You know, save for the center of defense, this almost looked like a team that might be able to compete in this league. Of course, with only six points to show for the first third of the season, it's not likely to matter much in the grand reckoning, is it? And we've got to bear in mind that Chivas are at the bottom of the Western Conference to boot. But...there were three big chances for United to crumble. Everything about this season set them up to do so. But they didn't. They rallied. And so...
All aboard the Talking Points Express!
* About that post title. I know Talley comes out smelling a bit of the hero for having the composure to slot home a stoppage time penalty winner. But for the rest of the game he was a terrible liability, and not just when the not-exactly-rapid Justin Braun blew past him for Chivas' opener. Add in some missed headers and bad passing, and it wasn't shaping up to be one for the highlight reel. But I'd like to raise another question here. Talley was obviously struggling for pace and strength against Braun. Chivas were resorting to the direct approach from early in the match. To me, this game was screaming out for Julius James. Let him bang bodies with Braun, drop Peña off for cover, and get on with it. So who is more at fault? Talley for having a 3 or 4 rating until he took the PK or Onalfo for not recognizing the obvious issue?
* Central defense aside, the rest of this team looked like a pretty competitive bunch. Swapping out the likes of Morsink and Castillo for the quietly effective King and the livewire Najar made a massive distance. United not only played more quickly through midfield, but also actually got the ball wide in attack and, shocker of shockers, behind the Chivas back line. Instead of the slow-developing play that got attackers the ball with their backs to goal or no time and space in which to operate, playing quick and wide created opportunities to get behind, to run at defenders, and to actually create scoring chances rather than merely threatening to do so. After so many games where United controlled possession but wound up heavily outshot, it was quite the change to have an advantage in both areas.
* That said, the finishing wasn't exactly clinical. Allsopp had three golden chances but had two saved and pinged the third off the post. Still, I suppose the glass-half-full crowd might say that at least he put them on target, and I'll grant you that. But between those misses, Quaranta driving a great chance right at Thornton, and Castillo directing a wide open header about 15 yards wide of net, there was plenty of evidence of the fragile confidence (or is it ability) in scoring positions.
* But Quaranta more than made up for that one blown chance. It was he who maneuvered to play in Simms to cross for the second go-ahead goal. He drew the (questionable) penalty for the winner and had another, better shout for a PK turned down in the first half. Playing off Allsopp and later Cristman, he showed flashes of danger both on and off the ball. By combining dribbling, shooting, passing, movement, and the occasional positional switch with Pontius in midfield, he did what has so often eluded United's attack this year: he caused confusion in the Chivas defense.
Quick hits?
* Najar's headed goal was positively Olsen-esque. Kid's got a ways to go, but thus far he's doing the number proud.
* Hamid made some pretty questionable decisions in net.
* Kljestan didn't have as much of an effect as I thought he might. Was that because we shut him down or was he sulking after Bob dropped him from the World Cup roster?
As I said in the open, there were three opportunities for the heads to drop. Dominating the open, but going down 1-0 must have seemed all too familiar to the men in black. As would have been the constant banging at the door with no reward. But it was suffering a late equalizer that could have been the ultimate crushing blow. Instead, United bounced back from all three setbacks.
Of course, they then proceded to look terribly vulnerable to the direct ball from the 10 men of Chivas (remind me again why Morsink comes on instead of James when they're lobbing balls over midfield and into the box?), to the point where you thought, "God this season has been one long string of 'it can't get any worse' moments. Is this going to be the topper?" Tell me you weren't thinking that after the Braun Blitz, the woeful defending to concede the second, and the handful of golden chances not taken. I almost expected that the stand-in keeper to save Talley's PK. Actually, screw "almost." I'd pretty much resigned myself to the fact of it.
So in the final reckoning, it feels damn good to be able to finally say...
Vamos United!
Get Your Motor Running | a USA Match Reaction
Your classic tale of two halves? Perhaps. The US certainly seemed a different side going forward after the break. But the worry, for Bob Bradley and US fans alike, will have been the wide open spaces left available for the counter. And those were present in both halves.
Talking points?
* While the second half saw the US start to think and act quicker both on the ball and off, the transition between attack and defense (and vice versa) continued to be too slow. Not to say that it wasn't better in attack—it certainly was. Donovan, completely M.I.A. in the first half, started to become more of a factor as the improved pace of transition got him the ball in space and moving towards goal. But the real worries were happening all game long on the defensive end. Despite playing with two deeper central mids, Turkey consistently had time and space on the break, most worryingly Tuncay in the gap between the central midfield and defense. Likewise, a relatively static and indecisive US back line was exposed on a number of occasions by quick movement off the ball and Turkish attackers running at them.
* There was little to no width in the US attack in the first half. In the second, Cherundolo's overlapping runs on the right, Findley's improved mobility vis-a-vis Dempsey, and Torres's ability to spray Xabi Alonso-like balls meant the US was more consistent in generating wide threats. Also, as noted in the previous point, the US played a quicker game, getting the ball to players while they still had space they could exploit, rather than holding...holding...dithering until runs petered out, gaps were filled, men in space closed down, and the man on the ball came under pressure.
* The Turks had more than enough chances to bury this game early. Slovenia and Algeria might be as forgiving, but England almost certainly will not. And if Rooney is afforded the same sort of space that Tuncay was operating in during the first half, we'll be in a world of trouble on June 12th.
* It's interesting to note that the fullbacks we fielded in the first half were probably the most defensive pairing we could put out there. Despite that, the Turks had little trouble finding gaps, and, predictably, we weren't generating much going forward either. That said, unless Bradley is blind, I think Bocanegra needs to be playing at left back. Why? Most obviously, you could point to the number of times Bornstein was burned, allowing counter chances, wide penetration into the box, and darting runs behind, despite only being on the field in relief of Boca for 20 minutes. Secondly, Spector didn't exactly cover himself in glory in the first half. Slow to make decisions on the ball and woefully unable to anticipate balls going wide, he made little argument that he's bringing more to the party than Bornstein.
* Did Findley's performance justify his controversial inclusion in the 23? He did set up the opener by chipping Donovan into space and dutifully hustled about. He certainly looked confident enough and up for the occasion, but between chipping Donovan in and his late hold-up play, I don't remember seeing too much that impressed me. At times he got wide, and I appreciated that he was willing to run at defenders. Sadly, he rarely got past them, and, when he did, he either dribbled one touch too many or couldn't find the cross. Still, he's not completely out of his depth. Credit to Bradley? Not yet.
* The kid who really impressed me (and believe me, I've been waiting for a long time) was Torres. A terrier on defense, he allowed Bradley to get forward more effectively than he did in the first half. Somewhat surprising that, considering that Clark, Bradley's partner in the first half, is a more natural destroyer. But the biggest impact was Torres's ability to spread the ball about quickly and effectively. He didn't get forward into the attack, but rather sat deep, much like a Pirlo or Alonso, and pulled the strings from there. Of course, that's only going to be effective in games where we control possession, so it might be a stretch to try that against England. But against Algeria, Slovenia, and CONCACAF in the next cycle? Much more likely.
* And finally, we'll close with the curious case of Clint Dempsey. A goal? Yes. A bit of hustle? Yes, there was even some of that on occasion. But there was also that worrying Clint that frustrated so much during qualifying and at the Confed Cup. The one content to try tricks and fall down, to scowl at refs and teammates alike, to lose possession in promising positions. The one who seems to have a bit of swollen-noggin syndrome. And, most frustrating of all, a touch that kept seeming to get away from him in the first half. It was much better in the second, so we'll have to pray that it was just a matter of getting back into the swing of playing again.
Looking back on the performance as a whole, there's one key factor that I don't want to overlook in closing. While Bradley has generally been effective at establishing a tactical game plan prior to the match, he sometimes struggles to make changes during the game. Whether we can attribute the better second half to his changes or to the players just getting more in tune with one another during the run of play I leave to the reader. What can't be denied is that his team was creating consistent chances (and managed to finish a couple) against a pretty decent Turkish outfit. If they can replicate that kind of play against Algeria and Slovenia, advancement to the knock-out stages awaits, regardless of what happens against England.
Talking points?
* While the second half saw the US start to think and act quicker both on the ball and off, the transition between attack and defense (and vice versa) continued to be too slow. Not to say that it wasn't better in attack—it certainly was. Donovan, completely M.I.A. in the first half, started to become more of a factor as the improved pace of transition got him the ball in space and moving towards goal. But the real worries were happening all game long on the defensive end. Despite playing with two deeper central mids, Turkey consistently had time and space on the break, most worryingly Tuncay in the gap between the central midfield and defense. Likewise, a relatively static and indecisive US back line was exposed on a number of occasions by quick movement off the ball and Turkish attackers running at them.
