Taking stock of this World Cup is not a simple exercise for me. There are two strands of thought running through my head, and keeping them from tangling isn't easy. The direct obsession with the U.S. National Team and the disappointing end of their run means the rest of the tournament was an exercise in detached observation. Was I interested? Sure. But to say I was heartily enthusiastic about it would be wrong.


This leads to today, when empty kegs (because the World Cup is definitely kegger - Sepp does a mean keg stand), half-crushed Solo cups, floaters, cast aside vuvuzelas, and other sundry garbage litter the soccer landscape and everyone who gives a damn is casting their aspersions on the tournament itself (it sucked, clearly). If not a negative take on the World Cup itself, it's a negative take on the people who had a negative take on the World Cup. I almost feel obligated to give a negative take on the people with a negative take of the people with a negative take.


If I could keep all that straight on a Monday morning, I just might. I'm certainly turned off by all the hate, no matter who or what is the particular focus. There's an air of elitism to it all, as if by labeling this particular World Cup "poor" it proves the footy pallet of the hater is refined and sophisticated. I-have-a-blog-and-watch-a-lot-of-soccer-and-this-was-terrible-itis, or something less convoluted, exceeded only by the haughtiness of people intent on setting soccer above the "North American" fray by lecturing on how this tournament's value is above the heads of the casual sports fan. Spare me, on both counts.


No, it wasn't an overly riveting tournament. There were uplifting moments, solid performances, dramatic goals and mild surprises, but those are mostly outweighed by officiating blunders, stars coming up dim when it counted most, cynical play and defensive postures carrying many a day, and a final that contained all of those negatives. In fact, in microcosm, Spain 1, Holland 0 with everything that happened over the course of 120 minutes seems just about right in light of what occurred over the past 30 days. Not that there's any comfort in that for those of us who had no rooting interest.


When the hopes accumulated over the course of four long years, both for the glory of our particular team and for a compeition that perfectly encapsulates everything we love about the sport, are thrust upon a short tournament, the potential for disappointment is massive. When the tournament happens during a period of strategic thinking dominated by negative tactics, the entertainment value is guaranteed to be lacking. We want the World Cup to be different from everything else going on in the footballing world; instead, it simply reflects it, compacts it, and parades it for the planet to see.


Spain are deserving champions. They scored less than we had hoped they would, but they resolutely played their style, made their own luck, and grittily soldiered through team after team (minus Switzerland, of course) determined to wall the Spaniards off with no regard for their own attack. The world was hating on Spain, and La Furia Roja played them all. That is what champions do.


It's unfortunate then, that Spain's first World Cup title is being buried under and avalanche of scathing reviews for the tournament as a whole. Spain's win is a setting right of the world after Inter ruined Barcelona's dream, a swing of the pendulum back toward good in the face of so much anti-soccer evil; as we examine the events in South Africa over the course of the past month, it's important to note that in the opinion of most connoisseurs, the right team won. If we want our World Cups to give us the most worthy champion, this one was a success.


In the end, the strands will tangle because my appreciation of South Africa 2010 will always rest on the good and bad it brought for the U.S. National Team. The tournament underwhelmed, but it's almost impossible to know how much of that is tied to my feelings of American disappointment; it's the end, and Spain have won. At least that part feels right.

Yesterday, for the fifth time in the last 12 months, the US faced a top 10 team. The US will face another one on June 12th in facing England. A look at some statistics from these games shows that the Netherlands game was both quite different and very much the same as the Confederation Cup games last summer.

Opponent	Possession	Shots - On Goal - Goals
Italy	58%	22-13-3
Brazil	59%	23-11-3
Spain	56%	29-8-0
Brazil	59%	31-13-3
Netherlands	65%	10-6-2

All stats from FIFA except Netherlands from ESPN

While the Netherlands possession numbers are higher than those from the Confed, there is a drastic difference in shots taken. However, removing the penalty kick from the Dutch totals a strong trend appears for the US defense. The table below looks at the percentage of shots on goal and the percentage of shots on goal scored by these top 10 teams.

Opponent	% of Shots on Goal	% of On Goal Scored
Italy	55%	25%
Brazil	48%	27%
Spain	28%	0%
Brazil	42%	23%
Netherlands	56%	20%

These numbers confirm that the game against Spain was a fantastic defensive performance by the US. However, the rest of these numbers do not stray that far from the general output of these top teams. Below are the statistics in yesterday’s games for the other top 10 teams that ESPN has statistics for:

Team	Shots-On Goal-Goals	% of Shots on Goal	% of On Goal Scored
Germany	9-1-0	11%	0%
Argentina	5-2-1	40%	50%
Spain	6-3-2	50%	67%
France	11-4-0	36%	0%
England	14-7-3	50%	43%
Italy	12-5-0	42%	0%
Average	10-4-1	40%	25%

These numbers show some similarity to the US numbers above. The conversion rate of 25% shots on goal to goals is similar to the percentage allowed by the US against top ten teams. The 40% shots on target number is made slightly lower by Germany’s terrible performance yesterday, but the 35%-50% range for the other teams is only slightly lower than the 40-55% that the US has run against similar teams. To expect a much better overall defensive performance percentage-wise than the US has produced against top 10 teams, is to expect the US to defend better than top 10 teams.


