Seriously, June 12 Can’t Come Fast Enough

Sorry I’m a little late with this review. I actually had to work today during the game, and only just finished watching on ESPN 3. The good news, besides the U.S. getting the win, is that I managed to go the whole day without finding out the result before I actually watched it. Granted, it was only a friendly, so it wasn’t exactly the top story of the day. Still, I think it was an accomplishment, considering how many times I’ve had games ruined before. (Quick aside, what really makes me mad is when ESPN shows something on tape delay, usually a tennish match or something in Europe, and then actually runs the result of the match on their bottomline. Why in the world would they do that? I actually have to try to watch the whole match without looking at the bottom of the screen by accident. It’s almost as dumb as ESPN filming the ESPYs three days before they show it and actually announcing the winners on SportsCenter the night that they shoot it. Yeah, I totally can’t wait to watch an awards when I already know all the winners).

 As for the match, I’m going to keep this pretty short and sweet. Partly because I’m late anyway, and partly because I’m sick of playing psychologist and trying to guess what Bob Bradley is thinking. For the most part, I’m not sure we really gleaned all that much from today’s match, and I’m starting to get the same attitude towards these friendlies that I get towards the NFL preseason by about the third exhibition match. Let’s just get started already!

Obviously, the first point of interest, as it has been for several weeks, was who started up top, and how they played. Despite what I said about Dempsey starting at forward before, I can’t really complain about the Buddle and Findley tandem. If this were the England match (and Jozy was still out) I would’ve been a bit surprised if Dempsey didn’t occupy one of the forward spots (unless Bradley went with a single striker formation), but for this match I liked getting both of those guys on the field. The bottom line is that there’s only so much playing time to go around once the Cup starts, and Bradley needs to decide what forward he wants to stick in there with 20 minutes  left in a game when the Americans need a goal. Plus, there’s still a decent shot that one of them does get a start.

I liked what I saw from Buddle today, and he showed why he’s been scoring in droves in MLS. He’s in form and just seems to find the back of the net. He also showed a good first touch repeatedly, playing well with this back to the goal. He’s got some versatility. Like Jozy, he’s not really a pure speed option like Findley, but he’s definitely not a pure lay-off, physical striker either. He certainly lacks some of Jozy’s power, and I just don’t know what a Buddle-Altidore pairing would look like or play like. Unfortunately, nobody really does, and I’m not sure that we’ll see it. I wouldn’t be completely opposed to Buddle getting the start, but I find it hard to believe we’ll see it against England.

Findley  didn’t  have a bad game, although he certainly had some near-misses that’ll be haunting him for the next few days. Definitely could’ve done better and put away at least two point blank opportunities, but I still liked some of what I saw from him. I think he lacks some of the composure, sharpness, savvy that both Buddle and Gomez seem to exhibit, but as a spark off the bench Findley certainly has some potential.

Gomez only got a small cameo, and I had been thinking that minutes would be hard for him to come by. He has to be making Bradley think, though, since he just seems to find himself in the right place at the right time repeatedly. When he has a chance to tuck one way it just seems like 9 times out of 10, he’ll do it. Granted, he did blow a golden opportunity to play Findley for an open-netter a couple of minutes before his goal, but generally speaking, when he gets in the box he’s a poacher. I think he’s got a chance to get on the field in S. Africa in a situation role.

In the end, I think all of the forwards have shown themselves well. I actually expected a little more out of the Australian back line, but there’s no doubt that Buddle and Findley showed themselves capable of getting behind an international-caliber defense multiple times in the first half.

Gomez giving Bradley something to think about...and looking quite nice in that white sport-coat

The second big question coming into this match was Onyewu, and most analysts seemed to agree that if he was ready to go, he should get 70-90 minutes today. Obviously, Bradley doesn’t feel that way. I still haven’t seen anything to suggest that Onyewu is still actually hurt. He has looked a little tentative, but I don’t think his knee is actually still causing him pain or stiffening up while he’s on the field. Bradley must not be worried about his fitness, which seems strange considering he hasn’t played a full match in about 8 months. However, you have to think that if Bradley actually thought he wouldn’t be ready for next Saturday, he would’ve left Goodson in the game in order to give him as much playing time as possible to get ready for England. It’s really just a wait and see thing.

I was a little surprised that Bradley didn’t use more subs, but all that really means, I suppose, is that he pretty much knows what guys he plans to use. The time for trying out is over apparently, and from here, the decisions will be made based on strategy and what you’ve already shown. The biggest loser, to me, over the last few games, has to have been Edu. It seems, at this point, that he’s actually the third option to partner with Bradley, after Clark and Torres. I think it seems pretty likely that Clark gets the start (to my dismay), but I definitely think Torres sees the field, especially if the U.S. falls behind. I could also see Torres getting a start against Algeria or Slovenia, if Bradley isn’t too afraid to tinker a little.

I've resigned myself to Clark starting...or maybe I'm just trying to jinx him!

As for  general thoughts about the game and the U.S. performance, I thought Australia showed the U.S. a distinctly different match-up than Turkey did. I actually think Australia is a much more favorable match-up for the U.S. defensively, despite the fact that each opponent managed to score one goal. The Aussies didn’t show anywhere near the speed or willingness to take on U.S. defenders like the Turks did, and, ultimately, that’s the biggest weakness for this U.S. squad. Despite some iffy moments on crosses and the goal scored by Cahill, their attacn method actually played into the Americans’ strengh defensively. The Aussies showed some skill crossing the ball and showed some savvy in finding space in the box, but I didn’t feel anywhere near the nervousness I felt for most of the game against Turkey. I still think if the Turks don’t wear down so much by the final third of the game, that could easily have been a different result.