* There was little to no width in the US attack in the first half. In the second, Cherundolo's overlapping runs on the right, Findley's improved mobility vis-a-vis Dempsey, and Torres's ability to spray Xabi Alonso-like balls meant the US was more consistent in generating wide threats. Also, as noted in the previous point, the US played a quicker game, getting the ball to players while they still had space they could exploit, rather than holding...holding...dithering until runs petered out, gaps were filled, men in space closed down, and the man on the ball came under pressure.
* The Turks had more than enough chances to bury this game early. Slovenia and Algeria might be as forgiving, but England almost certainly will not. And if Rooney is afforded the same sort of space that Tuncay was operating in during the first half, we'll be in a world of trouble on June 12th.
* It's interesting to note that the fullbacks we fielded in the first half were probably the most defensive pairing we could put out there. Despite that, the Turks had little trouble finding gaps, and, predictably, we weren't generating much going forward either. That said, unless Bradley is blind, I think Bocanegra needs to be playing at left back. Why? Most obviously, you could point to the number of times Bornstein was burned, allowing counter chances, wide penetration into the box, and darting runs behind, despite only being on the field in relief of Boca for 20 minutes. Secondly, Spector didn't exactly cover himself in glory in the first half. Slow to make decisions on the ball and woefully unable to anticipate balls going wide, he made little argument that he's bringing more to the party than Bornstein.
* Did Findley's performance justify his controversial inclusion in the 23? He did set up the opener by chipping Donovan into space and dutifully hustled about. He certainly looked confident enough and up for the occasion, but between chipping Donovan in and his late hold-up play, I don't remember seeing too much that impressed me. At times he got wide, and I appreciated that he was willing to run at defenders. Sadly, he rarely got past them, and, when he did, he either dribbled one touch too many or couldn't find the cross. Still, he's not completely out of his depth. Credit to Bradley? Not yet.
* The kid who really impressed me (and believe me, I've been waiting for a long time) was Torres. A terrier on defense, he allowed Bradley to get forward more effectively than he did in the first half. Somewhat surprising that, considering that Clark, Bradley's partner in the first half, is a more natural destroyer. But the biggest impact was Torres's ability to spread the ball about quickly and effectively. He didn't get forward into the attack, but rather sat deep, much like a Pirlo or Alonso, and pulled the strings from there. Of course, that's only going to be effective in games where we control possession, so it might be a stretch to try that against England. But against Algeria, Slovenia, and CONCACAF in the next cycle? Much more likely.
* And finally, we'll close with the curious case of Clint Dempsey. A goal? Yes. A bit of hustle? Yes, there was even some of that on occasion. But there was also that worrying Clint that frustrated so much during qualifying and at the Confed Cup. The one content to try tricks and fall down, to scowl at refs and teammates alike, to lose possession in promising positions. The one who seems to have a bit of swollen-noggin syndrome. And, most frustrating of all, a touch that kept seeming to get away from him in the first half. It was much better in the second, so we'll have to pray that it was just a matter of getting back into the swing of playing again.
Looking back on the performance as a whole, there's one key factor that I don't want to overlook in closing. While Bradley has generally been effective at establishing a tactical game plan prior to the match, he sometimes struggles to make changes during the game. Whether we can attribute the better second half to his changes or to the players just getting more in tune with one another during the run of play I leave to the reader. What can't be denied is that his team was creating consistent chances (and managed to finish a couple) against a pretty decent Turkish outfit. If they can replicate that kind of play against Algeria and Slovenia, advancement to the knock-out stages awaits, regardless of what happens against England.
Steve Wilson Interview | Part II
This is the second half (Part I is here) of an interview I conducted with Steve Wilson, author of The Boys From Little Mexico, a book about immigration, high school soccer and the future, not just of American soccer, but American culture. Let's continue, shall we...?
FBF: One of the issues with immigrant players in my neck of the woods is parent support. The parents often distrust schools or come from cultures that don't encourage parent involvement in the schools. This sometimes results in situations where players must rely on friends and neighbors for transportation, equipment, etc. Are the parents of Los Perros supportive of the team? Are they engaged with the school?
Wilson: That is/was also a big issue in Woodburn. Many of the kids had little or no support from their parents, who either were working two jobs, or thought that high school sports were frivolous. Also, many of the kids were staying with relatives or had single parents. Probably half of the team never had a parent in that stands at games. There were a few dads who usually showed up, but only one family (Omar and Pat) made it to every game.
Because the high school season is short and because the town is small, transportation to practices and home games wasn't a big difficulty to overcome. The kids who played on club teams had the biggest problems. Most needed financial scholarships from clubs to play, and most relied on non family members to get them to games. Omar's house often had a dozen kids in it waiting for rides home or to games.
Academically, the lack of parental involvement was a thorn in the school's side. When I was there, they had begun to try and address the issue by making parent-teacher conferences mandatory. Many teachers and administrators reported to me that the lack of parental involvement was a difficult hurdle. They are used to Anglo parents demanding to know details and asking how problems will be solved. Without that feedback from their Latino parents, teachers felt that the parents were not engaged. My understanding is that most of this is a cultural issue. In Mexico, parents are not encouraged to participate at schools, and many low social status Mexican immigrants, possibly with limited English, are hesitant to make suggestions or draw attention to themselves during PTA meetings.
The education of immigrants is a terribly important matter in the U.S. right now. Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S., and Hispanic kids are already in high numbers in our public schools. Even in white Oregon, one in five public schoolchildren is Latino. However, Latinos also have a lower rate of high school graduation, college attendance, and college graduation than white, black, or Asian groups. As a country, we need to find a way to teach Latino kids or risk not having enough future educated leaders.
FBF: In order to participate in high school athletics players must remain academically eligible by maintaining reasonable grades. Does this requirement encourage academic success for the players, or does it just foster frustration with the system?
Wilson: Many of the Bulldogs were highly motivated to do well in school. Several had parents who were teachers or worked for the school system. These guys didn't have any grade problems. Several other guys kept their grades up just so that they could play. They had no interest in education. On the whole, at least at Woodburn, I think that grade requirements are a positive rule.
At least three high quality players did not play because of grade rules while I was there. This was frustrating most of all to the coaches, who were also teachers, and who felt that the rules did not take into account the language difficulty many kids in Woodburn struggle with. For the kids, it was just one more lesson that led them to think that they would not and could not succeed.
FBF: Is there anything else you'd like to share with the readers of FBF about the process of writing the book, your experiences with getting to know the players and their families, or soccer in general?
Wilson: I had forgotten how much fun it is to be 16. These guys were always riding each other, making fun of each other's girlfriends, telling dirty jokes, and generally acting like boys. They played video games and thought about girls and went to parties on the weekend--pretty much exactly what I was doing with my white friends in the liberal college town I grew up in 20 years before them.
We stereotype Hispanic teenagers if we don't know any, we fear them or worry about them, and lump them into a monolithic group. But just like people in any other group, they are all individuals, some funny, some serious, some polite, some crude. The Bulldogs, almost all either born in Mexico or born to Mexican parents, all had in common that they were teenage boys trying to find their place in the world. I hope that readers who don't have a lot of connection with teenage Latinos will take away from the book a little insight into the world these kids inhabit, and maybe see them more as individuals and kids rather than as negative stereotypes.
Also, I see a very healthy future in America for soccer, although I think the sport will continue to grow slowly. One of the big differences that I saw between the Woodburn sports fans and typical white American sports fans is that in Woodburn, soccer is a man's sport. That means that the Bulldogs and their fathers and brothers had a narrative of soccer as a proving ground for masculine ideals, such as strength, determination, aggression, and dominance. That narrative about soccer is missing from the mind of the average American sports fan (AASF). The AASF applies those characteristics to American sports. We talk about Kobe Bryant, not just as a great athlete, but as relentless and heartbreaking. We think about Brett Favre as a gunslinging cowboy who never ages. I think that the key to the final uniting of sports fans around soccer in America depends on introducing these storylines. Until then, the AASF will continue to see soccer as a game for women and children.
Thanks for your time!
Steve
FBF: One of the issues with immigrant players in my neck of the woods is parent support. The parents often distrust schools or come from cultures that don't encourage parent involvement in the schools. This sometimes results in situations where players must rely on friends and neighbors for transportation, equipment, etc. Are the parents of Los Perros supportive of the team? Are they engaged with the school?
