USA - Ghana (SPOILERS)

[The Sybian]

I think it's bullshit that the time still runs while you're celebrating a goal. If you go up at 87 minutes, why wouldn't you fall to the ground and pretend you can't move while the rest of your team piles on top of you?

The ref is supposed to take that into account when adding time on to the end. That's why you see things like 5 extra minutes after the 45 runs out.

Ohhh...

I'm sure this has been brought up before but what exactly do they have against just stopping the clock?

Soccer is an old game that clings to it's traditions. The English Football Association, the governing body of the EPL, started back in 1863. I'm guessing they didn't have stadium scoreboard clocks. This is why many older English stadiums still have giant old-school clocks on the rafters.

Refs wear 2 watches. One keeps running time, and the other they stop whenever they see fit. When the running time hits 90, they let the sideline fourth official know, and he holds up the sign. That is fairly new. In the past, they didn't announce how much extra time would be added, and it made watching a tied or one goal game excruciating.

[Rush2112]

I am fine with soccer going hipster and drawing a crowd that can't kick the ball but can scream like crazy, but it is interesting to see who makes those environments.

Interesting that you call people that don't play a sport "hipster" not exactly sure how many fans of other sports actually played.

[The Sybian]

I am fine with soccer going hipster and drawing a crowd that can't kick the ball but can scream like crazy, but it is interesting to see who makes those environments.

Interesting that you call people that don't play a sport "hipster" not exactly sure how many fans of other sports actually played.

I certainly wouldn't call my parents hipster. It's funny to me how many people totally get into the World Cup, then don't watch a game for 4 years. I'd be curious to see MLS TV numbers after the Cup. do they get a bump, and slowly lose it? My parents have watched a heck of a lot more than I have. Helps that they are retired, but I am surprised how into it they get. My father has zero interest in any other sport, and my mom likes sports, but doesn't watch anything other than the end of CBS football games that delay 60 Minutes.

[Nonlinear FC]

For the very reason you've brought up. The NCAA has a running clock that counts down to the end. It's absolute bullshit. All a team has to do is just keep kicking the ball out of bounds and stall and there's nothing the opposing team can do.

With the end of the game in the refs hands, you can't just fall over on the ball and sit there while a clock winds down. He has the discretion to just keep it going until a reasonable amount of time has been accounted for in terms of delays.

If you kick the ball out of bounds, doesn't the other team get the ball?

Yep. The point remains. It's very easy to disrupt a soccer game and waste time. If you just have a clock winding down, the last 3 or 4 minutes would devolve into players just laying down and faking injuries.

Ghana actually DID do this to us in South Africa and a lot of people still complain that the referee a) did not add enough additional time and b) did not card the guy that was stretchered off and then popped to his feet the second he arrived on the touchline.

[degenerasian]

Algeria very neat and organized. This is how the other Africans should play to compliment they immense talent.

[Jerloma]

Yeah, I still don't get it. I can buy the tradition thing but I can't for the life of me see why a team with a lead would kick the ball out of bounds or fake an injury if those things stopped the clock. Although, the idea of not knowing how much extra time will be added is kind of cool. Of course, they got rid of it.

[The Sybian]

Yeah, I still don't get it. I can buy the tradition thing but I can't for the life of me see why a team with a lead would kick the ball out of bounds or fake an injury if those things stopped the clock. Although, the idea of not knowing how much extra time will be added is kind of cool. Of course, they got rid of it.

In some ways, it was cool. Added a huge element of excitement. Players don't kick the ball out of bounds in professional games. I think he was talking about NCAA, where the clock doesn't stop.

[Jerloma]

Oh yeah...I agree that no clock stoppage or extra time is complete BS.

[Nonlinear FC]

I am fine with soccer going hipster and drawing a crowd that can't kick the ball but can scream like crazy, but it is interesting to see who makes those environments.

Interesting that you call people that don't play a sport "hipster" not exactly sure how many fans of other sports actually played.

I certainly wouldn't call my parents hipster. It's funny to me how many people totally get into the World Cup, then don't watch a game for 4 years. I'd be curious to see MLS TV numbers after the Cup. do they get a bump, and slowly lose it? My parents have watched a heck of a lot more than I have. Helps that they are retired, but I am surprised how into it they get. My father has zero interest in any other sport, and my mom likes sports, but doesn't watch anything other than the end of CBS football games that delay 60 Minutes.

