- Jason Davis

You're a rational person. You understand how this game works, with its subtle interminable nuances and unruly moving parts. You understand that change is rarely quick, is never easy, and doesn't happen merely because you wish it to, and particularly not on this level with its stop-start nature. Executing a fundamental shift in approach and philosophy is a like turning around a speeding vehicle going 100 mph; if you want to do it without putting yourself in the hospital you have to do it gradually, and with patience.

You asked, we delivered. Another live midweek show to cover the Gold Cup happenings. Jared and I took to the UStream channel last night to talk about the USMNT's win over Panama and American chances against Mexico on Saturday.

The theme of the show: Three Questions.

1. Should Donovan start?
2. Is Mexico beatable?
3. Do you have faith that Bob Bradley will get it right on Saturday?

Jared and I spend the open talking about those questions and a few others, our thoughts on what happened against Panama, and what the personnel changes might mean for the game against Mexico.

Segment two is open lines, with callers coming fast furious and everyone answering the three questions we laid out at the top.

We close with a bit of opinion on the Revs supporters' dustup over the weekend.

Thanks for listening. Make sure you like and comment at the Facebook page and hit us up on Twitter via the AmSoc account and the much improved CSRN account.


Rating and comments in iTunes are always greatly, greatly appreciated. It just takes a few minutes.


Visit the show website for other links of interest.

- Jason Davis

Okay, I'll admit it: I was shamed into writing about the USMNT's depressing loss to Panama, nearly 48 hours after the gut shot landed. A follower on Twitter declared MFUSA dead. I could not allow that to stand. I have new and consuming responsibilities. That doesn't mean I can't spit something out.

- Robert Jonas | Center Line Soccer

Just a week ago, national teams across the globe congregated briefly for a set of matches. some of these games were meaningful qualifiers for this or that, while others were of the friendly variety. In CONCACAF, countries in action during that period took the opportunity to prepare their teams for the upcoming Gold Cup tournament starting in June with a series of high-profile matches featuring quality opponents from South America. While the less than impressive exploits of Team USA have been well chronicled, the other regional power Mexico also failed to shed doubts about their preparation for this summer. Given a chance to see El Tri play in person against Paraguay and on television against Venezuela, it is safe to see that there is no clear leader between the top two teams in CONCACAF at this stage.

- Jason Davis

Javier Hernandez is a joy to watch.


This fact disturbs me. Both because he's Mexican — meaning my dyed-in-the-wool USMNT supporter soul screams in protest each and every time I give myself over to enjoying his play — and because he has become a worldwide sensation with the eminently unlikeable Manchester United. The soccer-aware portion of my brain, my sense of duty as a USMNT fan, my identity as a member of the no-love-for-United crowd (I don't hate United, because that would imply I care enough about what happens in England to work up such strong emotion, when, in fact, I'm mostly an impartial observer who finds United's shenanigans and constant winning to be incredibly annoying but nothing more): they're all telling me to hate Javier Hernandez. And not just a little bit. There is significant emotional weight behind the effort.

- Robert Jonas | Center Line Soccer

While the city of San Jose recently was awarded the title of “Soccer City USA” by none other than Portland’s daily newspaper The Oregonian, the Bay Area as a whole feels more like Ciudad de México this morning. I’m not referring to new U.S. Census data that shows the State of California taking on diversity of citizenry not seen anywhere else in the country. Rather, I’m talking about the arrival of the Mexican National Team circus at the Oakland Coliseum to take on Paraguay in an international friendly.

Adrián Ruelas of Santos Laguna and Fontana, CA

Mexican clubs extending their reach across the border to pull in young American talent is nothing new; as the changing complexion of the US U-20 roster indicates, there are more than a few Mexican-American players in the youth systems of Mexico.  These players tend to have dual citizenship, the opportunity to play for either country internationally, and leave the US in search of the better opportunities Mexican player development presents.

Eric Wynalda has never been one to sit on his hands and do nothing. Love him or hate him, Wynalda has continually put himself in the American soccer conversation because he speaks his mind, a habit that has sometimes landed him in hot water. It's a reasonable assumption that Wynalda's loose lips policy is partly to blame for the USMNT and MLS great being unable to land a coaching job in the United States.