Wilson: That is/was also a big issue in Woodburn. Many of the kids had little or no support from their parents, who either were working two jobs, or thought that high school sports were frivolous. Also, many of the kids were staying with relatives or had single parents. Probably half of the team never had a parent in that stands at games. There were a few dads who usually showed up, but only one family (Omar and Pat) made it to every game.
Because the high school season is short and because the town is small, transportation to practices and home games wasn't a big difficulty to overcome. The kids who played on club teams had the biggest problems. Most needed financial scholarships from clubs to play, and most relied on non family members to get them to games. Omar's house often had a dozen kids in it waiting for rides home or to games.
Academically, the lack of parental involvement was a thorn in the school's side. When I was there, they had begun to try and address the issue by making parent-teacher conferences mandatory. Many teachers and administrators reported to me that the lack of parental involvement was a difficult hurdle. They are used to Anglo parents demanding to know details and asking how problems will be solved. Without that feedback from their Latino parents, teachers felt that the parents were not engaged. My understanding is that most of this is a cultural issue. In Mexico, parents are not encouraged to participate at schools, and many low social status Mexican immigrants, possibly with limited English, are hesitant to make suggestions or draw attention to themselves during PTA meetings.
The education of immigrants is a terribly important matter in the U.S. right now. Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S., and Hispanic kids are already in high numbers in our public schools. Even in white Oregon, one in five public schoolchildren is Latino. However, Latinos also have a lower rate of high school graduation, college attendance, and college graduation than white, black, or Asian groups. As a country, we need to find a way to teach Latino kids or risk not having enough future educated leaders.
FBF: In order to participate in high school athletics players must remain academically eligible by maintaining reasonable grades. Does this requirement encourage academic success for the players, or does it just foster frustration with the system?
Wilson: Many of the Bulldogs were highly motivated to do well in school. Several had parents who were teachers or worked for the school system. These guys didn't have any grade problems. Several other guys kept their grades up just so that they could play. They had no interest in education. On the whole, at least at Woodburn, I think that grade requirements are a positive rule.
At least three high quality players did not play because of grade rules while I was there. This was frustrating most of all to the coaches, who were also teachers, and who felt that the rules did not take into account the language difficulty many kids in Woodburn struggle with. For the kids, it was just one more lesson that led them to think that they would not and could not succeed.
FBF: Is there anything else you'd like to share with the readers of FBF about the process of writing the book, your experiences with getting to know the players and their families, or soccer in general?
Wilson: I had forgotten how much fun it is to be 16. These guys were always riding each other, making fun of each other's girlfriends, telling dirty jokes, and generally acting like boys. They played video games and thought about girls and went to parties on the weekend--pretty much exactly what I was doing with my white friends in the liberal college town I grew up in 20 years before them.
We stereotype Hispanic teenagers if we don't know any, we fear them or worry about them, and lump them into a monolithic group. But just like people in any other group, they are all individuals, some funny, some serious, some polite, some crude. The Bulldogs, almost all either born in Mexico or born to Mexican parents, all had in common that they were teenage boys trying to find their place in the world. I hope that readers who don't have a lot of connection with teenage Latinos will take away from the book a little insight into the world these kids inhabit, and maybe see them more as individuals and kids rather than as negative stereotypes.
Also, I see a very healthy future in America for soccer, although I think the sport will continue to grow slowly. One of the big differences that I saw between the Woodburn sports fans and typical white American sports fans is that in Woodburn, soccer is a man's sport. That means that the Bulldogs and their fathers and brothers had a narrative of soccer as a proving ground for masculine ideals, such as strength, determination, aggression, and dominance. That narrative about soccer is missing from the mind of the average American sports fan (AASF). The AASF applies those characteristics to American sports. We talk about Kobe Bryant, not just as a great athlete, but as relentless and heartbreaking. We think about Brett Favre as a gunslinging cowboy who never ages. I think that the key to the final uniting of sports fans around soccer in America depends on introducing these storylines. Until then, the AASF will continue to see soccer as a game for women and children.
Thanks for your time!
Steve
***
And thanks to you as well, Steve.
The Boys From Little Mexico is available, beginning June 1, from a variety of booksellers. See the links on the book's website, hit Amazon
, or try to scare up a copy at your local bookstore.
, or try to scare up a copy at your local bookstore.Steve Wilson Interview | Part I
Something I don't do enough of here on FBF is blend my love of books with my love of soccer. In the interest of addressing that oversight, it's my pleasure to present an interview I conducted with Steve Wilson, whose book, The Boys From Little Mexico, hits the shelves on June 1.
The Boys From Little Mexico examines the intersection of soccer, youth, immigration, education, and culture through the lens of a mostly-immigrant high school soccer team from Oregon and their pursuit of playoff glory. More information about the book can be found on the website. So, without further ado, let's kick off the first half of this two-part interview with the author, Steve Wilson...
FBF: Can you give us a brief biographical sketch of yourself and your connection to soccer prior to writing this book? Are you a fan of any particular team?
Wilson: I grew up in the SF Bay Area and moved to Portland, OR in 1998. Most of my 20s were spent backpack, traveling in inexpensive countries, hiking, and kayaking. I also began writing newspaper and magazine articles and travel essays in my 20s. I'm 43 now.
I played Little League baseball as a kid and had no interest in soccer until I discovered Woodburn. Now I am a big soccer fan. I follow my local team, The Timbers (usl), the Sounders in MLS (until next year when they will become our biggest rival), and I like Racing Santander because I spent a summer there studying Spanish.
FBF: What got you interested in the story of the Woodburn Bulldogs? Why did you want to write this book?
Wilson: I read a newspaper article that described a playoff game between the Bulldogs and a team from Lake Oswego, Portland's most elite (and white) suburb. The article described the game from the perspective of the Lake Oswego team, and implied that going to Woodburn was like going to a dangerous and exotic country.
I thought that in a very white state like Oregon (80% Anglo) a more interesting story would be to flip that perspective, and write about the kids from Woodburn, who would experience the same cultural shift anytime they left home.
Because of my history traveling, I had an interest in the stories of outsiders and cultural conflict. I saw those themes in that newspaper article, represented by the two groups in America who love soccer: educated Anglos and working-class immigrants.
FBF: How long did you spend researching this book, and was it difficult to win the trust of the kids you were writing about and their families?
Wilson: I spent about six months hanging out with the kids from Woodburn, beginning in the summer of 2005. I went to all the games, most of the practices, and bought a lot of food for hungry teenagers at Luis's Taqueria. After the season ended I did lengthy sit-down interviews with everybody involved with the team, then, after deciding who my primary characters were going to be, spent more time interviewing and hanging out with them.
Being a 35 year-old white man hanging out with 16 and 17 year-old Mexican-Americans was a little awkward at first, although looking back, I think that I probably created much of the awkwardness myself. For the most part, the guys on the team were very open and excited that somebody wanted to write about them. At one of our first meetings several of the guys began discussing who should play them in the movie version.
I was very concerned about not revealing the immigration status of the kids and after a little while felt very protective of the kids. Teenage boys are not media savvy and they sometimes told me things that they probably shouldn't have.
As far as families go, I met some fathers and girlfriends, but I didn't meet everybody's family. The one family that I write about in detail I spent a lot of time with, and as the father of a young child at the time, even looked to the father (Omar) as a parenting role model. I really admire Omar and his wife, Pat.
FBF: Do the players harbor any ambitions of playing soccer beyond high school? Is college even a realistic option for them? Are they aware of MLS and its Sueño MLS programs?
Wilson: Many of the players had unrealistic dreams of playing professionally, and a couple had experience with Mexican developmental squads. I say unrealistic because just like in any other high school, most of the kids just weren't good enough to play professionally. Also, most of the Bulldogs came from families without much money, often with single parents, and they weren't involved in the club programs that get players noticed in America.
About a quarter of the 2005 team did not have documents to be in the U.S. For these guys, going to a four-year college was out of the question, since they would be charged non-resident tuition, which is substantially higher than resident tuition. However, even undocumented students can usually afford community colleges, and several of the Bulldogs went on to play for the local community college team.
As of right now, all the players I followed have graduated. Five are at four-year schools, three of those playing collegiate soccer. Another six or maybe eight are at a community college, almost all of them on the soccer team. At least two of the young men at the community college are transferring to four-year schools, and I know at least one of the guys who wasn't in college is going to start in September. On the whole, the Bulldogs have achieved more academically than most young Latino men. That's not really surprising, since these were the best 20 soccer players out of 100 who wanted to play (the school has four teams) and typically good athletes are academic high-achievers, despite our dumb jock stereotype.
