as earlier this summer (no, the Gold Cup doesn't really count), but this is their first real game since they turned the world on its ear over 135 minutes in the Confederations Cup. That run was billed as America's coming out party and the US serving notice for 2010 in South Africa.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. First, the US still needs to qualify for South Africa. They're in very good position, but the berth isn't locked up. Second, there's just under a year until the World Cup actually kicks off. So much can change in a year. If the US is content to coast on their Confed Cup showing, 2010 will go a lot like 2006. Third, the US will not get a chance to play many important games between now and the World Cup. All that's left are qualifying matches and friendlies (and friendlies are dog manure). And of the qualifying matches, the only one left that can approach playing a team like Brazil or Spain is the one tomorrow afternoon. At Mexico. In the Azteca stadium.
Now, the US does NOT in any way need a win tomorrow to qualify for the World Cup. The US doesn't even need a draw to feel good about qualifying. As explained in a blog post on ESPN's US Soccer blog, no CONCACAF team has not qualified for the World Cup with at least 15 points since the region got 3 automatic berths for the 1998 Cup. The US currently has 10 points with 2 home games remaining. Take care of business at home, and they'll practically punch their ticket. Even if they win one of the home dates and draw the other, that leaves them likely needed just a draw out of their remaining 2 away dates, neither of which involves Mexico or Costa Rica. So, by the math, the US does not need any result in tomorrow's match.
Which brings us to Mexico. Despite the 5-0 stomping of the US B/C team in the Gold Cup final, this is a team in turmoil. They ahve had 4 coaches since the 2006 Cup, and their current coach, Javier Aguirre, was suspended for 3 games of the Gold Cup for kicking an opposing player. Mexico also sits 4th in the 6 team group (the top 3 earn automatic berths to South Africa), and has never lost to the US in a home qualifying match (all-time record: 22-0-1) so there is a ton of pressure on the home side for this match.
For all of these reasons, the US needs to push for the win. They need to show that they can deal with a 2nd tier team in their most hostile home arena to give themselves the continued confidence that they can play with and beat the top teams on neutral (read: non-European) ground. This is by far the US team's best chance to break the Azteca hex, and there is no reason not to go for it, as a loss doesn't damage their chances of qualifying.
What does this mean for coach Bob Bradley? A couple of things:
1) Don't go conservative with formations. Don't start the game with a 4-5-1. I'm not asking for a 4-3-3, just the 4-4-2 that worked so well at the Confed Cup.
2) Start Benny Feilhaber in the midfield with Bradley, Dempsey, and Donovan. The temptation (I believe) will be to start Clark with the other 3 as Clark's strength is disrupting the other team's midfield, and if you're playing for the tie, that's a big part of that strategy. Instead, let's see the US pushing for that early goal. Feilhaber isn't in 90-minute shape yet, so have Clark ready at the 45th or 60th minute, but push hard for that first goal.
3) Start Jonathan Spector at right back. Spector impressed both with his defense and his long ball service at the Confed Cup. He's earned the start in Azteca.
The easy, by the book play is to play for a tie in this road qualifier. Don't settle, Bob. Go for the throat. Let's see if this team can face a team that has everything to play for, and rip its heart out.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Follow up to the Rios note
Well, the referendum on the economy and how it's affecting baseball has occurred, and the Toronto Blue Jays made the case for those who argue the economic downturn is greatly affecting baseball.
Toronto placed Rios on waivers, and he was claimed by the White Sox. Rather than pull him back off of waivers and keep a pretty good (though substantially underachieving) player, the Jays let him go to Chicago for $20,000 and the opporuntity to get out of paying him about $10 million a year for the next 6 years.
There was much surprise around baseball when word got out a team had claimed Rios. This is why.
Of course, the flipside of this coin is Chicago, who has added Jake Peavy (3 years, $52 million starting in 2010) and Alex Rios (7 years, $69.35 million starting this season) within 10 days of each other. Either owner Jerry Reinsdorf is sitting on a treasure chest no one else knows about, or he's about to slap GM Kenny Williams upside the head.
Editor's note: The White Sox are clearing $34 million from their books this offseason (per espn), which should take some of the sting out of these contracts going forward.
Toronto placed Rios on waivers, and he was claimed by the White Sox. Rather than pull him back off of waivers and keep a pretty good (though substantially underachieving) player, the Jays let him go to Chicago for $20,000 and the opporuntity to get out of paying him about $10 million a year for the next 6 years.