Liked what I saw from Dempsey for the most part. He still seems a little off  at times with his touch and his timing in the air, at least compared to what we know he’s capable of, but I liked the aggressiveness and involvement I saw from him all game long.

I’m still a little stressed by Donovan’s slow starts, and his difficulty getting involved, but at the same time you can always count on 4 or 5 class moments from him like we saw on the Gomez goal or the lead-up to the Findley’s shot off the post.

Lastly, I think Cherundolo probably locked up the outside back spot, if he hadn’t already. I think he looked pretty good defensively, and played a great cross in for Buddle’s header. I’ll do another post next Thursday or Friday with some final thoughts on the England match, as well as discussion of any news that emerges during the week.

Oh, one more thing. I can definitely see what the goalies have all been complaining about with the ball. The first goal by Buddle looked like it came out of a cannon. I mean, it could’ve just been a nice strike, but there were a couple of other occasions where the ball just looked a little light, seeming to carry or move with a little more speed than players were expecting. I’m not sure if it was the ball or the sun, but I counted over a dozen times when defenders or keepers went up expecting to get a piece of a ball in the air, and it just seemed to drift over them a little further than they expected.

Reward Video

Jozy’s Injury Adds to U.S. Roster Questions for Saturday

I was thinking that this  new post was going to be somewhat mundane, figuring everything that could possibly be said about Saturday’s  game had already been said and all the questions to be asked were fairly obvious. That’s still true, but we did get a piece of news today that makes Saturday’s game much more critical. Unfortunately, it’s not at all the kind of news that any American soccer  fan wants to hear. In case you haven’t  read/seen/heard, forward  Jozy Altidore (my personal favorite player on the team) suffered a minor ankle sprain today at training.

Over at Espn Soccernet, they’re already wondering what the  repercussions would be of losing Altidore and what Bob Bradley might do without him. This, of course, inspired a fairly strong backlash from the commenters who complained the writer was overreacting to a mild ankle sprain. I’m a pretty moderate guy, so naturally I tend to come  down somewhere in the middle here. I don’t think it’s  far-fetched to question what Bradley’s strategy would be without Altidore, considering there’s just over a week before the first game. I remember in high school I had what I originally thought was a mild ankle sprain. It hurt like hell at first, but by the  next day I fully expected to be playing again within a few days. It ended up taking two weeks. Does this have any bearing on how long it will take Altidore to get back. Absolutely not. Jozy is ten times the athlete I am (except when it comes to box-hockey  or ping-pong), and he has a world-class training staff at his disposal. I’m just saying, you never really know about injuries at first diagnosis, especially when we’re talking about such a short time frame. On the other hand, there’s not really much to be said about Jozy’s possible replacements, because we know so little about what we’re going to get out of them.

All eyes will be on Jozy (or his replacement) on Saturday

A much more interesting debate is where Jozy ranks in terms of value on the USMNT. In other words, if you’re making a list of players you’d least like to lose , what number is Jozy? Although I think there are several guys  right now who are better all around players, you have to take into account Jozy’s potential as well as the inexperience of the guys backing him him up. We all know Donovan and Dempsey are two of our best players, but the midfield is also the strongest part of our team. Also, how much confidence do you have in Howard’s back-ups? Here’s my ranks on the official Stars and Stripes Value Scale

1. Donovan (still the American team’s best player and the de facto captain, despite Bocanegra’s arm bling)

2. Howard (the glue that holds the U.S. defense together, another leader, plus the most successful American abroad)

3. Dempsey (To a slightly lesser extent than Donovan, this team kind of seems to go as Dempsey goes, see Confed. Cup)

4. Onyewu (U.S. just can’t replace his size, experience, and athletic ability on a thin back line)

5. Altidore (Huge upside. Probably operating at around 60% of what he’s capable of right now & could break out at WC)

6. Bradley (Great engine, and growing into a future captain, but perhaps more replaceable than some might think)

After that, a bit of a toss up.

I’m not going to waste any more time speculating how the U.S. would fare up top without Altidore. However, I will discuss Bradley’s possible strategy and formation without him, as part of my 3 main questions for Saturday’s game.

1. Does Onyewu play 90 minutes and is Steve Cherundolo on the right?

Okay, I know that’s two questions, but it allows me to knock out the whole defense in one section. First of all, if Onyewu (who I still refuse to call Gooch, no matter how annoying it is to type Onyewu fifteen times) doesn’t get 90 minutes on Saturday, I don’t think there can be any more doubt that the knee is still bothering him. I wasn’t nearly as worried by the fact that he didn’t start last Saturday as some were. The guys over at The Shin Guardian wondered why, if he was going to  get 45 minutes no matter what, he didn’t just play the other 45 minutes. I don’t see a major distinction, though, and I’m not 100% convinced  that the first 11 on Saturday were Bradley’s ideal, healthy starting  11. Even  if they were coming into the game, I don’t think Onyewu really missed out on playing with any of the starters other than Ricardo Clark by coming in at halftime. I don’t think Feilhaber’s starting against England, and, at this point, I’m not sure Spector does either.