For the most part, the Bulldogs wanted to play for Mexican teams, but the MLS was on their radar. They did not think they would get noticed, playing high school soccer. A few of the Bulldogs and their older brothers tried out for Sueno MLS. Most of them didn't know about it.
FBF: Are the players fans of professional or international soccer? If so, what leagues or teams do they follow?
Wilson: They followed Mexican teams. Most were Chivas fans, with a couple America fans, Atlas, and Pumas. There was also support for Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Manchester United. Only a couple of them paid attention to MLS, and that was only if nothing else was on TV.
***
Stay tuned for Part II of my interview with Steve Wilson [edit: available here], author of The Boys From Little Mexico.
, hits the shelves on June 1.The Boys From Little Mexico examines the intersection of soccer, youth, immigration, education, and culture through the lens of a mostly-immigrant high school soccer team from Oregon and their pursuit of playoff glory. More information about the book can be found on the website. So, without further ado, let's kick off the first half of this two-part interview with the author, Steve Wilson...
FBF: Can you give us a brief biographical sketch of yourself and your connection to soccer prior to writing this book? Are you a fan of any particular team?
Wilson: I grew up in the SF Bay Area and moved to Portland, OR in 1998. Most of my 20s were spent backpack, traveling in inexpensive countries, hiking, and kayaking. I also began writing newspaper and magazine articles and travel essays in my 20s. I'm 43 now.
I played Little League baseball as a kid and had no interest in soccer until I discovered Woodburn. Now I am a big soccer fan. I follow my local team, The Timbers (usl), the Sounders in MLS (until next year when they will become our biggest rival), and I like Racing Santander because I spent a summer there studying Spanish.
FBF: What got you interested in the story of the Woodburn Bulldogs? Why did you want to write this book?
Wilson: I read a newspaper article that described a playoff game between the Bulldogs and a team from Lake Oswego, Portland's most elite (and white) suburb. The article described the game from the perspective of the Lake Oswego team, and implied that going to Woodburn was like going to a dangerous and exotic country.
I thought that in a very white state like Oregon (80% Anglo) a more interesting story would be to flip that perspective, and write about the kids from Woodburn, who would experience the same cultural shift anytime they left home.
Because of my history traveling, I had an interest in the stories of outsiders and cultural conflict. I saw those themes in that newspaper article, represented by the two groups in America who love soccer: educated Anglos and working-class immigrants.
FBF: How long did you spend researching this book, and was it difficult to win the trust of the kids you were writing about and their families?
Wilson: I spent about six months hanging out with the kids from Woodburn, beginning in the summer of 2005. I went to all the games, most of the practices, and bought a lot of food for hungry teenagers at Luis's Taqueria. After the season ended I did lengthy sit-down interviews with everybody involved with the team, then, after deciding who my primary characters were going to be, spent more time interviewing and hanging out with them.
Being a 35 year-old white man hanging out with 16 and 17 year-old Mexican-Americans was a little awkward at first, although looking back, I think that I probably created much of the awkwardness myself. For the most part, the guys on the team were very open and excited that somebody wanted to write about them. At one of our first meetings several of the guys began discussing who should play them in the movie version.
I was very concerned about not revealing the immigration status of the kids and after a little while felt very protective of the kids. Teenage boys are not media savvy and they sometimes told me things that they probably shouldn't have.
As far as families go, I met some fathers and girlfriends, but I didn't meet everybody's family. The one family that I write about in detail I spent a lot of time with, and as the father of a young child at the time, even looked to the father (Omar) as a parenting role model. I really admire Omar and his wife, Pat.
FBF: Do the players harbor any ambitions of playing soccer beyond high school? Is college even a realistic option for them? Are they aware of MLS and its Sueño MLS programs?
Wilson: Many of the players had unrealistic dreams of playing professionally, and a couple had experience with Mexican developmental squads. I say unrealistic because just like in any other high school, most of the kids just weren't good enough to play professionally. Also, most of the Bulldogs came from families without much money, often with single parents, and they weren't involved in the club programs that get players noticed in America.
About a quarter of the 2005 team did not have documents to be in the U.S. For these guys, going to a four-year college was out of the question, since they would be charged non-resident tuition, which is substantially higher than resident tuition. However, even undocumented students can usually afford community colleges, and several of the Bulldogs went on to play for the local community college team.
As of right now, all the players I followed have graduated. Five are at four-year schools, three of those playing collegiate soccer. Another six or maybe eight are at a community college, almost all of them on the soccer team. At least two of the young men at the community college are transferring to four-year schools, and I know at least one of the guys who wasn't in college is going to start in September. On the whole, the Bulldogs have achieved more academically than most young Latino men. That's not really surprising, since these were the best 20 soccer players out of 100 who wanted to play (the school has four teams) and typically good athletes are academic high-achievers, despite our dumb jock stereotype.
For the most part, the Bulldogs wanted to play for Mexican teams, but the MLS was on their radar. They did not think they would get noticed, playing high school soccer. A few of the Bulldogs and their older brothers tried out for Sueno MLS. Most of them didn't know about it.
FBF: Are the players fans of professional or international soccer? If so, what leagues or teams do they follow?
Wilson: They followed Mexican teams. Most were Chivas fans, with a couple America fans, Atlas, and Pumas. There was also support for Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Manchester United. Only a couple of them paid attention to MLS, and that was only if nothing else was on TV.
***
Stay tuned for Part II of my interview with Steve Wilson [edit: available here], author of The Boys From Little Mexico.
Hope or Pyrite?
Clearly AC Milan couldn't hack it in MLS ;-).
So, I guess the first question to ask is: was it worth losing Barklage (a squad role-player), probably for the season, in order to get our strikers some confidence by having them score against some two-bit Italian hacks? (Cranking the tills and filling the coffers probably didn't hurt either.)
And the second question?
Is it a coincidence that the Morsink + Castillo team (and some might uncharitably add Perkins to that mix) shipped the goals? True, true, they were playing a man down for half of a half, but they were also feeble in attack and starting to concede big chances before Barklage was carried off. Just sayin'.
Wonder what the chances of the first-half team starting against Chivas this weekend are.
Oh wait. I do have one last question. I'll be eager to see whose decision it was not to allow United to bring on a subbed-off player after Barklage went down. Onalfo clearly wanted to make the move but was denied. Was it the organizers? If so...it's a freakin' friendly, fer crapssakes! Or was it Milan? Wouldn't say I'd be shocked to hear it was the later.
Again, just sayin'.
So, I guess the first question to ask is: was it worth losing Barklage (a squad role-player), probably for the season, in order to get our strikers some confidence by having them score against some two-bit Italian hacks? (Cranking the tills and filling the coffers probably didn't hurt either.)
And the second question?
Is it a coincidence that the Morsink + Castillo team (and some might uncharitably add Perkins to that mix) shipped the goals? True, true, they were playing a man down for half of a half, but they were also feeble in attack and starting to concede big chances before Barklage was carried off. Just sayin'.
Wonder what the chances of the first-half team starting against Chivas this weekend are.
Oh wait. I do have one last question. I'll be eager to see whose decision it was not to allow United to bring on a subbed-off player after Barklage went down. Onalfo clearly wanted to make the move but was denied. Was it the organizers? If so...it's a freakin' friendly, fer crapssakes! Or was it Milan? Wouldn't say I'd be shocked to hear it was the later.
Again, just sayin'.
Packing Tips for Bornstein
So I only caught the second half of last night's 4-2 loss by the US scrubs against the Czechs, but that was more than enough to see that Heath Pearce needs to be on a bus back to Dallas, post-haste. Dude watched one goal with his hand in the air and another from his backside and probably completed more passes to guys in red than guys in white.
But what to do about that problematic left back spot? I don't know what the other members of our group are bringing on the right flank, but England is just about as packed as can be with flying right wingers.
The options?
Well, you could play Spector there; he did spend a good many minutes playing left back for West Ham this season. That said, from what I saw he wasn't particularly inspiring. Nevertheless, he'll at least know what to expect against the Fabio's boys and have experience playing against them.
Bocanegra? Assuming he's healthy, he might be my number one choice, but, sad to say, after what little I saw from Gooch last night, he'll probably be needed more in the middle.
But of course, all of this discussion is just wasted blather, isn't it? You and I both know that come June 12th, Bornstein is getting the call from Bob. No worries that he's just about capable of mixing it up with the "Giants of CONCACAF." No worries about that deer-in-the-headlights outing against Robben a few months back.
I just hope he packs an extra jock or two before he boards the flight to South Africa; I have a feeling he's going to leaving a few on the field.
But what to do about that problematic left back spot? I don't know what the other members of our group are bringing on the right flank, but England is just about as packed as can be with flying right wingers.