I love the arrival of International dates on the FIFA calendar, because I know there is a good chance that I’ll get to watch the U.S. National Team in action. And even though most of their matches are inconsequential friendlies, I watch with the same critical eye and intensity usually reserved for the contests that count. I agonize over the failed opportunities to beat a worthy opponent, and I applaud the effort of the players when they meet my expectations. Above all, I am proud to cheer on the U.S. no matter the opponent or the result.

If CONCACAF's proposed changes to World Cup qualifying go through, and we know the reports are legitimate now with Sunil Gulati commenting on them during the "four more years" presser today, it's very possible that the United States and Mexico will not face each other on the road to Brazil '14.  With two groups in the final round, the chances of the region's two biggest powers being split up is very likely, if not inevitable.

If you had wandered into an Irish pub on Thursday you may have had something of a surprise. It would have been packed - admittedly not much of a shock in these parts - with local football fans, screaming support for the team in green on the television. When they scored the pub would have erupted with noise and celebration, a scene reminiscent of the summers of 1990, 1994 and 2002, the glory years of Irish international football. On Thursday, when our boys in greens got a second goal, the celebrations increased in volume, helped partly due to the shouted orders of many celebratory pints. A typical World Cup scene.


Or maybe not.


The Republic of Ireland, of course, did not qualify for this summer’s World Cup. The team we were cheering for was not our national side, despite their familiar shade of emerald. Indeed, most of those watching the game would have been unable to name a single player on the squad we furiously backed for the previous 90 minutes. That’s because, for one night only, the Irish had become Mexican.


This unusual metamorphism wasn’t a once-off. Twice already this tournament we had collectively, as a nation, adopted other sides to support (Uruguay on the 11th, the USA on the 12th), and the day following the Mexico game we would all cheer Algeria on with the same passion as if the players hailed from Dublin, Cork and Galway. Why? Because this summer, while we don’t have our own national teams to support, we have two – England and France – that we really, really hate. Welcome to the absurd world of the Irish football fan.


I should start off by saying that we’re not a very good footballing nation. Sure, we’ve had our moments – beating England in Euro ’88, victory over Italy at USA ’94 – but, for the large part, the good times have been sparse. Since 1930 we’ve failed to qualify for 29 major tournaments. We’ve therefore taken to adopting teams as our own – not for the whole tournament, but solely for the games that they play against our fiercest rivals – immature, perhaps, but always entertaining – especially this summer.


England is, of course, the ‘auld enemy’, and Irish disdain for their sporting teams is nothing new. Whether it be due to the way the EPL scoops up all our best players, strangling and limiting the potential of our national league, the arrogant manner in which the English media have approached games with our boys in the past, or the simple matter of 800 years of British oppression, the Three Lions’ repeated underachievements have always been a source of joy for us. Rob Green’s howler was watched with ecstasy in the States, understandably, but also in our tiny island across the Atlantic. Ireland is, possibly, the only nation in the world to have enjoyed their dour 0-0 draw with Algeria.


While our anti-English bias is a powerful, if stationary constant, France is the new enemy, the boo-boys of the moment, for which our feelings are red raw. The freshness of the hand-shaped wound means that emotions are still as high as they were in November. Mexico’s defeat of France on Thursday provoked an outburst of taunting in the Irish media. IrelandAM, a morning television show, took great delight in collecting a list of that morning’s French newspaper headlines (my favourite: “Sombres heroes” - sombreros), while the footage of the Mexican goals was played at the start of every news broadcast for the next 24 hours.


What really sums up the nation’s feelings, I believe, is the following reworking of an Irish anti-Britain rebel tune (giving you some idea of the severity of Henry’s ‘crime’) which I stumbled upon on Ireland’s largest football messageboard, www.YouBoysInGreen.ie.


And did they believe when they robbed us so blind
Did they really believe the football Gods would be kind?
Oh the sorrow, the suffering, the glory, the pain
The cheating, the lying wasn't all done in vain
For the Mexican Boys in Green won, and we cheered once again
And again and again and again and again....


Towards the end of France’s game on Thursday the television cut to a figure sitting on the French bench, wrapped in a comfort blanket. He had played in total just over 20 minutes of football over a two game span, and his team were looking down the abyss. Over the following few days Nicholas Anelka would be sent home for verbally abusing manager Raymond Domenech, and the players would refuse to train, with rumours claiming that some members of the squad were going to boycott their final game. I hope it was worth it, Thierry.