That brings me to the second half of this question, and I have to admit I’m really torn on this one. I kind of thought Spector had that right back spot locked up, but it didn’t take long, after his very shaky performance against Turkey, for me to wonder whether Dolo should start. I also started wondering why I had so much confidence in Spector in the first place, and I realized that it’s primarily based on just two games (the two wins) at last summer’s Confederations Cup. I know he played during qualifying in late 2009 also, but really, the idea that Spector, Onyewu, Demerit, and Bocanegra are the closest thing we have to a lock-down defense really emerged during that tournament last July. Of course, Spector only secured his spot back then due to Cherundolo’s injury.

Injuries have kind of been the story of Dolo’s international career, most notably in 2006 when a late one (after he was added to the roster b/c of Armas’ injury) completely killed off any chance he had of seeing the field. All I’m saying is, it’s not really that far-fetched for Bradley to give Dolo the nod. It’s not like Spector and the other three backs have this long-built chemistry or something, and Dolo is still much more experienced than Spector (on an already  fairly young squad). I was shocked when a glance at Spector’s profile reminded me that he’s still only 24 years old. I’m a big fan of youth, but I think Spector at times plays youthful, and I think his psyche is a little more fragile than Dolo’s if something goes wrong (like when his run forward led to the counterattacking goal last Saturday). Ultimately, I don’t think either guy getting the start would be a huge shock.

2. Which of these guys that didn’t start last weekend is most likely to do so this weekend: Torres, Holden, or Edu?

I love how I phrased this question, because it lets me talk about almost the  whole midfield without copping out with a 2-parter like I did above. See, I’m improving.

Anyway, some might argue that it’s a long shot for any of these three to start, and it’s also highly dependent on Dempsey’s position (I’ll tackle that one in the next question). However, given the rather dismal (or at least invisible) play by both Clark and Feilhaber in the first half against Turkey, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch. I’ve already written at length on what I think of all three of these guys, and I’ve given special attention to how I think Edu, Clark, and Torres each perform in a pairing with Bradley. Just look at the posts below. To me, this  question is more about how Bradley wants to play on Saturday and, more importantly, against England next weekend.

Australia is considered a pretty stalwart defensive team, which will be a good test for the U.S., but unfortunately, they lack the attacking power the Americans will see against England. Everybody expects Bradley to play things pretty conservatively on June 12, but it’s unclear how aggressive he’ll want his team to be on Saturday. My thought is, if the Australian defense is tough, use that to test your offense. It’s not going to do the Americans any good to sit back the whole time and come away with a 0-0 draw. That, to me, would be a false victory for the U. S. defense. I’d love to see the U.S. come out strong (which they’ve struggled with, no matter who they’re playing) and get an early goal, then be forced to deal with the Australians actually playing attacking soccer. However, I can also see the merits in playing as they plan to play against England.

Regardless of tactics, though, isn’t Australia the  perfect warm up game for England? They look like English players, they’re big and physical (courtesy of many of the guys playing rugby growing up), and they even have funny accents. It gives all the U.S. guys the chance to practice accent jokes or accent imitations for when they talk  smack on the field during the game (I know they’re not the exact  same accent) Of course, that would only be applicable if any U.S. players actually did that or had any personality on the field at all. Lastly, do English and Australian people do funny imitations of American accents? Do they find American accents anywhere near as amusing as we find their accents? Like, what would an American version of the Geico ghecko sound like (Strong Boston accent, Southern drawl)?

So, what does all this have to do with the 3 guys above? Well, I think the perception is that starting Torres would lead to a much more aggressive, and possibly vulnerable, American squad, but I’m not sure that’s actually true. To me, it wasn’t so much that the U.S. was actually playing a much more attacking, or risky, game in the second half than they were in the first half against Turkey. They were winning the ball further up the pitch, and I do think that Torres steps forward to challenge the ball sooner than Clark, but it would  be simplistic to consider that a much more offensively oriented squad than one with Edu or Clark in it. If anything, Clark’s propensity for turning the ball over puts the Americans at a higher risk defensively.

As for  Edu, I really don’t know what to expect from him. I didn’t see much from him against the  Czechs, but I’m interested to see how he pairs with Bradley and whether they have the same sorts of problems that Bradley and Clark do. In the end, I’d rather see Edu or Torres start next weekend than Clark. As for Holden, I think it mostly comes down to where Dempsey plays. If Dempsey’s up top, or at least playing as a withdrawn striker, I’d love to see Holden get the start at outside opposite Donovan. I’ve been saying for a while that I thought Holden deserved serious minutes, and if there’s any possibility that Holden starts in S. Africa (which there should be), he needs to get serious minutes with the first team. To me, it’s extra impressive that he’s won me over playing almost exclusively with the USMNT subs.

Does Torres start on Saturday? Does he deserve to?

3. Who in the world will we see playing at forward?

Obviously, there’s two scenarios here. One in which Jozy is healthy (or at least semi-healthy) and playing and one where he’s not. Under the second scenario, U.S. fans reminisce on what it was like to have two healthy, promising forwards, repeatedly watch YouTube clips of last summer’s Confed. Cup, and then promptly launch themselves off  their roofs.