There was much surprise around baseball when word got out a team had claimed Rios. This is why.
Of course, the flipside of this coin is Chicago, who has added Jake Peavy (3 years, $52 million starting in 2010) and Alex Rios (7 years, $69.35 million starting this season) within 10 days of each other. Either owner Jerry Reinsdorf is sitting on a treasure chest no one else knows about, or he's about to slap GM Kenny Williams upside the head.
Editor's note: The White Sox are clearing $34 million from their books this offseason (per espn), which should take some of the sting out of these contracts going forward.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
MLB notes
- David Ortiz ended up on the list of players who tested positive for PEDs in 2003. That fact was made public recently. Ortiz said he would be upfront with any information he had, then announced midweek that he would discuss this positive test on Saturday.
His explanation? Tainted supplements. Seriously?
I'm not calling Papi a liar, but if you're going to announce a press conference ahead of time, it indicates you have either a) a unique explanation or b) a lot of information you want to publicize (like the then-legal supplements you took that you believe triggered the positive test). Instead of either of these, Ortiz went with, if not the most cited reason for one's name appearing on a banned substances list, it's certianly top-3. Again, simply because this sounds almost exactly like, "the dog ate my homework" doesn't mean it isn't true. However, if you're going to go out of your way to call a press conference, you could come up with a significantly less tired excuse or give actual details.
- I hope you're proud of yourself (umpire) Ed Rapuano. Rapuano called Philly's Ryan Howard out on strikes in the bottom of the 6th. Howard didn't agree with the call, and said a couple of things to Rapuano. In the top of the 7th, Rapuano called the 0-2 pitch to the 1st batter of the inning a ball, which prompted Phillies center fielder Shane Victorino to throw up his hands in the air. Rapuano somehow saw this act from about 300 feet away, and immediately ejected Victorino. Victorino was not involved in the Howard call in any way. He wasn't at the plate and he wasn't on base. And there is no way Rapuano can justify throwing someone out for a gesture made 300 feet away. What the heck was Rapuano doing noticing a gesture in centerfield, anyway? It would be one thing if Victorino made the gesture in the batter's box, as that's right in front of the ump's face. Shouldn't the ump be focusing on about 300 other things before what the centerfielder is doing? You shamed yourself Ed, and if MLB suspends Victorino, they will be shaming themselves too.
- Apparently, several MLB teams don't have scouts. From espn.com:
Smotlz worked hard to get himself back from surgery, and made 8 starts for Boston this season. In those starts, he put up the following line:
It all came to a head in Thursday night's game against the Yankees, where Smoltz couldn't get out of the 4th inning after surrendering 8 runs on 9 hits and 4 walks. Smoltz clearly had no out-pitch despite having a fastball clocked in the low-90s. He got to 0-2 or 1-2 counts on many New York hitters, and had no way to put them away. The Sox designated Smoltz for assignment after the game, hoping he will take a demotion to Pawtucket to transition to a reliever's role. But the Smoltz we've seen so far would be terrible as a reliever as well. With no out pitch, he's simply hoping the hitters hit the ball at someone. That is not a recipe for success. That several teams (even if they are predominantly NL teams) would be interested in Smoltz boggles the mind.
- We're about to have a referendum on the economy as it relates to Major League Baseball. Alex Rios is a Toronto Blue Jays outfielder, and circa 2006-2007, he looked like a rising star. He looked so good in fact, Toronto signed him to a 7-year, $69.35 million extension that kicked in this year. Rios responded by seeing his numbers drop across the board last season, and continue their fall this year (for example, his OBP is .315 this year). Rios was one of many players placed on waivers in the past week. Surprisingly (more like shockingly), at least one team claimed him.
Now, Toronto's front office has been told by ownership that they must cut payroll, and the team is scuffling (hence the Halladay derby before the non-waiver trade deadline). Since Rios was claimed, Toronto has a golden opportunity to get out of 6+ of the 7 years of his contract, all they have to do is let him go. True, Rios was considered a cornerstone of the franchise less than 2 years ago, but his baseball numbers do not measure up to his contract numbers, and the Blue Jays have been offered a get out of financial jail free card. If the Blue Jays do not take this opportunity to shed Rios and his onerous contract, every agent is going to throw it in the face of MLB's owners this offseason when arguing for contracts for their clients. If a team like Toronto can turn down freeing up almost $10 million a year, then the owners aren't in nearly as bad a position as they'd like us all to believe.