Yes, I would rather Ireland were playing in the World Cup and, yes, I would rather that our nation’s main emotions during these games wasn’t hatred and gloating - but I can think of no better way to end this article than by wishing South Africa (and Slovenia, for old times’ sake) the best of luck in their matches next week.

As the day (June 12th, duh) draws near, you're likely to see digital mountains of analysis of Bradley's tactics, projected starting lineups, breakdowns position-by-position and matchup-by-matchup (mostly for England, because they come first), and various sundry examinations of all things USMNT. I have a newsreader I use to sort through all of it. Let's just say that it's rather difficult to do so at the moment. The Turkey match spawned an Everest.


Some took Saturday's events as an opportunity to call out Bradley, and American coaches reaching back across a decade plus for that matter, for failing to recognize calm, cool, and collected in midfield. A wave of Torres support is sweeping through the American soccer community, bringing with it a new storyline to the World Cup buildup.


If you felt like it, you could spend your entire work day reading nothing but overwrought assessments of friendlies that ultimately don't matter. Yes, the performances of certain individual players and the team as a collective unit is indicative of something, but by no means does a poor first half against Turkey definitely prove that the U.S. will have their doors blown off by England. On the flip side, a strong second half doesn't necessarily prove the opposite either; thought we're ten days from kickoff, most sides in the tournament have serious questions to answer and kinks to work out.


And the drama will only grow thicker with each passing day. Like a dense fog rolling across the soccer landscape, it's already affecting perspective everywhere while it precipitates nonsense on an unbelievable scale. Even as I write this, England is dragging out a torturous final roster announcement process; I'm probably counting wrong, but it seems to me every member of the squad has been rumored to be both in and out and sometimes simultaneously.


El Tri is thrashing in agony as the dos Santos family takes turns firing shotgun blasts into its green-clad body. Giovani makes it, his brother Jonathan does not. Zizinho, the players' father, rips the Mexican FA and Javier Aquirre, while declaring that Jonathan will never play for Mexico. Giovani, reportedly distraught over his brother's exclusion, is threatening to pull out of the team.


Whoa.


This makes me wonder what the world (meaning my world, meaning America, and meaning everything surrounding the USMNT) might be like should us Yanks ever take to the game in a widespread and uber-passionate way. Would we fall victim to the media-inspired teeth-gnashing of England? Could we ever find ourselves dealing with the telenovela-like internal conflict of Mexico? We've got cultural attachments, and strong ones, to both nations. It's reasonable to think we might be influenced by their way of doing things, even if they're not actually making a conscious choice.


In the grand scheme of things, coverage and support of the U.S. National Team on a meaningful scale is in its honeymoon phase. Most of the coverage is positive. Human interest angles, feel good pieces, and "the sport is growing" stories dominate the landscape. The hopes of a nation don't rest on the shoulders of Donovan, Dempsey, et al even if they might feel a bit more pressure to perform than they used to. I can't help but wonder how we'll handle it (must throw in the obligatory "if") when we reach a point of serious national interest, or when the attitude towards an American World Cup campaign isn't one of scoff if they're bad or mild surprise and momentary interest if they're good.


The American soccer culture is a melting pot of cultures and influences, yet to be cooked down into something clearly identifiable. England and Mexico are part of the recipe, that much is certain. Let's hope the finished brew tastes like neither, but is something uniquely American, both on the field and in everything that surrounds the game.

On Friday, in front of a sell-out crowd at the New Giants Stadium (or whatever it's called), Mexico played a World Cup warm-up against Ecuador. The game itself was a bunch of "eh", ending goalless. The bigger story, once again, was the amount of support Mexico gets on American soil. El Tri travels north, and they fill whatever venue they're in to the rafters.


That note relates, in a way, to the ancillary news from El Tri's visit, the backing Mexico has given to the USA's 2018/2022 bid to host the World Cup. FMF president Justino Compean came out in favor of the bid, implored the rest of the Americas to back the US, and lauded the infrastructure we have to host the event.


Woo. Hoo.


Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have the backing of Mexico, seeing as they are the other major soccer power in the region; but really, were they not going to support the bid? Were they going to thumb their nose at the Americans, ignoring the major factors at play here? Should anyone (aside from Sunil Gulati, who has to) pat them on the back for doing the obvious?


They themselves aren't bidding, and barring a major collapse of their national team program or the sudden rise of other CONCACAF nations, they're guaranteed to be playing in a USA World Cup in front of full stadiums of Mexico fans everywhere they go. You know, kind of like how it is now...