Actually, let’s save the jumping for next weekend, because Jozy’s absence on Saturday doesn’t necessarily mean he can’t play or that he wouldn’t if the World Cup started this weekend instead of next. I think Bob would rather rest Jozy and avoid any risk of aggravating the ankle even if it meant losing a game’s worth of seeing Jozy work with Dempsey or one of the other forwards.

If Jozy is in the game, though, there’s still a lot of questions about who he’ll be playing with. I’d love to see the Dempsey-Altidore pairing work out, to free up another position for the stacked midfield, but even I’m willing to admit that neither of them stretches the field like Findley did. The thing I don’t agree with, as I pointed out before, is the idea that moving Dempsey to midfield last weekend suddenly changed his game and caused him to start playing much better. He had a rough game overall apart from his goal.

I texted my roommate about 1 minute before Dempsey scored, saying that Dempsedy hadn’t looked strong. I got his reply, that he agreed, just as Dempsey snuck the ball past the Turkish keeper, mooting (that’s great new verb usage) my point . My point: Dempsey looked rather lethargic in both halves, not just when he was playing forward. I think I’d deploy Dempsey similarly to how he played in the last game. I’d still have him play a half at forward and a half in the midfield. I’d like to see if a different midfield could lead to some better distribution and whether Dempsey and Altidore could improve their  chemistry a little bit in their second outing. I just don’t think one half is enough to close the book on the Dempsey at forward scenario.

If Dempsey’s not at forward, all bets are off. I’m thinking Bradley still sees Findley as a substitute option, and if he’s going to start another forward, it’s most likely to be Buddle. Of course, I never even thought Findley would make the squad, so what do I know? It does seem a little far-fetched that Bradley would keep Buddle on the bench the whole game against Turkey, and then start him this week. Of course, that same scenario could occur for Maurice Edu. There’s simply a lot of questions for the U.S. squad right now, and Bradley’s got a lot of last-minute issues to figure out.

Okay, this is where things get really crazy. If Jozy’s not playing at forward, really anything could happen. I think, in that case, Dempsey probably at least starts up top. I just find it hard to imagine two guys out of Edson Buddle, Herculez Gomez, and Robbie Findley starting if it means leaving players like Stu Holden, Feilhaber, and even Damarcus Beasley on the bench (who could all see decreased minutes if Dempsey plays 90 in the midfield). So, who pairs best with Dempsey? I’m still leaning towards Buddle, but I’m also not entirely sure what kind of game Bradley sees him or Gomez playing for the U.S. squad. Neither of those guys is completely a hold-up, back -to-the-goal forward like Ching is or Altidore can be, but they’re also not speedy guys like Findley who open up spaces for Dempsey and Donovan to exploit. Bradley’s been watching them in training for three weeks, so he’s got a better idea than me.

Semi-off the wall thoughts I’ve had about Saturday

1. Donovan starting at forward or in Dempsey’s starting spot from last week.

2. Beasley starting on the left instead of Holden or Feilhaber if Dempsey starts up top.

3. Bob Bradley and Clint Dempsey having a contest to see who can look more depressed during a U.S. game.

A typical look from Deuce (much better nickname than Gooch) during a game

Hmmmm.....

 

Reward video

Halftime-Change We Can Believe In

Wow, the difference between the first half and the second half in the U.S.-Turkey game was so pronounced that it actually affected me physically. 1st half, I sat on the couch, pretty relaxed except for the expitives I threw out right around the time the wide open Arda Turan streaked into the box (Spector trying desperately to get back) and slammed the ball past Howard. Anyway, my body language was pretty laid back, and my g/f actually fell asleep at one point.

Second half, I was actually pacing the floor, only returning to my seat occasionally, and my g/f, I will say proudly, not only stayed awake but actually contributed a few comments on the game. Her assessments consisted of “Oh, wow he looks like a hyena” (about Clint Dempsey after he scored), “his hair’s blonde on top and more of a brown on the bottom” (about Stuart Holden when he subbed in), and “you’re in my way, I can’t see them all celebrating, it’s my favorite part when they’re happy” (after the whistle blew to end the game).

Well, you can’t expect  too much, but like I said, definitely awake for the whole second half.

The point of all this is just to further illustrate how much of a difference there was between the first 45 minutes, when the U.S. team’s touch, marking, communication, and even body language all looked pretty dismal, and the last 45 minutes when the entire flow of the game changed for the Yanks. So, obviously, the key to assessing this game is to try to figure out what the heck changed between the first and second halves. There’s plenty to talk about, but the difficulty is figuring out which of those changes really mattered. Let’s handle this Encyclopedia Brown style and examine our clues section by section. I’m going to look at the differences in the defense, midfield, and up top between the two halves, knowing, of course, that’s impossible to look at each in complete (or even  relative isolation) due to changing formations and the nature of the game in general.

Defense

Ok, so the U.S. started the game with a slightly surprising backline of Spector-Demerit-Goodson-Bocanegra. The surprising part, of course, being Onyewu’s exclusion. I did think, as I pointed out in my last post, that if a center back were out b/c of injury (I was actually thinking about Demerit at the time) Bradley would probably start Goodson in the center and keep Bocanegra out on the left. The U.S. defense certainly lookd suspect in the first half, as Turkey seemed to move the ball throughout the Americans’ side of the field with relative ease, and at times the Turks just made the U.S. look slow and amateurish. I have to give a lot of props to Turkey for bringing their A-game today, and their attack was extremely fluid. The U.S. definitely had difficulty maintaining their marks, with all of the Turkish players switching positions constantly and quickly. As I’ll talk about in a minute, I actually think the midfield is more to blame for the defensive problems in the first half than the backline, but they had definite issues as well.