The US does struggle in another category. Another look at the shots attempted shows that against good competition, the top 10 teams averaged around 10 shots attempted. That is a far cry from the average of 25 that the US allowed in the Confederations Cup, but a very similar number to that allowed yesterday.


The real challenge is combining the two efforts. If the US can begin to limit top teams to a number of shots in the low to mid teens while keeping percentage like those found in the later half of the Confederations Cup, the US would have a chance against these teams. Getting to the point of allowing 15 shots, with 40% on goal and a 25% scored percentage means giving up 1.5 goal per game to these top sides. While this will not always be enough to beat these teams, it would be enough to keep them competitive and put them in position to draw or win these games a position that the US has rarely found itself in.


While Bornstein has correctly been made the goat for a terrible decision in the box, the US defense overall did well. There were few balls from a very talented Dutch midfield that sent players through on goal. As has been noted elsewhere, the play that resulted in the penalty was well covered by the US and on the second goal a better developed partnership between Edu and Bradley likely would have resulted in Bradley staying at home on van der Vaart who provided the assist instead of pinching in on Sneijder whom Edu was covering..


Whether yesterday's drop in shots conceded is an aberration, a result of the game being a friendly, or a result of the Dutch style of play is impossible to tell. However, if it is a trend that continues it could be the beginning of the US being more competitive in games like yesterday’s.

I'm a bitter man today, all thanks to the money-generating job that a.) has nothing to do with soccer and b.) embodies everything that is wrong with the world. Only the anticipation of an almost-full-strength USMNT playing tomorrow in Amsterdam is keeping me from completely losing it.


Tomorrow's game is a double-edged sword for us fans and observers. While it only really matters what Bob Bradley is able to glean from the game, the result will color fan perception, spawn a flood of opinion, and set up the next three months of discussion.


Because that's the way it works.


So how will the community (meaning fans, bloggers, etc.) react, and what will we have to look forward to from now until May?


A peek at a few possible scenarios:


1. The Dutch dominate the Americans, winning by multiple goals and shutting them out.

In this scenario, the Chicken Little crowd will rise up as if imbued with the power of Zeus and hold court on the utter crappiness of the USMNT. They will tell us all, in loud and haughty tones, that Bob Bradley is a terrible coach, Americans are terrible players, and that the World Cup will be a complete disaster. Reveling in the joy of being right all along, many won't shut up until the Americans win a World Cup game.

There will be apologists, of course, though they will naturally be much quieter in their response. Injury excuses will be raised, the names of Oguchi Onyewu and Charlie Davies will be invoked, and the timing of the game will be pointed out. Three months is still time enough to get it right.


2. The game ends in a scoreless draw.

This result lends itself to ambiguity, though not scoring will drive more than a few people mad. Again, Davies name will be invoked as our only hope, only ratcheting up misplaced focus on a player that has yet to kick a soccer ball since his accident. The backline will probably get a little bit of both sides; either they'll say that the Americans played well enough or the shutout will be chalked up to a poor Dutch attack. In this case, individual performances from players on the fringe or just returning to the team (Edu, Beasley) will be the focus.


3. The game ends in a score draw.

See number two, only this time there will be at least one goal to talk about. The quality of the goal will be scrutinized (to the point of exhaustion), with some likely to discount it if the Dutch defense made any kind of mistake. The scorer(s) matter too, of course, and lord help us all if Eddie Johnson gets the tally; the angst over whether or not he's a viable choice for the World Cup and a possible starter will be analyzed to death. Hand-wringing in full effect.

On the other end, we'll be looking at the defensive work on they goal(s) from the Dutch. How did the ceterbacks do? Does Bocanegra (assuming he starts on the left) have the speed to hold up there? How badly do we miss Gooch, and holy crap when will he be back? You get the idea.


4. The Americans lose a close game.

Like number two, there is enough ambiguity built in to this result to allow for a wide range of opinions to come out of it. Individual performances will be put under the microscope for those with a long view, while the collective play will probably be lambasted in some quarters and evenly measured in others. Again, the response to this results depends on whether or not the US scores and how many they concede. Losing by a one-goal margin is still a terrible thing if they Dutch boss the game and simply can't score more than once or twice.

This result, other than a score draw, might provide the least fodder for looking at the team as a whole, though that won't stop some digging deep for things to praise or criticize.