The options?
Well, you could play Spector there; he did spend a good many minutes playing left back for West Ham this season. That said, from what I saw he wasn't particularly inspiring. Nevertheless, he'll at least know what to expect against the Fabio's boys and have experience playing against them.
Bocanegra? Assuming he's healthy, he might be my number one choice, but, sad to say, after what little I saw from Gooch last night, he'll probably be needed more in the middle.
But of course, all of this discussion is just wasted blather, isn't it? You and I both know that come June 12th, Bornstein is getting the call from Bob. No worries that he's just about capable of mixing it up with the "Giants of CONCACAF." No worries about that deer-in-the-headlights outing against Robben a few months back.
I just hope he packs an extra jock or two before he boards the flight to South Africa; I have a feeling he's going to leaving a few on the field.
From The Dry Erase Markers of Babes...
My daughter, bless her little heart, apparently still believes United can find the net, even against arguably the best club side in the world. Still, you've got to admit she has Onalfo's Defensive Circus pretty much pegged. "Worth a thousand words" and all that. Ouch.
The Trouble With Quibbles | a DC United Match Reaction
I'll keep this short because, frankly...
- I'm sick as a dog
- If I didn't already have to vomit, this season might do the trick
- These reaction posts are getting a bit redundant
In any case, let's get a few things out of the way. Yes, Danny Cruz and Dominic Oduro will probably never hit more accurate shots in their entire careers than the ones that found our net tonight. Yes, Landin should definitely have walked for an absolutely brutal tackle on Pontius (I think everybody on the field and on the benches save the ref knew it). Yes, the first half response from about minute 20 on (when the sun went behind the stands; maybe we're vampires?) would, in a more just world, have resulted in an equalizer.
Quibbles.
Why?
Because the hand holding the dagger lodged so firmly in our guts belongs to us.
Does Onalfo have any grasp of tactics whatsoever? I could agree with the Pontius for Cristman swap. Cristman wasn't doing much out wide and Pontius looked pretty damn sharp. But what the hell was with bringing on lazy-dog Emilio? The first half fightback was a result of clogging the midfield, playing high-energy, and getting the ball wide to wingers or overlapping fullbacks free to get forward because of the support provided by the Morsink-Simms "bucket" in midfield.
So naturally you want to lower the energy and ability to hold the ball up top while simultaneously reducing numbers and pressure on the ball in midfield and losing much of your wide threat? Maybe Onalfo assumed that we'd somehow miraculously maintain a sizable portion of the possession despite losing worker bees in midfield and losing Moreno as an outlet dropping off the front line, gathering the ball, and distributing to runners?
Add to that the cavalcade of defensive errors that continues to be lethal. Houston were not getting huge numbers forward, so why did they always seem to have an extra guy in space? Can somebody explain why both Talley and Pena, veteran defenders both, kept running back towards Perkins when Oduro, the only Houston guy in the box, had slowed his run and dropped off them? And lets not even count the number of big saves made by Perkins to keep this thing respectable.
There are problems here much bigger than an injury crisis, and it's hard to see a way that this season gets much prettier any time soon. Are we really that much worse than the rest of the league as far as playing staff goes? I don't think so. True, the roster isn't ideal (thanks, Messers Kasper & Payne) and is currently ravaged by injury, but the inability to get basic tactical decisions right; the lack of player sharpness, particularly coming out of halftime; the incoherent defensive play; and the lack of goal-scoring opportunities generated all speak to me of a ship without a proper captain.
Fool Me Once... | a DC United Match Reaction
I don't know how many more times I can watch this game. And it does all seem to be blending into one game doesn't it? United shades possession but never manages to look quite as dangerous as the opposition, with everything breaking down once they get within a sniff of the 18. Then a slip, a piece of skill, and United are down a goal. Suddenly, rather than United roaring back, the opposition are the ones with chances in spades, pinging posts, thwarted at the last moment.
Mind you, this is usually happening against teams as gun-shy or low on confidence as ourselves. So how about some talking points?
* Wing Night? Much has been made of the lack of a creative force in the Morsink-Simms central midfield partnership, but at this point, I think the midfield blame needs to fall more squarely on the wings. With two holders taking up the defensive slack and fullbacks looking to overlap, they need to become the fulcrum of the attack, running at defenders, putting them on their heels, making them commit. That creates space and opportunity for others. Instead, our wings either cut back and play negative, dance on the ball doing nothing, or hit the lamest of crosses to a box where two attackers are matched against five or six defenders.
True, I hear what you're already saying, "But a creative force in the center gets them the ball in better positions and pulls defenders out of position for the wings to exploit." Fine, but the clowns we're fielding wouldn't know what to do with space if it were given to them. I was smacking my head in the first half, wondering why Barklage can't get a look instead of Castillo or Khumalo, but as soon as he got in the mix, he went ahead and proved why he doesn't need to be starting. Awful. And as for Castillo? Blasting away from 40 yards on a free kick as time ticked down about sums up his deluded impotence. NEXT!
* Who stole Onalfo's balls? Seriously. That game was screaming out for any kind of attacking quality, particularly from the 55th minute on. We were starved for ideas and needed a change. You've got Jaime sitting on the bench. This is where he does his 30-minute magic sub routine, right? Nope. Instead of taking the initiative and forcing Colorado onto their heels (hmmm, sounds a bit like our tentative wing play, eh?), we continue the 2 d-mid v. 2 d-mid negation dance until...trip, slip, moment of skill, 0-1 to the bad guys.
Of course, then you naturally think, "Down a goal, at home, we're creating nothing, less than half an hour to go. Now we bring on the flair and quality and get back into this thing or go down all guns blazing, right?" But goddamn it if that joker thinks the "hard-working, gritty" stuff on the field is going to get the job done and fails to pull the trigger until we've got 18 minutes left. Ri-freakin'-diculous. I know United don't cut bait mid-stream (or whatever tortured metaphor you want to put in there), but how much longer can this continue? At least he seems to have the defense more effectively organized. Too bad he can't get both the offense and defense working at the same time.
* Speed kills. This has been a recurring theme over the past couple of years, but one we just never seem to have a grasp of. Every time Omar Cummings was on the ball I'm thinking "oh crap." And our defenders were doing the same, struggling not to be put on their asses. We just never look comfortable dealing with speed. And on the flip side, we never seem to have the speed to cause that "oh crap" moment for the opposition. Wallace had his moments last year, but his dribbling was never of a high enough quality to cause fits. Actually, come to think of it, there were quite a few times when our attackers were run down by Colorado defenders (oh, all right, mostly that physical specimen posing as a soccer player, Wynne) after getting in decent positions. There was a lot of noise this off-season about getting quicker and more physical. I'm not seeing it.
Any bright spots?
* Wallace and Graye both played pretty good games with Wallace looking more comfortable on defense and Graye limiting (for the most part) his mistakes on the ball. That's the one area where we shine physically at the moment, and, given a more confident, healthy team, we might be really exploiting a couple of promising attack-minded fullbacks.
* Hamid made one fantastic save in the late going from Cummings that I could have sworn was in the net. But somehow his leg shot out to kick it clear. Tremendous stuff. Getting beat near post on the goal? Tough to fault him there. The ball was hit low, hard, and right through Peña's legs.
* I still can't decide whether to love or hate Morsink. One moment you're screaming at the screen, the next he breaks up a play or hits a quick one-time ball with vision, and you go, "Hmmm, not bad." Then he dumps a miserable, hopeless ball over the top and you're screaming at him again. Can't fault the obvious effort though.
So does anybody really think a summer infusion is going to fix this thing? Maybe if the rest of the team somehow got healthy? Considering our woes in the fitness department, I'd say we've got the proverbial snowball's chance of that happening. I'm thinking back about now to all those off-season thoughts of how much different things would be without the congested schedule. Seems a pretty hopeless dream now, doesn't it?
Mind you, this is usually happening against teams as gun-shy or low on confidence as ourselves. So how about some talking points?
* Wing Night? Much has been made of the lack of a creative force in the Morsink-Simms central midfield partnership, but at this point, I think the midfield blame needs to fall more squarely on the wings. With two holders taking up the defensive slack and fullbacks looking to overlap, they need to become the fulcrum of the attack, running at defenders, putting them on their heels, making them commit. That creates space and opportunity for others. Instead, our wings either cut back and play negative, dance on the ball doing nothing, or hit the lamest of crosses to a box where two attackers are matched against five or six defenders.