The Shin Guardian tweeted at one point in the first half that Goodson, not the veteran Demerit, was communicating along the backline, and I have to wonder if communication was a problem. With national teams that don’t have a settled, healthy backline for a long period of time (like a couple of years) the communication is always going to be a little bit difficult due to the infrequency with which they get to play together. Adding another part like Goodson into the mix (plus there’s been a lot of injuries anyway over the last couple of years) can cause some issues.

However, I don’t want to focus too much on the communication, because I thought that the main problem that plagued the U.S. backline was pretty much the same problem we’ve had for at least the last five years. Simply put, we struggle with speedy players, because we have a lot of guys that aren’t extremely good one-on-one defenders in space. Bocanegra, Demerit, and Spector all do a decent job of corraling their marks around the outside of the field, but Demerit and Bocanegra have both struggled at with one-on-one defense in the middle of the field. Obviously, they can only do so much with their own limited speed, but the U.S. backline (and often the midfield) is also infamous for giving guys with the ball way to much space to exploit. The U.S., to some extent, is always susceptible in the middle of the field, which is why our play from the center mids is so crucial. The U.S. defense is (or at least should be) centered on the idea of funneling everything along the outsides. Now, I know that every team to some extent tries to do this, but the players on the U.S. backline make it even more crucial. That’s why I’m not quite as worried about the English speed on the wings (like Walcott and Lennon) as some others seem to be. I know England also has arguably the best pure striker in the world at their disposal, but I’m hoping they’ll decide to try to exploit those wings and play a lot of crosses in. The U.S. central defense, with Onyewu’s height and Demerit’s ball hawking, is designed to win the aerial battle in the box, and they usually do. That’s why the header over Onyewu the other night was so worrisome. Simply put, the U.S. defense is not extremely athletic, and I have more faith in Bocanegra and Spector/Cherundolo defending on the wings and Onyewu and Demerit winning headers than I do in Onyewu and Demerit (or whoever else might be in the center) trying to deal with players running at them.

That brings us to the main lineup issue that the U.S. faces for next weekend’s match against Australia. Does Jonathan Spector still deserve to start for the U.S.? I don’t want to exaggerate Spector’s mistakes in the first half. The first goal wasn’t, of course, entirely his fault, since every team past junior high knows somebody has to drop off and fill in for an outside back making a run. Nobody on the U.S. did that. Of course, I think Spector also has to realize that if he’s going to make that run, he can’t turn the ball over at the the top of the 18 and basically jump-start a Turkish attack. He has to know to get rid of that ball or just fire a shot. Spector also misjudged a header at one point that almost resulted in a goal and just didn’t look good overall. Everything looked better in the second half, so it’s easy to sit here and say that Cherundolo played better, but I’m not sure there was that much of a discrepancy in their play. There was some discrepancy, though, and I don’t have any problems in saying that Cherundolo looked better positioned and more comforable than Spector ever did.

Could Dolo be back in the starting lineup next week?

Midfield

This one’s tough to assess, because of the myriad changes made throughout the game. Even before the substitutions, the U.S. midfield was moving around a lot, with Donovan shifting sides and Dempsey trying to find pockets and gaps. Donovan took a while to find the game, which isn’t that unusual for him. He always seems to move around a lot for the U.S. and often takes a while to find a place where he can make an impact. I think the verdict is still out on Feilhaber. I didn’t see a lot that I liked out of him in the first half, but I also didn’t see that much that was bad. He was caught out of position defensively a couple of times and definitely contributed to some of the Turkish breakaways, but he wasn’t awful. Unfortunately for him, I think there are a couple of guys at just about every position he would play that deserve more minutes than him.

To me, the most important change by far in the midfield was the Torres-Clark swap. Clark simply disappeared in the first half. Somehow, the Clark-Bradley midfield tandem managed to be ineffectie offensively while also struggling mightily defensively. Like I said earlier this week, I just think Clark and Bradley’s playing styles are too similar for my liking. If I were Bradley (and this is even better since Micahel is his actual son), I would think of Clark like that kid at school that you just don’t want your son hanging out with. You know, the one that changes him from a disciplined, nice, and well-behaved kid into a whiny, ADHD lunatic? Some people just bring out the worst in each other, and that’s how I feel about Clark and Bradley. I know they paired together with some success last summer, but I think they emphasize each other’s weaknesses, and there’s no doubt that Bradley plays far short of his potential when paired with Clark (or, most likely, with Edu). They didn’t appear to communicate well defensively, often marking the same guy, and I even saw Bradley drifting into space uncharacteristicly and leaving a man unmarked. I’m not sure whether Bradley lacks confidence in Clark or they just tend to overlap each other when playing, but I simply don’t like what I see when they’re together.