A USA World Cup is a de facto Mexico World Cup, minus the smoggy air and debilitating altitude of Azteca and the cultural framework. By the time 2018 or 2022 roll around, maybe there will be enough American support here to fill stadiums when the Yanks play. But we know that Mexico fans will flock wherever El Tri goes, and unless they're facing off against the Americans, there's not going to be any significant competition for tickets.


So thanks Mexico, really. It means something, even if it's not coming from an entirely unselfish place, that you would back your northern rivals in the bidding for a World Cup. I'm sure we'll return the favor when you're ready to make another go of it. And probably for less obvious reasons.

Swept up by my entirely-too-cluttered newsreader yesterday was a blog post out of Australia entitled "A-League has much to learn from football in America". Much of my daily news consumption outside of the usual suspect sites is dependent on my reader finding off-the-beaten-path or American soccer-related items from places I would not normally visit. This post was a perfect example, and the titled intrigued me; as the writer points out, the A-League and MLS have much in common on the surface, and it's always interesting when observers of our "contemporary" league cast their eye to the US.


Much of it is what the title led me to expect; mentions of areas where MLS is stronger than the A-League, what Australian soccer can learn from the US efforts, etc. But the real gem of the post, the bit that caught my eye and the interest of some who read the piece when I tweeted the link, was in regards to the United States National Team, the amount of support it receives here, and how Mexico fills stadiums from coast to coast. Why, the writer wondered, don't the powers-that-be in American soccer do something to change the situation?


The writer, Davidde Corran, says he heard directly from people inside MLS/SUM headquarters that the plan is to wait for the next generation of Mexican and Central Americans to come through; at that point, they expect many of these children of immigrants to be USA fans even if they still carry allegiance to the nation of their heritage.


In a supremely practical way, I can understand the approach. The pure numbers of the situation, meaning those of Mexican and Central American descent living in the United States with the impetus to buy tickets to support their teams when they play here, make it a difficult task for US Soccer. How would one go about turning fans of those teams into US supporters, and is that even justifiable from a sport-morality standpoint?


There is, naturally, a club/country split; while MLS works to convert fans of Mexican clubs into fans of American ones, the job of converting fans of national teams is often much stickier. Fans of Club America will rarely have to choose between the Eagles and say, the LA Galaxy if they decide to support the latter. Not true in international competition, where deep-rooted rivalry with the US might keep even the children of immigrants from accepting the USMNT as their own.


It literally pains me every time I see the US playing on American soil in front of a crowd that is seventy, eighty, or ninety percent behind the visitors. But you can't force people to become USA fans, at least not without a comprehensive re-education program ala the Ministry of Love; not something we'll be seeing, I don't think.


So wait. Throw out a little "propaganda" from time to time, build the ranks of USA fans from the portions of the population that don't have Latin American ties, and do the more important work of improving the team itself. If the US every wins anything, or progress deep into the World Cup tournament, they'll gain more fans then they likely ever could from any identifiable action or program run by US Soccer/SUM/MLS/whomever.


The attitude isn't one of acceptance, necessarily, it's simply a practical appreciation of what is and is not possible within the current American soccer environment.

To hear many who know the player and his talents, the goal scoring exploits of Herculez Gomez can be chalked up in part thanks to a return to his natural position. Anyone that recalls Gomez' last few seasons in MLS, and let's be honest, why would you, must be flabbergasted at his incredible strike rate in Mexico.


In both Colorado and Kansas City, Gomez was dropped into midfield, resulting in a slow decline in his play that eventually saw him collecting splinters on the bench in his final season with the Wizards. How could that have happened to a player who showed so much promise with LA in the early part of his career?


Talent doesn't always translate directly from league to league. Gomez' MLS path, one that saw him marginalized for unclear reasons by coaches who played him in midfield rather than at forward, stalled, giving him a chance to land in Mexico with Puebla this January.


Obviously, it was the right move to make.


The run Gomez just ended (he was sent off with a second yellow in Puebla's penultimate match, meaning he won't play in the season finale), like that of Edson Buddle, has him back in the US National Team discussion. If it comes down to direct competition for a World Cup spot with the Galaxy striker, Gomez does have a few marks in his column; Mexico's Primera Division is a better league, the run of games itself has been longer, and Gomez has more recently, while Bob Bradley's been at the helm, been called into the National Team. Add in a note that Gomez is more Davies-like than Buddle, and it's hard not to see him with the advantage.