True, I hear what you're already saying, "But a creative force in the center gets them the ball in better positions and pulls defenders out of position for the wings to exploit." Fine, but the clowns we're fielding wouldn't know what to do with space if it were given to them. I was smacking my head in the first half, wondering why Barklage can't get a look instead of Castillo or Khumalo, but as soon as he got in the mix, he went ahead and proved why he doesn't need to be starting. Awful. And as for Castillo? Blasting away from 40 yards on a free kick as time ticked down about sums up his deluded impotence. NEXT!
* Who stole Onalfo's balls? Seriously. That game was screaming out for any kind of attacking quality, particularly from the 55th minute on. We were starved for ideas and needed a change. You've got Jaime sitting on the bench. This is where he does his 30-minute magic sub routine, right? Nope. Instead of taking the initiative and forcing Colorado onto their heels (hmmm, sounds a bit like our tentative wing play, eh?), we continue the 2 d-mid v. 2 d-mid negation dance until...trip, slip, moment of skill, 0-1 to the bad guys.
Of course, then you naturally think, "Down a goal, at home, we're creating nothing, less than half an hour to go. Now we bring on the flair and quality and get back into this thing or go down all guns blazing, right?" But goddamn it if that joker thinks the "hard-working, gritty" stuff on the field is going to get the job done and fails to pull the trigger until we've got 18 minutes left. Ri-freakin'-diculous. I know United don't cut bait mid-stream (or whatever tortured metaphor you want to put in there), but how much longer can this continue? At least he seems to have the defense more effectively organized. Too bad he can't get both the offense and defense working at the same time.
* Speed kills. This has been a recurring theme over the past couple of years, but one we just never seem to have a grasp of. Every time Omar Cummings was on the ball I'm thinking "oh crap." And our defenders were doing the same, struggling not to be put on their asses. We just never look comfortable dealing with speed. And on the flip side, we never seem to have the speed to cause that "oh crap" moment for the opposition. Wallace had his moments last year, but his dribbling was never of a high enough quality to cause fits. Actually, come to think of it, there were quite a few times when our attackers were run down by Colorado defenders (oh, all right, mostly that physical specimen posing as a soccer player, Wynne) after getting in decent positions. There was a lot of noise this off-season about getting quicker and more physical. I'm not seeing it.
Any bright spots?
* Wallace and Graye both played pretty good games with Wallace looking more comfortable on defense and Graye limiting (for the most part) his mistakes on the ball. That's the one area where we shine physically at the moment, and, given a more confident, healthy team, we might be really exploiting a couple of promising attack-minded fullbacks.
* Hamid made one fantastic save in the late going from Cummings that I could have sworn was in the net. But somehow his leg shot out to kick it clear. Tremendous stuff. Getting beat near post on the goal? Tough to fault him there. The ball was hit low, hard, and right through Peña's legs.
* I still can't decide whether to love or hate Morsink. One moment you're screaming at the screen, the next he breaks up a play or hits a quick one-time ball with vision, and you go, "Hmmm, not bad." Then he dumps a miserable, hopeless ball over the top and you're screaming at him again. Can't fault the obvious effort though.
So does anybody really think a summer infusion is going to fix this thing? Maybe if the rest of the team somehow got healthy? Considering our woes in the fitness department, I'd say we've got the proverbial snowball's chance of that happening. I'm thinking back about now to all those off-season thoughts of how much different things would be without the congested schedule. Seems a pretty hopeless dream now, doesn't it?
Conflicted and Confused | a DC United Match Reaction
I'm a little late to the party, having been out of town for Mother's Day. Nevertheless, I managed to keep clear of all news sources, shushed my brother before he could spoil the result this morning, and I just finished watching the replay on Match Day Live.
I'm conflicted about what I saw.
I'm still trying to figure out what my lasting impression is. I was encouraged by the first half performance. It wasn't pretty, but the possession and the defensive organization were significantly improved. Hell, even McTavish was doing pretty well. And we even managed to get some good chances on frame rather than blasting them miles wide or over the bar. On the balance of play, the first half went to United.
That said, the biggest problem that struck me was the consistently lame wing play. Castillo sure can crank a free kick from distance, so I'm wondering if he'll ever have a decent go during the run of play. And don't get me started on the holding...holding...cut it back...hit an early, wasted cross. Of course, if we're comparing his crosses to whatever that is that Boyzzz is trying to hit...
Fast forward to about minute 55, when Dallas finally started finding gaps through the middle. At that point, I was overcome by the creeping inevitability of it all. It only seemed a matter of time before the breakthrough came for them. Follow that with what came off the bench. Quick, lively Avila looking to run at defenders and cause problems for them; stodgy old Emilio jogging on for us to do...nothing. I think his little warmup routine was about the quickest thing he managed.
And that's where we really fall short compared to much of the league. Others can bring attacking strength, speed, and danger off the bench. United? We get slower...slower. More technical, in the case of Moreno, yes, but with the game stretched and defenders tiring, that's where you want to bring on somebody who can really exploit the gaps. Moreno's not a bad choice either as he can hold the ball while runners get forward. But there have to be runners with intent and capability.
But that does seem like something that can be fixed. I said before that I felt conflicted. Part of me wants to point at this match and say, "See? Same old, same old. They hold, then they punish." But another part of me, despite my overwhelming feeling that this is still going to be an awful season, wanted to find something positive here. There was a nebulous "something" that felt different about this team.
Maybe it's the belief that a win engenders. I've long been saying that confidence was one of the biggest issues during this terrible start. Whatever the case, I think the best I can say is that we were competitive, organized, and had enough chances to win the match, much less earn a road draw. That must count for something, right?
How about we close with a few quick hits?
* I've defended Morsink in the past here on FBF, and I still think he's a reasonable third option, but if he's a starting central midfielder when late summer rolls around, we'll be even more doomed than I think we already are. He's just not good enough. And he compounds that by his constant thuggery and bitching at the refs.
* I wonder what the refs have against Cristman? He was getting mauled at times with nary a whistle. The few calls that were made were for obvious, cardable offenses. Weird.
* Bum Hammy Hammer strikes again. This is getting ridiculous. Accountability?
All right. I'm off to visit the RSS feeds to see what the rest of the blogiverse thought.
I'm conflicted about what I saw.
I'm still trying to figure out what my lasting impression is. I was encouraged by the first half performance. It wasn't pretty, but the possession and the defensive organization were significantly improved. Hell, even McTavish was doing pretty well. And we even managed to get some good chances on frame rather than blasting them miles wide or over the bar. On the balance of play, the first half went to United.
That said, the biggest problem that struck me was the consistently lame wing play. Castillo sure can crank a free kick from distance, so I'm wondering if he'll ever have a decent go during the run of play. And don't get me started on the holding...holding...cut it back...hit an early, wasted cross. Of course, if we're comparing his crosses to whatever that is that Boyzzz is trying to hit...
Fast forward to about minute 55, when Dallas finally started finding gaps through the middle. At that point, I was overcome by the creeping inevitability of it all. It only seemed a matter of time before the breakthrough came for them. Follow that with what came off the bench. Quick, lively Avila looking to run at defenders and cause problems for them; stodgy old Emilio jogging on for us to do...nothing. I think his little warmup routine was about the quickest thing he managed.
And that's where we really fall short compared to much of the league. Others can bring attacking strength, speed, and danger off the bench. United? We get slower...slower. More technical, in the case of Moreno, yes, but with the game stretched and defenders tiring, that's where you want to bring on somebody who can really exploit the gaps. Moreno's not a bad choice either as he can hold the ball while runners get forward. But there have to be runners with intent and capability.
But that does seem like something that can be fixed. I said before that I felt conflicted. Part of me wants to point at this match and say, "See? Same old, same old. They hold, then they punish." But another part of me, despite my overwhelming feeling that this is still going to be an awful season, wanted to find something positive here. There was a nebulous "something" that felt different about this team.
Maybe it's the belief that a win engenders. I've long been saying that confidence was one of the biggest issues during this terrible start. Whatever the case, I think the best I can say is that we were competitive, organized, and had enough chances to win the match, much less earn a road draw. That must count for something, right?
How about we close with a few quick hits?
* I've defended Morsink in the past here on FBF, and I still think he's a reasonable third option, but if he's a starting central midfielder when late summer rolls around, we'll be even more doomed than I think we already are. He's just not good enough. And he compounds that by his constant thuggery and bitching at the refs.
* I wonder what the refs have against Cristman? He was getting mauled at times with nary a whistle. The few calls that were made were for obvious, cardable offenses. Weird.
* Bum Hammy Hammer strikes again. This is getting ridiculous. Accountability?
All right. I'm off to visit the RSS feeds to see what the rest of the blogiverse thought.