5. The Americans play exceedingly well and win the game

Allowing for the variations (i.e., conceding or not conceding) this is the result that some might argue is the worst possible one. Why, you ask? Because it will send the fan base into a frenzy, ramp up the hype machine, and set us all up for the inevitable fall that will come when we crash out of the World Cup in the first round come June. How else could a win over the third ranked team in the world be taken? Would it prove that the Americans are actually pretty good at the moment?

You must be crazy.

No, a win in Amsterdam will, as well as getting the hype machine going, elicit the typical response; the win will be labelled "fluky", "lucky", or "flattering" by at least a few. Bob Bradley will still be castigated, but this time because the win will obviously cause him to gloss over the team's flaws, never mind that fact that he's a professional soccer coach who would still be analyzing the performance down to the second win or not, leading into a poor World Cup.

Or something like that.

The homers will come out in force with an American win as well, thumping their chests and claiming that the United States will be "shocking the world" in South Africa. Donovan will be lauded as top quality, Altidore will get the requisite praise, and the return of Gooch, Dempsey, and (possibly) Davies will be framed as evidence that the US will only be better come June.

***

No matter the result tomorrow, extremes, as usual, will probably rule the day. Those with more measured approaches, win, lose or draw, will be drowned out. It's a function of sports discussion, be even more so, soccer.


The game I'm looking forward to; the overwrought analysis, not so much. And there's a pretty damn good chance that I'll be guilty of it at some point.

We interrupt the usual MFUSA weekend radio silence for a discussion about the importance of a friendly.


Specifically, we're talking about the USMNT's upcoming friendly in Amsterdam, where they'll take on the number three ranked team in the world. Bob Bradley has called in what appears to be the strongest side he can, and while the injuries keeping out two of his best players likely to be in the World Cup team (Clint Dempsey and Oguchi Onyewu) put the Americans twenty percent short of their potential, it will be their first full "A" squad test in 2010. It has meaning and import, both as a World Cup preparation exercise (i.e. for player evaluation) as well as for the greater confidence of the team.


But does it mean more than that? Does the US need a strong performance, perhaps even a win or a draw, to validate themselves in the eyes of the footballing world?


Nigel Reed seems to think so, as evidenced by his piece today on the Canadian Broadcasting Company's website. Forget for a moment the irony of a piece on a Canadian site opining on the need for the United States to prove a point in Amsterdam (okay, so that was a cheap shot, and I think Reed is actually English); even if Reed was writing for an American outlet, I would still have the same response:


No, Nigel, they don't need the validation.


Beating or drawing against the Dutch would be a wonderful, wonderful, thing, and I obviously hope it happens. We would all feel much better about the US chances moving on towards June (with the two May friendlies still to come) if they could beat a top-ranked team on their home soil. The Americans rarely play well in Europe, as evidenced by the most recent trip there in November, where they fell to both the Danish and the Slovaks with mixed A-B sides.


But getting a result in Amsterdam is important only for the here and now, not to prove a point to the everyone else. This isn't some insular "who cares what they think?" typical American attitude, it's pragmatism; if the USMNT starts worrying about what everyone thinks when they play, they're not focusing in the proper direction. They should win for themselves, because they're competitive athletes win the drive to do so, not because it matters what the rest of the world thinks.


Validation from external sources is only important if it brings with it some tangible gain; beating the Dutch is about the Americans, their confidence, and proving to themselves that they're good enough to go to South Africa and do well. If they lose, it doesn't matter that nations with longer and richer soccer histories will still discount them, because that ignominy plays no part in how then can, and will, play come June.


Despite what you may have heard, the outcome of a soccer match is not dependent on the reputations of the teams involved. Brazil doesn't win because they always have, they win because they're good. Spain won't land on African soil as one of the heavy favorites because they have a history of performing well on the biggest stage (they don't), but because they're good. If the United States is to advance from their group, perhaps move on to the quarterfinals, or god forbid go even farther, it will be because they are good enough to do so, not because they've earned the respect of some unnamed arbitrators of such things by beating the Netherlands in March.


The win? Needed, as wins always are. The validation? Not so much, because those things take care of themselves. Do well when you need to, and people will respect you; but that respect means nothing aside from the warm and fuzzies it brings, or the small individual effect it could have on Americans on the club level. I'm certain that much of the world respect, fears, and takes England seriously. That's all very nice, but it will do nothing to help them win games. Fabio Capello knows that. The players know that. Even the fans know that, despite the amount of pride it brings to crow that everyone thinks they're very good. Respect gets you nowhere when another team of eleven men with their own hopes of victory are lined up across from you.


The Americans know all that as well. I can't imagine that as a group they give any thought to their reputation abroad; they may hope for personal validation, because that relates directly to their own career success, but when Bob Bradley is lining them up for training on Wednesday, not a single one of them is thinking, "We need to win this game so the world will take us seriously."


Nigel Reed says the United States needs to send a message on Wednesday. I respond by politely saying they need to win, but not for the message it sends.