Too many factors will come into play to analyze them all properly. Bradley's assessment of Buddle and Gomez, or Buddle v. Gomez perhaps, is as much wrapped up in each player's ability to fit in with a tight-knit group of internationals as it is in their play; once the two are called into camp (assuming they are), one wonders how much their performance there will be a factor as long as they're not abjectly poor.


Bradley will have two friendlies with which to test his team ahead of naming his World Cup roster, interspersed with training sessions that will include more players than he will be able to take to South Africa. Does that give him enough flexibility to see how Gomez plays in a system, and with a style, significantly different than the one he's part of in Mexico?


Where's the weight in the equation? How much does Charlie Davies' recovery play a part, and would his comeback eliminate Gomez (and perhaps Buddle) from consideration?


All important questions, and unless you've taken up residence inside of Bradley's Princeton-marinated noggin, it's doubtful you have any more idea than the rest of us.


What Bradley should absolutely do is give Herculez Gomez an audition in May. Form should count for something, after all, and it's not as though the ex-MLSer is hitting nets in the third division of some backwater footballing country; Mexico's first division is at least, and probably more, the testing ground that Major League Soccer is, even if you're of the opinion that a focus on defense is lacking south of the border.


Gomez has written his resume. It's impressive, and with a job available for South Africa, he has to be a candidate. Strikers are supposed to score goals, and Gomez has done just that.


It might be interesting to note that neither Buddle nor Gomez appears to have had USMNT-related contact with Bob Bradley (at least none that's been reported); does Bob not want to tip his hand, or is he simply waiting to see how things play out before making his decisions in a few weeks time?

The US National Team represents the United States of America. Throughout it's history, a short one in terms of international relevance, it has been comprised of players either born in the US or with dual citizenship. For the players, it's about pride, representing their homeland, or the opportunity to play international soccer. One country, one FIFA recognized national team.


Except that the United States actually has two national teams; the other just happens to wear green and represent large country directly to the south.


No other comparable situation exists anywhere else in the world. The United States, when hosting it's own national team, provides middling home field advantage at best, and even then only when the opponent is not the country of origin for a large American immigrant community. Mexico, however, is the monster in the American room. When El Tri crosses the border to play, be it against their northern rivals or anyone else, their expatriate fans show up in droves; given the opportunity, Mexican fans will fill the largest American venues, as they did 80,000-seat Giants Stadium for the 2009 Gold Cup final. USMNT fan representation at that match was a fraction of the total crowd.


The Mexican National Team makes money when it appears in the United States. So much money, in fact, that the FMF has scheduled a tour of the country during El Tri's World Cup warmup season, with matches in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Charlotte, New Jersey (the first sporting event in the new Meadowlands Stadium), Chicago, and Houston. Leveraging their massive US-dwelling constituency and the greater spending power of those fans, Mexico is forsaking their homeland for the richer pastures of the United States, with all of it orchestrated by the marketing arm of MLS, Soccer United Marketing.


SUM is an American company, owned by Americans. It's also a money-making enterprise, and as such, is smartly using the Mexican National Team's massive popularity here to its advantage; if beholden only to its shareholders, the nothing SUM is doing should be open to question. Unfortunately, however, the company is seen as the marketing arm of American soccer, meaning that there's a sense they should be looking out for the good of the game in the United States. Fairly or not, SUM's actions reflect back upon the leaders of American soccer's first division, and by association, most of the biggest names involved in the development of the sport here.


Because of that, it must be asked if SUM is actually doing the game a disservice by promoting a national tour of the Mexican team; the company has effectively prostituted the United States to El Tri, giving the Mexicans free reign to use the country as their ATM. In addition to making money for the FMF and SUM, the appearances of El Tri here stunt the growth of the USMNT fan base. The more the Mexicans play here, the longer it will before second, third, etc., generations of Mexican-Americans consider rooting for the national team of their homeland rather than national team of their ancestral origin. Even a greater amount of Mexican-American talent being brought into the USMNT fold will only dent the solidified passion being passed down from parent to child.




Like it or not, it will take a massively supported USMNT for soccer to reach the top of the sports mountain in America.