His explanation? Tainted supplements. Seriously?
I'm not calling Papi a liar, but if you're going to announce a press conference ahead of time, it indicates you have either a) a unique explanation or b) a lot of information you want to publicize (like the then-legal supplements you took that you believe triggered the positive test). Instead of either of these, Ortiz went with, if not the most cited reason for one's name appearing on a banned substances list, it's certianly top-3. Again, simply because this sounds almost exactly like, "the dog ate my homework" doesn't mean it isn't true. However, if you're going to go out of your way to call a press conference, you could come up with a significantly less tired excuse or give actual details.
- I hope you're proud of yourself (umpire) Ed Rapuano. Rapuano called Philly's Ryan Howard out on strikes in the bottom of the 6th. Howard didn't agree with the call, and said a couple of things to Rapuano. In the top of the 7th, Rapuano called the 0-2 pitch to the 1st batter of the inning a ball, which prompted Phillies center fielder Shane Victorino to throw up his hands in the air. Rapuano somehow saw this act from about 300 feet away, and immediately ejected Victorino. Victorino was not involved in the Howard call in any way. He wasn't at the plate and he wasn't on base. And there is no way Rapuano can justify throwing someone out for a gesture made 300 feet away. What the heck was Rapuano doing noticing a gesture in centerfield, anyway? It would be one thing if Victorino made the gesture in the batter's box, as that's right in front of the ump's face. Shouldn't the ump be focusing on about 300 other things before what the centerfielder is doing? You shamed yourself Ed, and if MLB suspends Victorino, they will be shaming themselves too.
- Apparently, several MLB teams don't have scouts. From espn.com:
Some National League teams, as well as the Texas Rangers, have interest in acquiring John Smoltz, major league sources say, which is an early indication that he will have another opportunity to pitch this year -- if he chooses to take it.
Smotlz worked hard to get himself back from surgery, and made 8 starts for Boston this season. In those starts, he put up the following line:
It all came to a head in Thursday night's game against the Yankees, where Smoltz couldn't get out of the 4th inning after surrendering 8 runs on 9 hits and 4 walks. Smoltz clearly had no out-pitch despite having a fastball clocked in the low-90s. He got to 0-2 or 1-2 counts on many New York hitters, and had no way to put them away. The Sox designated Smoltz for assignment after the game, hoping he will take a demotion to Pawtucket to transition to a reliever's role. But the Smoltz we've seen so far would be terrible as a reliever as well. With no out pitch, he's simply hoping the hitters hit the ball at someone. That is not a recipe for success. That several teams (even if they are predominantly NL teams) would be interested in Smoltz boggles the mind.
- We're about to have a referendum on the economy as it relates to Major League Baseball. Alex Rios is a Toronto Blue Jays outfielder, and circa 2006-2007, he looked like a rising star. He looked so good in fact, Toronto signed him to a 7-year, $69.35 million extension that kicked in this year. Rios responded by seeing his numbers drop across the board last season, and continue their fall this year (for example, his OBP is .315 this year). Rios was one of many players placed on waivers in the past week. Surprisingly (more like shockingly), at least one team claimed him.
Now, Toronto's front office has been told by ownership that they must cut payroll, and the team is scuffling (hence the Halladay derby before the non-waiver trade deadline). Since Rios was claimed, Toronto has a golden opportunity to get out of 6+ of the 7 years of his contract, all they have to do is let him go. True, Rios was considered a cornerstone of the franchise less than 2 years ago, but his baseball numbers do not measure up to his contract numbers, and the Blue Jays have been offered a get out of financial jail free card. If the Blue Jays do not take this opportunity to shed Rios and his onerous contract, every agent is going to throw it in the face of MLB's owners this offseason when arguing for contracts for their clients. If a team like Toronto can turn down freeing up almost $10 million a year, then the owners aren't in nearly as bad a position as they'd like us all to believe.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Most Ridiculous Trade of Deadline Day
Boston Red Sox trade 1B Adam LaRoche and cash to the Atlanta Braves for 1B Casey Kotchman.
This is a trade, that, on the surface, looks ridiculous. Yes, the Sox had just traded for C/1B Victor Martinez, giving them a legitmate bat at C/1B/DH. Given the presence of Kevin Youkilis, David Ortiz, and Jason Varitek already on the roster, the presence of Adam LaRoche (acquired from Pittsburgh 9 days earlier) became beyond superfluous. When word leaked out that the Sox were looking to dump LaRoche after the Martinez trade, it made perfect sense...