Torres, on the other hand, is a much better compliment. He does exactly what a midfield partner of Bradley needs to do. He’s very tidy on the ball, plays intelligently, and, even better, he pairs well with Bradley defensively. Michael doesn’t need another defensive mifielder that tends to play deep, in the mold of Clark. He just needs a guy that plays smart defense, has the speed to stay with his guy, and can be trusted to extricate the ball from a tight situation. Bradley does much better as a deeper midfielder marking the runners cutting into the middle and cleaning up in loose, bouncing balls in front of the box. Unfortunately, Clark does that as well sometimes, and therefore, nobody was stepping hard to the ball as soon as the Turks got near midfield. In the second half, if the U.S. turned the ball over, they closed down on the Turkish attack much higher up the pitch.

Let’s go ahead and touch on Clint Dempsey’s play, so I can concentrate on Findley and Altidore when I get to the forwards section. I’ve been a huge advocate of the Dempsey-Altidore pairing over the last couple months, and I’ll  admit that Dempsey didn’t look great in the 1st half. Before everyone jumps back on the Dempsey-at-outside-mid bandwagon, I just want to point out that Dempsey looked pretty poor for a large part of the 2nd half as well. I’m not saying that Dempsey played terribly until his goal, but he definitely looked a bit off the pace. He had trouble winning headers and 50/50 balls throughout, and he just looked slightly out of position a lot of the time. The Dempsey Disappearing Act is one of the great mysteries of the recent national team, but I’m not sure if anyone, including his teammates and Bradley included, have any idea what exactly causes Dempsey to slip in and out of games like he does. I’m just saying it’s not entirely tied to his position. I’ll admit that putting Dempsey up top didn’t jump-start him like I thought it would, but just realize that if he had put away Altidore’s square pass at the end of the second half, his two halves would’ve been essentially identical: largely invisible with one quality moment.

The always-mercurial Clint Dempsey

Forwards

Jozy (which, incidently, is the tentative name for the bulldog my g/f and I plan to get after college) had a pretty typical Jozy game. He has a little bit of Dempsey syndrome in that he fades in and out a bit, but, unlike a lot of people, I don’t see the questionable work ethic that much. Honestly, there aren’t a lot of times where I’m looking at the attack, going “Where the hell is Jozy…make that run!” When the U.S. has the ball, he’s moving, and his defensive work rate isn’t bad at all. He has a nice instinct for when to close in, and when he smells blood, he can trap a defender with the ball or poke it away even when you don’t think he has a chance at it. I saw him do so at least twice today. Obviously, he’s still developing, and I think it’s important to remember that the most of the other guys on this team that we call “young” (Holden, Feilhaber, Torres, Bradley, even Bedoya and Davies if they’d made it) are all 2-5 years older than Altidore. He’s twenty years old, and he wears his heart on his sleeve. The facial expressions and body language that we see from Jozy is mainly what leads some fans to question his work ethic or attitude, but I think he’s just an emotional player. That emotion and joy, by the way, is something the U.S. team has lacked significantly, and I’m not entirely sure that Bradley understands how to harness Altidore in a good way. That’s part of the reason I think Bradley’s decision not to bring Davies was a double-blow, it deprived the team of its best forward and kept the team from having the most inspirational storyline of the tournament. My favorite sports-writer Bill Simmons talks all the time about how effective the “nobody believed in us” attitude can be in sports, but that belief can also be broken down further. There’s the “nobody believed in us because they thought we weren’t good enough,” attitude that comes up in just about every American playoff series and which the U.S. national team always play with outside of COMCACAF, and then there’s the “nobody believed in me, because they didn’t think I could come back from this injury.” This one has proven extremely potent as well, and the U.S. would’ve had both “nobody believed in us” inspirations in June if Charlie Davies was there. Oh well.

Jozy the Player

 

Admit it, it’s a great name for a dog…as long as he scores during the World Cup

As for Findley, he continues to befuddle me. I fully admit that I was shocked by his inclusion, mostly because he didn’t even make an appearance on Tuesday. Apparently, he’s the second-string true striker on this team after Jozy, and he did look better today than he has in some past matches. Everyone after the game, including Clint Dempsey in his post-game interview, was talking about how Findley helped stretch the field when he came into the game. There’s no doubt that the Turks did play a little deeper, and he played a nice ball to Donovan on the first goal. He certainly made some mistakes, perhaps getting a little too caught up in trying to utilize his speed. There were at least two occasions where he could’ve played an early ball but instead kept his head down and tried to beat his guy around the endline. I’m still not 100% convinced that Findley can be a difference maker in the World Cup, but I’ll admit that I give him a better chance today than I did yesterday. The verdict is still out on Findley, but if he gets the start next Saturday, I won’t be nearly as angry as I would have if he’d started today. I do think he has a better chance of having an impact if he comes in as a halftime or (more likely) a 60th or 70th minute sub.

Of course, overriding all of this, we have to talk about the U.S. team’s fitness. They’re always a very in-shape team, and anyone following the camp last week heard all kinds of reports about the running hell that the players were being put through. Yes, the substitutions and tactical changes by the U.S. made a big difference. Heck, maybe Bob Bradley gives great half-time speeches.

His style, by the way could be characterized as the exact opposite of Stan van Gundy’s motivational techniques, and the Magic stopped listening to him about 5 months ago.  Maybe they just listened to music (hopefully KE$ha) and did sthe tanky leg (which John Harkes, by the way, referred to as the “crazy leg” during Dempsey’s goal celebration).