What WLU's friend is really saying: "I saw Dave Matthews play at a frat party in Charlottesville in 1997. I still have a CD I bought out of his van."

There are a lot folks around our age that struggle with this "I was a fan before being a fan was cool" issue. And it goes deeper than being a fan. A lot of us played soccer on the first team, in the first league that was formed in our respective towns. (Ann Arbor's rec league was formed in the mid-70s, for example... travel a few years later.)

We grew up being told it was a communist sport, or that "soccer is for fags." Part of that was a kind of xenophobic backlash to the quick rise, and frankly bizarre popularity of the NASL... I guess. And you still see the same, trite article trotted out every 4 years about how the sport will never be popular in the US, and how they can change the rules to be more popular here (which... just... so many levels of hubris and inanity.)

Long time fans of soccer in the US have a lot of baggage. I chose, a long time ago, not to give a shit if Tony Kornheiser or any other pundit chooses not to like the sport. It was hard for me. I, like a lot of other fans, felt like we had some kind of duty to defend it. But at this point? I pretty much feel like we won. I can watch every US game (wasn't like that 10 years ago). MLS isn't going anywhere. I can turn on an EPL game as easily as I can find any major sport in this country.

And I'm certainly not complaining, on any level, if the sport is attracting a shit load of band wagoners, in ever increasing increments, every four years. Because I look around and see 10s, if not 100s of thousands of people in public squares, bars, etc yesterday and I don't car if they don't know one name on a US jersey. They're all part of a growing tide.

[The Sybian]

Most of it has been said, so I'll just inject this thought:

I've been closely following the US since 1980. Sam's Army, Project Mayhem... multiple games in multiple cities. I've "believed" in this team, irrationally, for most of my life. But if you had told me at any point along the way, that we would play a World Cup game in front of that kind of pro-US support I would've laughed you out of the room. That was, at times, tear inducing / hair stand up on the back of your neck type stuff. For a program that has notoriously, at times, played home WCQ's in hostile environments, to see and hear what went down in Natal yesterday was truly remarkable.

I believe the US has had the largest travelling contingent for the last couple of world cups. Wealth is obviously a factor, and I don't know how many of them are actual fans vs rich people wanting to experience the festivities.

Surprising stat from last night, Brooks' goal was the first US WC goal by a substitute.

[govmentchedda]

Read something somewhere, (not that Guardian piece yet), that mentioned that the US game plan was to allow Ghana to have possession on the flanks, clog the middle, and force lots of Ghana crosses, due to our aerial superiority. If that is the case, it explains a great deal about the result yesterday. It's one of those things that is hard to confirm after the fact, but it could explain the match we saw yesterday.

[Rush2112]

I certainly wouldn't call my parents hipster. It's funny to me how many people totally get into the World Cup, then don't watch a game for 4 years. I'd be curious to see MLS TV numbers after the Cup. do they get a bump, and slowly lose it? My parents have watched a heck of a lot more than I have. Helps that they are retired, but I am surprised how into it they get. My father has zero interest in any other sport, and my mom likes sports, but doesn't watch anything other than the end of CBS football games that delay 60 Minutes.

Same could be said about the Olympic sports. Some of it has to do with national pride rather than love of soccer I'm sure, people used to watch the America's Cup cause we kicked ass at it not because sailing is awesome to watch (sorry DiS.)

[Nonlinear FC]

Most of it has been said, so I'll just inject this thought:

I've been closely following the US since 1980. Sam's Army, Project Mayhem... multiple games in multiple cities. I've "believed" in this team, irrationally, for most of my life. But if you had told me at any point along the way, that we would play a World Cup game in front of that kind of pro-US support I would've laughed you out of the room. That was, at times, tear inducing / hair stand up on the back of your neck type stuff. For a program that has notoriously, at times, played home WCQ's in hostile environments, to see and hear what went down in Natal yesterday was truly remarkable.

I believe the US has had the largest travelling contingent for the last couple of world cups. Wealth is obviously a factor, and I don't know how many of them are actual fans vs rich people wanting to experience the festivities.

Right, absolutely on that. But largest traveling contingent has never resulted in what we saw/heard yesterday. For whatever reason, we packed that stadium and at times it was really LOUD.