...until they got yet another first baseman in exchange.
The party line in Beantown is that Kotchman will be better suited to come off the bench than LaRoche was. Bullsnot. Kotchman does the following things better than LaRoche: play defense and get on base. The problem is, getting on base and playing defense is already the specialty of current infielders Kevin Youkilis and Mike Lowell. If you lift Victor Martinez for defense in the late innings, your best option is to move Youkilis back to first and insert Mike Lowell at 3rd, an option that does not involve Casey Kotchman.
How about pinch hitting in the late innings? Both Kotchman and LaRoche are left-handed, and LaRoche is the more dangerous hitter (his increased power threat cancels out Kotchman's OBP advantage in most pinch hitting situations.
Kotchman is cheaper (~2.8M vs 7M this season for LaRoche), but the Red Sox sent money to the Braves in this deal (presumably enough to cover the difference in salaries for the rest of the year). There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to this deal, so why make it?
WARNING: Full Speculation Mode ahead!
My belief is the Red Sox were trying to swing one more trade. And since they already grabbed some offense, I believe they were chasing Roy Halladay. Part of the reason Toronto was exploring the idea of trading Halladay is because ownership has demanded the front office cut costs. For a team with non-infinite resources like Toronto, Kotchman is a MUCH nicer piece than LaRoche. Not just because of the salary, but unlike LaRoche (who will be a free agent at the end of the season), Kotchman has a couple of more arbitration-elligible years remaining, which makes him cheaper to keep around for a couple more years than LaRoche would be. A package that includes Kotchman looks much nicer to most teams than a package including LaRoche. I believe the LaRoche/Kotchman swap was an effort to put together another deal (I'm guessing for Halladay, because the Sox were continuously linked to him over the last few days) which didn't end up happening for whatever reason. I have no evidence to back this up, but it's the only story that allows this deal to make any kind of sense.
This is a trade, that, on the surface, looks ridiculous. Yes, the Sox had just traded for C/1B Victor Martinez, giving them a legitmate bat at C/1B/DH. Given the presence of Kevin Youkilis, David Ortiz, and Jason Varitek already on the roster, the presence of Adam LaRoche (acquired from Pittsburgh 9 days earlier) became beyond superfluous. When word leaked out that the Sox were looking to dump LaRoche after the Martinez trade, it made perfect sense...
...until they got yet another first baseman in exchange.
The party line in Beantown is that Kotchman will be better suited to come off the bench than LaRoche was. Bullsnot. Kotchman does the following things better than LaRoche: play defense and get on base. The problem is, getting on base and playing defense is already the specialty of current infielders Kevin Youkilis and Mike Lowell. If you lift Victor Martinez for defense in the late innings, your best option is to move Youkilis back to first and insert Mike Lowell at 3rd, an option that does not involve Casey Kotchman.
How about pinch hitting in the late innings? Both Kotchman and LaRoche are left-handed, and LaRoche is the more dangerous hitter (his increased power threat cancels out Kotchman's OBP advantage in most pinch hitting situations.
Kotchman is cheaper (~2.8M vs 7M this season for LaRoche), but the Red Sox sent money to the Braves in this deal (presumably enough to cover the difference in salaries for the rest of the year). There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to this deal, so why make it?
WARNING: Full Speculation Mode ahead!
My belief is the Red Sox were trying to swing one more trade. And since they already grabbed some offense, I believe they were chasing Roy Halladay. Part of the reason Toronto was exploring the idea of trading Halladay is because ownership has demanded the front office cut costs. For a team with non-infinite resources like Toronto, Kotchman is a MUCH nicer piece than LaRoche. Not just because of the salary, but unlike LaRoche (who will be a free agent at the end of the season), Kotchman has a couple of more arbitration-elligible years remaining, which makes him cheaper to keep around for a couple more years than LaRoche would be. A package that includes Kotchman looks much nicer to most teams than a package including LaRoche. I believe the LaRoche/Kotchman swap was an effort to put together another deal (I'm guessing for Halladay, because the Sox were continuously linked to him over the last few days) which didn't end up happening for whatever reason. I have no evidence to back this up, but it's the only story that allows this deal to make any kind of sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)