The simple truth, though, is that the U.S. team outlasted the Turkish team, who expended a ton of energy in the first half. After all, it wasn’t just the U.S. defense stopping all those cutting, streaking runs from the Turkish midfielders and forwards. That’s kind of one aspect of the American squad that we all tend to take advantage of, but it’s important to remember that one advantage the U.S. has is that they almost always finish games strong, and usually better than they started them. Trust me, as a Clemson fan I know you’d much rather have a slow-starting team than a slow-finishing team.

So, I’ll close this by giving you my top three factors that caused the U.S. to play better in the second half.

1. Jose Francisco Torres’ insertion (both for his play and the effect on Michael Bradley)

2. Robbie Findley’s insertion (which, most significantly, seemed to free up Donovan a lot)

3. The U.S. team’s overall fitness

I’ll be back next week for some questions for the game next Saturday and some more thoughts on some of the other guys (Beasley, Holden, Onyewu) that I didn’t get to talk about today.

Reward video

Looking Forward: Questions for Saturday’s Game

So I spent (some would say wasted) a couple of hours last night pouring out 2,000 words about the game and what I thought it meant for the final roster decisions. The reason some would say I wasted my time is because Bob Bradley came out with his final roster today, and regardless of what may or may not have led to his decision, it’s time to move forward with the roster we have. (Just in case you haven’t seen it, here’s the roster) With that being said, I’ll try to direct my words primarily at what the decisions mean for the national team’s immediate future, rather than what it says about last night, last week’s camp, and Bob Bradley’s thinking last night. I repeat, I will try.

One quick note on the most interesting aspect of today’s 23 man roster. I’m talking, of course, about Findley’s inclusion and Ching’s exclusion. I guess Bob Bradley got tired of people (like me, just look at his picture in my post last night) who complained that he was too predictable, boring, and conservative, because I don’t think many people can claim they aren’t surprised at all by the selections today. I’ve always characterized Bradley as being a very loyal coach who would stick with his guys for as long as possible (how else to explain Eddie Johnson’s continuing presence?), but he was that exact opposite of loyal in leaving Ching off the roster. I don’t mean to suggest that Bradley owed anything to Ching. I’m just saying he surprised me. Apart from the loyalty factor, I was also surprised, because, quite simply,  I thought Ching had played pretty well last night. Sorry, I’m already breaking my promise of looking forward.

 Just about the only place I saw a prediction for Findley to make the team was over at The Shin Guardian, where they repeated today that they thought Findley held a sizable lead over Buddle, Gomez, or Johnson for a forward position. Mainly, I’m surprised that, apparently, Findley impressed Bradley so much over the last couple of months and last week in camp, that Bradley didn’t even need to see Findley at all last night in order to include him. That would lead one to believe that, contrary to what everyone thought, Findley was actually number 2 on the forward depth chart headed into last night!  Of course, it’s not really that simple. In all honesty, it appears that Bradley was simply married to the idea of having a very speedy option up top, which he apparently doesn’t think Buddle has the wheels to provide. Maybe Bradley decided he would include Findley, barring a disastrous camp, the moment he decided he wouldn’t include Charlie Davies. I can understand the thinking that Altidore and Ching fill the same role somewhat, but I also don’t think that Findley is the kind of option that can succeed with the national team. Quite simply, in the World Cup against top class opponents and with questionable service from the U.S. midfield, I will be shocked if Findley is able to have any sort of impact in S. Africa.

Even I don't know why I'm on this team

I promised to look ahead, and on that note, here are my main questions going into Saturday’s game against Turkey. I can’t wait to see Bradley’s lineup and subs in that game, and this game (not last night’s) is the game when we’re all really allowed to get upset if we see some strategy that we don’t like.

1. How will the Holden/Dempsey/Buddle/ Gomez/Findley dynamic play out?

You have to think that Bradley’s decision to bring 3 forwards besides Altidore means one of them has a legitimate shot to start up top next to Jozy (gulp). If Dempsey gets the start, I think Bradley deserves some criticism for bringing all three guys at all. If Dempsey doesn’t get the start up top, I personally will be critical of Bradley’s lineup, because I just don’t think Dempsey needs to be at outside mid. So, really, Bradley can’t  win. I have two main reasons, which I will examine in detail later. There’s the obvious reason of liking Dempsey up top better than at outside mid with this particular U.S. national team. Secondly, I also think Holden should be a starter on this squad, and Dempsey up top makes room for Holden at outside mid. That’s why this question involves Holden, Dempsey, and 3 forwards besides Altidore.

Forward or Midfielder?

2. Are Demerit and Onyewu fit enough to start in the middle or could we actually see Bornstein in a World Cup game?

Take a moment to listen to this (and while you’re there listen to this to cheer yourself up), and then calmly resist the urge to cause yourself bodily harm while we consider Bornstein and the other defenders. The verdict on Gooch (I think I’m still the only person slightly uncomfortable with that nickname) is still out after last night. I tend to come down on the side of thinking that he’s physically okay and is just struggling mentally. Bob Bradley is a huge fitness guru kind of coach, and if there’s one thing he’s shown that he’s not willing to deal with, it’s keeping a guy who isn’t 100% (see Charlie Davies and Brian Ching). I know there were reports that Onyewu was limping during the camp last week, but I still think his problems are more mental. He’s still getting used to running and jumping at full speed and ability. The latter of those two was on full display at last night’s game, when he seemed unwilling to fully commit to leaping for the ball on the Czech’s opening goal. It’s  important to note that it was a very similar play to the one where he first got injured. Anyway, I find it hard to believe we won’t see him starting in the center on Saturday. The question is who will be starting  next to him. If Demerit is at all able to play, I think it’s him. There’s even more myster surrounding Demerit’s eye injury than Onyewu’s. There’s really no point in speculating, because we’ll know on Saturday. Just know that if Demerit is hurt and unable to go, there’s a door open on the back line.