SUM's distribution of the money earned from a Mexican National Team tour of the United States is unknown. The company is private, and is not required to disclose what it makes or how its profits are dispersed. MLS would appear to be the beneficiary, with SUM's ownership mirroring that of the league; but without confirmation, it's impossible to know if an El Tri tour of the country simply funnels cash back to the investors of MLS, or if it genuinely goes to the betterment of soccer in the United States. We're told that only a handful of MLS clubs are profitable, but do their bottom lines include the money made through SUM?


Tangible proof of a return on SUM dealings with the Mexican National Team doesn't appear to be forthcoming. For now, we guess. If SUM's commitment is to grow the game by reinvesting money made from the more popular of America's two national teams, then all of this is moot, and concerns can be allayed; but if SUM is promoting El Tri, arguably to the detriment of the USMNT, without a direct connection to a better future for American soccer, then there's something wrong with this picture.


There are millions of Mexican-Americans, both those born and raised here as citizens, and those who made their way here for a better life. They show up for their beloved national team, wherever they appear. The market dictates that trading on that passion to make money is a very smart thing indeed, and the Mexican community in the United States must be ecstatic with the opportunities they have to see their team play on American soil.




Americans, on the other hand, have a long way to go. Attendance for National Team games played here is often underwhelming. Fans that do travel and support the Yanks are too often the minority in American stadiums. Tickets go on sale and are immediately snatched up by resident populations from Latin neighbors or re-sold to them by Americans. Rarely have USMNT fans shown that they will go to the same lengths as Mexicans, Hondurans, Salvadorians, etc., to follow their team domestically. If SUM only cares about making money, which seems to be the case, then catering to an American audience is simply bad for business.


But does that necessarily mean that American soccer should come second in its own country? Will this path ever change, or has it already turned into a inescapable rut?


The United States is home to two national teams. But between SUM and all-too-apathetic American population, the one that wears "USA" on their shirts is forced to play second fiddle. Make way for the headliner, Mexico.

Here I go, on a bit of a ramble...

The United States has clinched qualification for next year's World Cup in South Africa. By beating Honduras in San Pedro Sula, a result that many (including myself) were pleasantly surprised by, the Americans head into their final qualifier against Costa Rica at RFK Stadium with less to play for than was expected. A win isn't necessary anymore, at least not for anything other than pride.

It's pride and pride alone that the Americas have at their back on Wednesday because the FIFA system for seeding teams in the World Cup does not favor them. Confusion over the system, one that FIFA hesitates to fully explain, runs rampant; many "experts", men and women intimately familiar with soccer and conversant in all things footy, are at a loss when it comes to determining if the United States can even be seeded next year, no matter how they finish the Hexagonal. Most simply believe that because the math is partially based on past World Cup performance, and because the US isn't exactly stellar in that regard outside of 2002, that they have zero chance of being seeded.

I'm inclined to agree, even if I am admittedly unsure what information is good, and which is coming from individuals just as confused as the rest of us but are sure they've got it right. Essentially, I'm taking the approach that the less expectations I have, the less disappointment I'll feel when the Yanks are on the outside of the top eight World Cup participants.

The seeding question isn't even a question if the US doesn't win on Wednesday, of course, though it shouldn't matter in terms of motivation. As Bob Bradley stated in his post-game comments on Saturday night, the US goal is to be the best team in the region; winning the final group of qualifying would go a long way toward cementing that title in the court of public opinion. Even if it's all about pride, pride is a powerful thing and should push the Americans to win at home (something they have not failed to do in the Hex) as much as anything else. Besides, Mexico sits in second, only one point back, and could leapfrog their bitter rivals if they win at Trinidad & Tobago (no tough feat these days) on Wednesday.

I'm positive that, to a man, the US squad wants to end the qualification campaign on a high note at home in front of American fans. Those fans wants reason to party, and although they already have one, there's nothing that says a few goals and a win won't ratchet up the enthusiasm another level.

Seeding be damned, whether it's on the table or not. It's all about pride, beating out the Mexicans (something we can all get behind), and ending the 2010 World Cup qualification journey with a avenging victory over Costa Rica.

The US World Cup bid for either 2018 or 2022 received a boost today, as Mexico withdrew from the running. Mexican federation President Decio de Maria chalked up the decision to economic factors, including the considerable investment hosting the tournament would require.