I Have Always Relied On The Kindness of Wizards | a DC United Match Reaction
Huge. Three. Points.
Off the mark, but—and there's always a but—there are still big, big problems to deal with here. And make no mistake, this isn't exactly a confident KC team that's on top of their game at the moment. And they still almost managed to sucker-punch us at the death.
But let's begin with the positives, shall we? Most of the attention—and rightfully so—will fall upon the two obvious stars of the show, Danny Allsopp and Bill Hamid, though I'll give honorable mentions to our Bolivian duo as well.
Let's begin with Allsopp. He had three big chances and took two of them clinically, almost netting a third only to be foiled by a terrific save. But worryingly, all three of the chances came from garbage. Cristman's hustle (and though I won't sing his praises in this reaction, his work rate did not go unnoticed) forced two defensive errors, while Allsopp managed to fashion the third for himself and should simultaneously have cancelled Jimmy Conrad's South African dreams. And yet...and yet...and yet I'm still not convinced: one trick ponies and all...
So how about Bill Hamid, the kid of the hour? About the only nit I have to pick with him was how much he stuck to his line. Still, it's hard to fault a kid in his first professional start for that, isn't it? Mostly I was impressed with how confident his takes were when he did come for the ball. He didn't control much of it, but the areas of the box he got to, he dominated. He also showed strong hands to parry an Espinoza drive, fantastic reflexes to keep Jewsbury out from close range, and made himself big to block an early chance (though he really should have come and cut out the chance earlier...again—nits. I can't imagine him stealing the job permanently, but Perkins will be rightly worried.
And let's pause a moment for our timeless Bolivians, shall we? There were so many little things that Pena did to impress me, mostly through positioning and anticipation. He cut out a number of balls or managed to check attackers' runs, putting out fires before the sparks even started to fly. Of course, he was clearly gassed by the 75th minute (though it took Onalfo 10 minutes to get him off after that), but I'm willing to chalk up some less than stellar early outings to coming back from injury too early because we just didn't have any options. And speaking of options, Jaime Moreno proved that he's a terrific option coming off the bench, but then, we all knew that was always going to be where he excelled this year, right?
So what caused all the worry?
Let's begin with possession and chances created. True to what we've been hearing early in the week on the Goffblog, United's play was more about hoofing and hustle than style. Sadly, despite trying to make ourselves hard to play through, we were still conceding good chances to a KC attack that's been pretty stale of late (and playing without Arnaud, and with Kamara coming off the bench). In fact, where luck has sometimes abandoned us this season, tonight it abandoned the Wiz, who could so easily have had a couple of early goals themselves. And though some recognition has to be given to the fact that our pressure and energy led to chances, our play in possession created very little.
Can I ask a question? Just how much are you pining for Namoff? The positional play of our fullbacks is terrible with a capital "T." They're athletic, yes. And both are good with the ball at their feet going forward. But ask them to pass and it's either a Fred-like turnover (Graye) or a hopeless hoof (Wallace). And how about getting caught out of position? The number of times Graye bombed forward and then jogged back boggled the mind. That's not such a big deal if you have somebody like Quaranta covering. But Khumalo or Castillo? Get on your bike, son! Actually, those starting wingers have to absorb some of the blame in that they left the fullbacks high and dry without ever managing to create the consistent offensive threat that would justify their defensive laxity. United are hugely fortunate that the KC wide men couldn't exploit the time and space afforded to them. Sheesh, I almost miss Burch. Almost.
And finally...I understand that 0-5 means it's time for Plan B (the "B" stands for Brit-Ball!), and I have no problem with that as a temporary solution. Desperate times call for ugly and conservative measures. But if we're going to approach anywhere near respectability this season, we need to improve our transition from defense to attack. True, there were too many fouls, too few good chances, and Onalfo not yanking Castillo when he was clearly playing frustrated had me pulling my hair out. But my biggest problem was that I wouldn't have needed a second hand to count the number of coherent passages of play that saw us move the ball from defense through midfield and into attack. It got slightly better, of course, when Moreno came on, and beggars can't be choosers and all...but holy amateur hour, Batman!
Frankly, even with as little as KC were offering, I'm a little shocked that we didn't blow this one. The signs were all there, and they're worrying signs indeed. There have been excuses, some even marginally believable, that the big problem is that we weren't burying chances when we were carrying the play, leading to the inevitable late scalping by the opposition. But what I saw in this match was that, even with a couple of early chances taken, we're still wide open for that late scalping. Sure, it might result in draws instead of losses, but there's a fundamental problem there that needs to be addressed. Is it conditioning? A failure of concentration and motivation? Personnel?
One thing's sadly for certain: the problems go much, much deeper than player acquisition.
Off the mark, but—and there's always a but—there are still big, big problems to deal with here. And make no mistake, this isn't exactly a confident KC team that's on top of their game at the moment. And they still almost managed to sucker-punch us at the death.
But let's begin with the positives, shall we? Most of the attention—and rightfully so—will fall upon the two obvious stars of the show, Danny Allsopp and Bill Hamid, though I'll give honorable mentions to our Bolivian duo as well.
Let's begin with Allsopp. He had three big chances and took two of them clinically, almost netting a third only to be foiled by a terrific save. But worryingly, all three of the chances came from garbage. Cristman's hustle (and though I won't sing his praises in this reaction, his work rate did not go unnoticed) forced two defensive errors, while Allsopp managed to fashion the third for himself and should simultaneously have cancelled Jimmy Conrad's South African dreams. And yet...and yet...and yet I'm still not convinced: one trick ponies and all...
So how about Bill Hamid, the kid of the hour? About the only nit I have to pick with him was how much he stuck to his line. Still, it's hard to fault a kid in his first professional start for that, isn't it? Mostly I was impressed with how confident his takes were when he did come for the ball. He didn't control much of it, but the areas of the box he got to, he dominated. He also showed strong hands to parry an Espinoza drive, fantastic reflexes to keep Jewsbury out from close range, and made himself big to block an early chance (though he really should have come and cut out the chance earlier...again—nits. I can't imagine him stealing the job permanently, but Perkins will be rightly worried.
And let's pause a moment for our timeless Bolivians, shall we? There were so many little things that Pena did to impress me, mostly through positioning and anticipation. He cut out a number of balls or managed to check attackers' runs, putting out fires before the sparks even started to fly. Of course, he was clearly gassed by the 75th minute (though it took Onalfo 10 minutes to get him off after that), but I'm willing to chalk up some less than stellar early outings to coming back from injury too early because we just didn't have any options. And speaking of options, Jaime Moreno proved that he's a terrific option coming off the bench, but then, we all knew that was always going to be where he excelled this year, right?
So what caused all the worry?
Let's begin with possession and chances created. True to what we've been hearing early in the week on the Goffblog, United's play was more about hoofing and hustle than style. Sadly, despite trying to make ourselves hard to play through, we were still conceding good chances to a KC attack that's been pretty stale of late (and playing without Arnaud, and with Kamara coming off the bench). In fact, where luck has sometimes abandoned us this season, tonight it abandoned the Wiz, who could so easily have had a couple of early goals themselves. And though some recognition has to be given to the fact that our pressure and energy led to chances, our play in possession created very little.
Can I ask a question? Just how much are you pining for Namoff? The positional play of our fullbacks is terrible with a capital "T." They're athletic, yes. And both are good with the ball at their feet going forward. But ask them to pass and it's either a Fred-like turnover (Graye) or a hopeless hoof (Wallace). And how about getting caught out of position? The number of times Graye bombed forward and then jogged back boggled the mind. That's not such a big deal if you have somebody like Quaranta covering. But Khumalo or Castillo? Get on your bike, son! Actually, those starting wingers have to absorb some of the blame in that they left the fullbacks high and dry without ever managing to create the consistent offensive threat that would justify their defensive laxity. United are hugely fortunate that the KC wide men couldn't exploit the time and space afforded to them. Sheesh, I almost miss Burch. Almost.
And finally...I understand that 0-5 means it's time for Plan B (the "B" stands for Brit-Ball!), and I have no problem with that as a temporary solution. Desperate times call for ugly and conservative measures. But if we're going to approach anywhere near respectability this season, we need to improve our transition from defense to attack. True, there were too many fouls, too few good chances, and Onalfo not yanking Castillo when he was clearly playing frustrated had me pulling my hair out. But my biggest problem was that I wouldn't have needed a second hand to count the number of coherent passages of play that saw us move the ball from defense through midfield and into attack. It got slightly better, of course, when Moreno came on, and beggars can't be choosers and all...but holy amateur hour, Batman!