[HaulCitgo]

If im the one spewing negativity, it is only to point out that the easy part is over and it wasn't very easy. They looked plain bad without Altidore and a hurt Dempsey. I cant wrap my head around a bad performance against the weakest team somehow being a good thing. Way better than a loss or tie but a W had to be a given coming in so looking back its tough to believe they have a better chance today against Portgual and Germany than they did yesterday this time. Granted, Portugal got hammered but im not so sure that's a good thing for Sunday aside from the goal differential. Those guys know they need 3 points and probably will push to put 3 in the net. To me, they looked much better offensively in the 4-0 loss than the USA did in their win. Im not sure the US will score again in this group... and im hoping that's enough. They may have gotten all the points they need.

[tennbengal]

Dude, who on here thought any of that group was going to be easy? Or who anywhere for that matter?

Who are you preaching to?

Ghana dispatched the US side the last two Cups and they are "easy"? Physical and relentless team that is US kryptonite.

Brutal group, I myself figured US would be lucky to get even one point. To have a chance to get through is delightful.

[Shirley]

I was surprised this morning to read some player grades and see that many folks thought Beasley didn't play well. Hell, I might have chosen him for the best US field player. He was constantly under pressure and he hardly ever got beat. Even more, he was the only defender we had who seemed able to complete a pass.

On the other hand, Fabian Johnson must have completed 1 in 5 passes last night. He was fucking awful with the ball unless he was running up the field (which only happened a couple of times). Cameron and Besler were nearly as bad as Johnson. Bedoya and especially Bradley were nearly as bad - basically whenever we got the ball, particularly on our defensive right side, you could be sure we'd kick it out of bounds or right to a Ghanian. We were yelling at Howard to just punt the fucking ball because he'd always roll it out to Johnson (Ghana was smartly playing off him) who'd then get charged and panic.

I'm gonna assume that Bradley will never play a game like that again. I don't know about the others.

That said, our defense did a great job at marking players. We didn't get lost nearly as much as we had in our recent friendlies. Still, I'd rather see us in a 4-2-3-1 next game.

[P.D.X.]

Granted, Portugal got hammered but im not so sure that's a good thing for Sunday aside from the goal differential. Those guys know they need 3 points and probably will push to put 3 in the net.

I'm cool with this. We're strong on the counter and I'm not expecting Portugal to be disciplined.

[joeyclams]

If im the one spewing negativity, it is only to point out that the easy part is over and it wasn't very easy. They looked plain bad without Altidore and a hurt Dempsey. I cant wrap my head around a bad performance against the weakest team somehow being a good thing. Way better than a loss or tie but a W had to be a given coming in so looking back its tough to believe they have a better chance today against Portgual and Germany than they did yesterday this time. Granted, Portugal got hammered but im not so sure that's a good thing for Sunday aside from the goal differential. Those guys know they need 3 points and probably will push to put 3 in the net. To me, they looked much better offensively in the 4-0 loss than the USA did in their win. Im not sure the US will score again in this group... and im hoping that's enough. They may have gotten all the points they need.

One thing to keep in mind is that the US had a game plan for Ghana and it was effectively ruined with the Dempsey goal and then Jozy getting hurt. It may account for why they looked 'plain bad' for a large part of the game. That and Bradley having his worst game in a US shirt in, well forever. We can only hope that won't happen again.

As for the remaining games, aside from Germany, who are in a group of favorites to win the cup, the Portugal game is one where the US matches up really well. Portugal are far from dominating and the US can actually play their game and win against Portugal, if they game plan for CR7. Which is exactly what Germany did and they crushed them.

Thinking the US will not score another goal is really quite delusional. Of course it can happen, but just because Portugal have the best player on the planet doesn't mean that the US can't get the result they need, let alone score more goals. The US beat Portugal in the WC back in 2006 with a far less talented team against a way better overall team than the current Portugal side. Would anyone have expected Spain to get thrashed? Or Costa Rica winning? This is the world cup where match ups mean everything and teams are what win games. Not since Maradonna has a team won with a truly dominate player and a bunch of role players. It's why you see some stars sitting at home (Donovan) while a coach tries to assemble the best team to compete. The US competed last night against a team with far better players but not a great game plan. If Bradley had played even a little bit better, Ghana would not have had the type of possession numbers they had.

The biggest question is what the US do now that Jozy is out for the Portugal game. Do they have Wondo or Johansen try and play like Jozy or does JK play to their strengths and change his formation a bit? Personally, I'd just plug Johansen in the Jozy role and keep everything else the same. Bradley can't possibly play that bad again so that should immediately make the US look more dangerous.