Mexico's withdrawal leaves the United States as the only CONCACAF nation bidding for a World Cup, which should work to their benefit. The confederation's leadership will no longer be split as to which bid to back, meaning that the powerful voices in FIFA's hierarchy representing the region should be fully behind the US bid.

The US is now in competition with Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands (joint bid), England, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Spain and Portugal (joint bid), Qatar, and Russia for one of the two World Cups up for grabs.

The American bid was already strong, and no nation in those believed to be leaders for 2022 can match the US in stadiums or infrastructure; Mexico falling out only makes the bid stronger, as CONCACAF can now concentrate their efforts in one direction.

What do you make of Mexico's decision to remove themselves from consideration?

I'm just chock (not chalk) full of questions today. This one popped because of a mention of Torres and his place in the US squad at ESPN's US Men's National Team blog (subscription required, sorry).

The post essentially states that Torres needs to prove himself a little more before we can expect Bob Bradley to throw him into another big US game (remember his last appearance, at Saprissa?). I'm a fan of Torres, and there have been spots this year where I had hope Bradley would use him, but perhaps it is a little too early. The kid is only twenty-one, and it's might be a little presumptuous of us to assume he's truly ready to contribute on the international stage.

But that's not why I'm here.

Instead, the question of Torres' place in the squad actually has me pondering another question: Does Bob Bradley, or US Soccer for that matter, owe something to Jose Francisco Torres?

I should probably frame the question better. When I ask if Bradley/US Soccer owes something to Torres, I'm specifically referring to the player's decision to don the Red, White and Blue (or white and a slightly different white, I suppose) of the US over the green of El Tri. Getting Torres, a young player full of potential, to commit his international career to the United States was no small feat; the initial impulse, at least on the part of many fans, is to want to reward him for that decision. That desire is absolutely amplified by the fact that his other option was our most hated rivals, of course, and we were rightfully thankful for his decision.

But Torres' decision was only possible due to a matter of circumstance; just because he threw in his lot with the nation of his birth rather than that of his father doesn't mean he should automatically walk into the team. Torres' talent is undeniable, and I'm sure he'll get his chance to show it in a big US match at some point in the future; but for now, while we're thankful for his loyalty, we should realize that it might just not be his time.

The issue of dual-nationality and choosing a side is a sticky one, especially when it comes down to the Yanks and El Tri. The passion here doesn't measure up to that of Mexico, and so young players often feel more pressure from the southern side than they do the northern. For that reason, Torres' decision is groundbreaking, and should be seen as such, no matter his contributions to the US on any meaningful level.

It's possible that my efforts to separate the player's skill from the question at hand have failed, and that I'm confusing the issue even more. I really just wanted to throw it out there to you, to see if there might be a consensus. If Torres was ready-for-prime-time right now, none of this would have even come up; but because he is just on the periphery, still growing and maturing but not yet a solid contributor, we have to ask the question.

Bob Bradley's job is to win games. I have no doubts, no matter the concerns over his competence, that he does everything he can to put the United States in a position to win each and every time they take the field. If Jose Francisco Torres is not a player to be relied upon quite yet, or is one whose inclusion in place of someone else would make the team weaker, than Bradley is doing the right thing no matter the sense of debt we as fans might have.

The bottom line is that playing time should not be a reward for choosing to declare for the United States.

Maybe I've gone off in the wrong direction, and so I'll end with this: Do you think, if you are one of the people who has been calling for Torres to play, that part of your feeling is based on that aforementioned sense of debt? It's possible that some haven't even examined our feelings enough to have realized that it might be a factor.

Chivas USA will present Mexican-American striker Jesus Padilla to the press tomorrow at 12:30 PM PDT, after the club signed the twenty two year old on loan from sister club Chivas de Guadalajara.

Padilla was born in San Jose, CA to Mexican parents, a circumstance that allowed him to play for the Mexican-player only Chivas de Guadalajara despite his American background (something that was discovered and caused some controversy; the circular route to establishing Padilla qualifications as "Mexican" were interesting). The forward moved to Mexico at fourteen join Chivas as youth player; after graduating to the senior team in 2006, Padilla has appeared twenty four times and scored one goal for the Mexican giant.

Despite the close relationship of the clubs due to ownership and name, Chivas USA has seen few players move north to join them in MLS. With forward Ante Razov being added to the disabled list, Padilla will add more depth to a forward group that consists of Justin Braun, Eduardo Lillingston, and Maykel Galindo.