Frankly, even with as little as KC were offering, I'm a little shocked that we didn't blow this one. The signs were all there, and they're worrying signs indeed. There have been excuses, some even marginally believable, that the big problem is that we weren't burying chances when we were carrying the play, leading to the inevitable late scalping by the opposition. But what I saw in this match was that, even with a couple of early chances taken, we're still wide open for that late scalping. Sure, it might result in draws instead of losses, but there's a fundamental problem there that needs to be addressed. Is it conditioning? A failure of concentration and motivation? Personnel?
One thing's sadly for certain: the problems go much, much deeper than player acquisition.
FBF Goes Millennial!
Holy crap!
1,000 posts? And to think I just started this thing three years ago because I was tired of the glazed stares of family and friends and the despairing smiles of those who expressed marginal interest in the game and suddenly found their ears all but chewed off by rabid Yours Truly.
Tough to party though when Wednesday are relegated and United probably would be if said institution existed here in the US of A. Oy freakin' vey. Wouldn't want Payne as the captain of my ship. First sign of a berg in the waters ahead, and he's in a lifeboat having slashed all the others for good measure...
At least he seems to have figured out that maybe his roster isn't so hot.
"There is a point with certain players which you have to say, 'Maybe this is it, maybe this is what we are going to get and maybe it's not as good as we think it is.' "Truth.
Life Gets In The Way
No real match reaction this week as I didn't get to see the full game and wouldn't test your patience by doing analysis based on the Match Day Live "condensed" match. I know, I know, if I were a "real" fan, I'd go back and watch the whole thing when I get a chance and dissect the rotting corpse for any sign of a hope-shaped tumor. Sorry. Perhaps if the season were less painful, I might be favorably inclined to do so. As it stands, I'd just like to advance a few general observations...
1. No sharp edges, weak in the middle, slow at the back
It's easy to beat us. All you have to do is wait out the huffing and puffing of our early possession (that's our "style," right?), watch a few chances either go sailing over the bar or get put tamely on target, start to swarm the midfield with grit and energy, and then outpace and outmuscle our defense as the second half wears on. It's not a question of "if" at this point; it's "when." Now do I think that the athleticism of Jakovic and James might be big helps dealing with the later? Sure (did anybody honestly think our septuagenarian center-back pairing was going to keep a clean sheet?). And do I think that much of the failure to take chances is a confidence game? Probably. Hell, I'll even concede that there's some bad juju in effect here. The ball never bounces right when you're losing.
2. Management failures
But these are the sort of problems you hire a manager for. He needs to figure out what adjustments have to be made to compensate for the weakness in midfield (4-5-1 until the ship gets righted?). He needs to figure out how to get guys motivated and refusing to quit when they go down a goal (and you can see that happen, even in "highlights" mode). He needs to boost confidence and work on defensive organization and use the limited tools at his disposal to make the team difficult to beat, even if they can't match their opposition for talent or danger.
Those of you who watch euro-ball, bereft of the jackboots and skull-crushing truncheons of the Parity Police, will have seen well-drilled, disciplined teams with small squad numbers (Fulham, Birmingham, Mallorca?) that punch well above their pay-level and talent-ceiling by virtue of organization, grit, and leadership, competing effectively with the moneyed-elite of the Old World. Bitch and moan all you like about Messers Kasper and Payne's miserable failures in the roster-assemblage dance (go on along, I'll be there to join you in a moment, folks; anybody else notice the Perkins trade scoring for Philly this weekend--Fred assisting the #7 draft pick?), but that doesn't excuse the heads dropping, the lack of sharpness and focus, the mysterious decline in confidence in the wake of halftime team talks, and the inability to defend set pieces and counters. That's on the manager's head.
3. Sympathy for the devil
It's going to be a long 2010. We may even challenge the 2009 Red Bulls for levels of ineptitude. But take a look at how those same Red Bulls have started 2010. Look really closely at what went on there this off-season. Sure, we're not going to land a shiny new 25k stadium any time soon, but that's not why the Bulls are competitive this year. Nor is it a case of completely blowing up last year's roster, though they did do some pruning and made timely additions.
No. The big change was cleaning house at the management level.
Sorry to say, but even an effective player or two signed in the summer (and do you really trust the current FO to find "effective" players without throwing ten guys at the problem and hoping two stick?) isn't going to save this sinking ship.
You may now return to your beers. I know I will be...
Oh wait. Hold the beer a second (sorry, I know it's a lot to ask, given the circumstances). I'd just like to take a moment to address this disturbing trend I see floating around the DC United-o-sphere. You know the one; it's the "get a #10, and everything will work out fine." It has permutations, a common one being calling for Onalfo's head because his midfield isn't creative/attacking enough (you have seen the battles we're losing in midfield, and the results of ineffective defensive efforts in that self-same middle third?).
Sorry to say, but the #10 argument smacks of the Paynesian, don't you think? Living on past style and glory? Over-aware of our own former success and greatness? Maybe I'm wrong. What the hell do I know? Am I a professional football player or manager or front office dude? Nope. I only play one in video games.
See how I did that? A perfect imitation of a 2010 DC United attack. Lots of positive buildup, but indecisive in front of net.
Now, at long last...bottoms up!
1. No sharp edges, weak in the middle, slow at the back
It's easy to beat us. All you have to do is wait out the huffing and puffing of our early possession (that's our "style," right?), watch a few chances either go sailing over the bar or get put tamely on target, start to swarm the midfield with grit and energy, and then outpace and outmuscle our defense as the second half wears on. It's not a question of "if" at this point; it's "when." Now do I think that the athleticism of Jakovic and James might be big helps dealing with the later? Sure (did anybody honestly think our septuagenarian center-back pairing was going to keep a clean sheet?). And do I think that much of the failure to take chances is a confidence game? Probably. Hell, I'll even concede that there's some bad juju in effect here. The ball never bounces right when you're losing.
2. Management failures
But these are the sort of problems you hire a manager for. He needs to figure out what adjustments have to be made to compensate for the weakness in midfield (4-5-1 until the ship gets righted?). He needs to figure out how to get guys motivated and refusing to quit when they go down a goal (and you can see that happen, even in "highlights" mode). He needs to boost confidence and work on defensive organization and use the limited tools at his disposal to make the team difficult to beat, even if they can't match their opposition for talent or danger.
Those of you who watch euro-ball, bereft of the jackboots and skull-crushing truncheons of the Parity Police, will have seen well-drilled, disciplined teams with small squad numbers (Fulham, Birmingham, Mallorca?) that punch well above their pay-level and talent-ceiling by virtue of organization, grit, and leadership, competing effectively with the moneyed-elite of the Old World. Bitch and moan all you like about Messers Kasper and Payne's miserable failures in the roster-assemblage dance (go on along, I'll be there to join you in a moment, folks; anybody else notice the Perkins trade scoring for Philly this weekend--Fred assisting the #7 draft pick?), but that doesn't excuse the heads dropping, the lack of sharpness and focus, the mysterious decline in confidence in the wake of halftime team talks, and the inability to defend set pieces and counters. That's on the manager's head.
3. Sympathy for the devil
It's going to be a long 2010. We may even challenge the 2009 Red Bulls for levels of ineptitude. But take a look at how those same Red Bulls have started 2010. Look really closely at what went on there this off-season. Sure, we're not going to land a shiny new 25k stadium any time soon, but that's not why the Bulls are competitive this year. Nor is it a case of completely blowing up last year's roster, though they did do some pruning and made timely additions.
No. The big change was cleaning house at the management level.
Sorry to say, but even an effective player or two signed in the summer (and do you really trust the current FO to find "effective" players without throwing ten guys at the problem and hoping two stick?) isn't going to save this sinking ship.
You may now return to your beers. I know I will be...
Oh wait. Hold the beer a second (sorry, I know it's a lot to ask, given the circumstances). I'd just like to take a moment to address this disturbing trend I see floating around the DC United-o-sphere. You know the one; it's the "get a #10, and everything will work out fine." It has permutations, a common one being calling for Onalfo's head because his midfield isn't creative/attacking enough (you have seen the battles we're losing in midfield, and the results of ineffective defensive efforts in that self-same middle third?).
Sorry to say, but the #10 argument smacks of the Paynesian, don't you think? Living on past style and glory? Over-aware of our own former success and greatness? Maybe I'm wrong. What the hell do I know? Am I a professional football player or manager or front office dude? Nope. I only play one in video games.
See how I did that? A perfect imitation of a 2010 DC United attack. Lots of positive buildup, but indecisive in front of net.
Now, at long last...bottoms up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)