[govmentchedda]

Tactics v. Portugal will certainly be interesting. If you're looking for a "hold up the ball" forward, I think Dempsey is your best option (even if it's not the best use of his skills). Perhaps a 4-4-1-1 with Clint up top and Johanson behind. It looks like Jurgen is game planning in a reactive, and not proactive fashion, (I'm not complaining about this), and it's tough to say what he thinks they need to do v. Portugal other than stop Ronaldo.

[joeyclams]

Tactics v. Portugal will certainly be interesting. If you're looking for a "hold up the ball" forward, I think Dempsey is your best option (even if it's not the best use of his skills). Perhaps a 4-4-1-1 with Clint up top and Johanson behind. It looks like Jurgen is game planning in a reactive, and not proactive fashion, (I'm not complaining about this), and it's tough to say what he thinks they need to do v. Portugal other than stop Ronaldo.

It would have to be reactive since his top forward is out indefinitely and Deuce has a busted nose. Hard to game plan for that scenario.

Personally, I think JK needs to ditch the hold up plan. The one guy that could do it is not available and the guys he has left play a more attacking, ball to feet, style. I like the 4-4-1-1 idea but I'd switch Dempsey and Johansen. I don't think Aron can play that tucked in striker as well as Dempsey.

[govmentchedda]

I keep looking, but can't find the rule. When, if ever, can we call in Landon, or someone else, if Jozy is done?

[tennbengal]

Decent news per Wahl...Besler should be ok for Portugal, Altidore less certain for Portugal (clearly), but also not ruled out of rest of the tournament.

[Sabo]

I keep looking, but can't find the rule. When, if ever, can we call in Landon, or someone else, if Jozy is done?

I think it's too late for them to call in an injury replacement. I think it closed two days ago or something like that.

[howard]

Of course hipsters are drawn to soccer. Too many drownings in hockey.

(wait for it)

[quote="wlu_lax6"]

1.) You still won't see another meaningful US game in the Washington DC Metro area again.

How come? Too many foreigners? Apologize if this has been asked and answered; it seems we've discussed this before, but I don't remember the answer.

[Gunpowder]

This is how the other Africans should play to compliment they immense talent.

Jeez man, you don't have to talk African while describing their teams.

[Gunpowder]

Most of it has been said, so I'll just inject this thought:

I've been closely following the US since 1980. Sam's Army, Project Mayhem... multiple games in multiple cities. I've "believed" in this team, irrationally, for most of my life. But if you had told me at any point along the way, that we would play a World Cup game in front of that kind of pro-US support I would've laughed you out of the room. That was, at times, tear inducing / hair stand up on the back of your neck type stuff. For a program that has notoriously, at times, played home WCQ's in hostile environments, to see and hear what went down in Natal yesterday was truly remarkable.

I believe the US has had the largest travelling contingent for the last couple of world cups. Wealth is obviously a factor, and I don't know how many of them are actual fans vs rich people wanting to experience the festivities.

Surprising stat from last night, Brooks' goal was the first US WC goal by a substitute.

Wealth + Population I'm sure is most of it. I have friends in Brazil who certainly didn't go because they love soccer.

[wlu_lax6]

Of course hipsters are drawn to soccer. Too many drownings in hockey.

(wait for it)

1.) You still won't see another meaningful US game in the Washington DC Metro area again.

How come? Too many foreigners? Apologize if this has been asked and answered; it seems we've discussed this before, but I don't remember the answer.

Basically if the U.S. plays Mexico, Honduras, CR, etc, the local communities travel and pack the stadium. I think the US had a bad result several years ago and players commented on the fact that they were basically playing as the away team. Here is an article about USA v. Jamacia a number of years back (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/05/sport ... yanks.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Better to play in towns where they get a US favored club and save DC for Money grab games (USA v. Brazil friendly two years ago, USA v. Germany last year). For games that matter the us will stack the deck in towns like Seattle, Portland Columbus, Salt Lake, and Denver. Places where travel is tough and fans will pack the stadium. Seattle woudl be great but too far for Euro players and fake grass stadium.

[brian]

I was at the Sept. 1, 2001 game vs. Honduras and the stadium was 70 percent Honduran. That game is the only home World Cup qualifier the US has lost in the last 30 years.

ETA: Old school ESPN story.

So yeah, RFK/DC will likely never get another meaningful WC qualifier ever again.

[degenerasian]

Of course hipsters are drawn to soccer. Too many drownings in hockey.

(wait for it)

1.) You still won't see another meaningful US game in the Washington DC Metro area again.

How come? Too many foreigners? Apologize if this has been asked and answered; it seems we've discussed this before, but I don't remember the answer.

Basically if the U.S. plays Mexico, Honduras, CR, etc, the local communities travel and pack the stadium. I think the US had a bad result several years ago and players commented on the fact that they were basically playing as the away team. Here is an article about USA v. Jamacia a number of years back (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/05/sport ... yanks.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Better to play in towns where they get a US favored club and save DC for Money grab games (USA v. Brazil friendly two years ago, USA v. Germany last year). For games that matter the us will stack the deck in towns like Seattle, Portland Columbus, Salt Lake, and Denver. Places where travel is tough and fans will pack the stadium. Seattle woudl be great but too far for Euro players and fake grass stadium.

Great plan. I loves that snow game in Denver.

This is something Canada's never figured out. Let's play all our games in Toronto. The immigrant capital of the entire world!

If I was the head of the Canadian FA I'd play my games in Winnipeg and/or St. John's. See how CR likes it in February or November

[howard]

I wondered if things maybe had changed. Not to the extent that playing a WCQ vs Mexico in the LA Coliseum (or even Home Depot), but that by 2014 we could pack the house (with white people) at RFK vs Jamaica.

The size of the crowd at that Swamp roadtrip for the USMNT/Turkey friendly four years ago at Philly made an impression. Then again, the Brazil friendly at the new Giants Stadium (that same year???) surprised me at how many Brazillian people existed in the NYC area, assuming they were all in the seats that night.

[brian]

Jamaica, never. Belize, maybe.

[The Sybian]

I wondered if things maybe had changed. Not to the extent that playing a WCQ vs Mexico in the LA Coliseum (or even Home Depot), but that by 2014 we could pack the house (with white people) at RFK vs Jamaica.

The size of the crowd at that Swamp roadtrip for the USMNT/Turkey friendly four years ago at Philly made an impression. Then again, the Brazil friendly at the new Giants Stadium (that same year???) surprised me at how many Brazillian people existed in the NYC area, assuming they were all in the seats that night.

Seriously? Newark and a large area surrounding it is filthy with Brazilians. Half the caretakers in the infant rooms at my kid's daycare are Brazilian with a Portuguese or two thrown in.

[Rex]

I think that is an issue that will always exist for USMNT, that can be managed with smart scheduling. I also think that it won't be confined to the US going forward, given patterns of immigration, globalism, yada yada. Didn't England play a friendly this year where an assload of people showed up for the visitor?

[howard]

I never hung much in Newark. Elitist, me.

[The Sybian]

I never hung much in Newark. Elitist, me.

Irvington and the surrounding areas are lovely at night.

[Jerloma]

I gotta say...I think I added some interesting insight today. See what you guys are missing on these soccer threads?

[Pruitt]

This is something Canada's never figured out. Let's play all our games in Toronto. The immigrant capital of the entire world!

If I was the head of the Canadian FA I'd play my games in Winnipeg and/or St. John's. See how CR likes it in February or November

I've never been to an international match in Toronto that didn't feature a large contingent of fans cheering for the visitors. Seriously - St. Lucia vs. Canada in an early round World Cup eliminator and an entire section is waving the St. Lucian flag. The entire country has 60,000 citizens and 10% of them seem to be in BMO field.

[elflaco]

I wondered if things maybe had changed. Not to the extent that playing a WCQ vs Mexico in the LA Coliseum (or even Home Depot), but that by 2014 we could pack the house (with white people) at RFK vs Jamaica.

The size of the crowd at that Swamp roadtrip for the USMNT/Turkey friendly four years ago at Philly made an impression. Then again, the Brazil friendly at the new Giants Stadium (that same year???) surprised me at how many Brazillian people existed in the NYC area, assuming they were all in the seats that night.

Seriously? Newark and a large area surrounding it is filthy with Brazilians. Half the caretakers in the infant rooms at my kid's daycare are Brazilian with a Portuguese or two thrown in.

not to mention all the brazilian strippers in go-go bars in essex county. or so i've heard.

[wlu_lax6]

Hope the broken nose does not hurt Deuce's vocals when he goes on tour.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/soc ... hop-album/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Question is better or worse than

[govmentchedda]

Lalas has a new album coming out too.