Jonathan Bornstein strikes fear into the hearts of U.S. fans everywhere

But wait, don’t start lacing up your boots yet Jonny boy. I actually think Clarence Goodson is more likely to benefit from Demerit’s injury than Bornstein. Bob singled out Goodson for praise after last night’s game, and Bradley has shown in the last few weeks that he’s not afraid to give a guy a chance if he’s in form (Gomez, Buddle). I think the second most likely back line combo is Spector on right, Onyewu and Goodson in the middle, and Bocanegra on the left. I’m tempted to say I actually think Spector would start at left (with Dolo on the right) before Bornstein would get the start, but you have to think that if Bradley was thinking that way, Bornstein would not have gotten all the minutes that he has over the last few months. All I’m saying is, Pearce’s exclusion and a Demerit injury don’t necessarily pave the way for Bornstein to start. I also just want to throw in the quick note that I don’t think Bornstein is nearly as bad as a lot U.S. fans think. I’ll admit that he’s looked poor at times, but for some reason I still have some belief in him. I think that his problems are more about confidence and nervousness than ability. Bradley obviously sees some good things out of him in camp, and I think the continued faith in him might pay off in the long run.

3. Who starts in the middle and what exactly are they capable of?

Bradley’s a lock to start, and for the last few weeks it appeared that Edu or Clark were extremely likely to start alongside him. However, Edu and Clark are both serious question marks in terms of what exactly their role will be and what they’ll do alongside Bradley. The reason for this is that all three of these players have shown themselves to suffer some serious deficiencies. Despite Bradley’s reputation as a box to box defensive minded midfielder, who is also an opportunistic goal scorer, I don’t think he’s ready yet to step into that holding midfielder role. I like Bradley, but he has still shown himself extremely prone to  inopportune turnovers in the center of the field, and that’s just not acceptable from a holding midfielder. His role should be to track back, do the  dirty work in the middle, and play smart balls out of the middle to start the U.S. attack. Unfortunately, he’s only shown himself able to accomplish the first two.

I was hoping to see more out of Edu last night. I’m not particularly interested in his time at center back, but I still wasn’t very impressed with the work he put in in the center of the midfield. He, like Bradley, is also a defensive mid. type player, and I was hoping his time at Rangers would have given him the experience to show more composure on the ball. However, he still showed himself to have the same deficiency as Bradley.

I’ve never been a Ricardo Clark and, quite frankly, I really have no idea what to expect from him. He’s one of the more unpredictable U.S. players anyway, and it’s unclear how his time with Frankfurt affected his game. He did, however, impress the Bundesliga club enought to convince them to pick up his 3 year option despite only appearing in a few games for them. Perhaps Clark can turn into the offensive threat that the U.S. needs in the middle, while still maintaining some of his defensive duties. If Clark shows some more offensive potential and more tidiness with his distribution, then Bradley doesn’t feel as much pressure to jumpstart the U.S. attack, and I think Michael’s game would then improve.

Unfortunately, that’s a big if, and it’ll go a long way towards deciding how the U.S. will play against South Africa. It’s interesting that the U.S. really has three defensive-minded midfielders fighting for the two center-mid starting spots. Then, they have two back-ups who are much more offensive minded in Torres and Feilhaber. I don’t want to speculate on this too much before Saturday’s game, but poor showings from Clark and Edu in practice and in the games could actually convince Bradley to give Torres or Feilhaber (I think Torres more likely) the start. Torres looked very confident and composed on the ball in last night’s game, which is exactly what the U.S. has been lacking in the center of the field.

Bradley: not as solid as some think

 I could definitely come up with some more questions, but these are the most pressing. Plus, let’s be honest. Come Saturday, we’ll have a lot of them answered, and we’ll have a whole bunch of others ones to ask.

Reward video

Reaction to U.S.A.-Czech Republic and Prediction for 23 Man Roster

It might seem like this is a little hasty considering the game literally ended less than 10 minutes ago. However, I know that the longer I wait, the more I’ll read and hear other takes on the game, and my opinions will start to ebb a little and melt into what I’m hearing. Not that I’m right and everyone else is wrong, but I wanted to go ahead and put down my imeediate reaction to the game tonight. Also, Bob Bradley is making his decisions tonight and announcing the 23 man roster tomorrow, so why can’t I? If Robo-Bob can formulate opinions quickly, anybody can.

Bradley right after the U.S. scored...or maybe it was right after the Czechs scored...or maybe it's right after the birth of his first child...impossible to tell

Okay, I promised myself that I wouldn’t get too upset or disappointed no matter what the outcome was of tonight’s game, and I think I’ve mostly kept my promise. The U.S. team was typically frustrating, but I refuse to overreact to a game in which potentially 9 of the 11 starters that will take the field on against England didn’t see the field. Hopefully, we all know that this game was almost solely about evaluating talent and making decisions by tomorrow morning. With that in mind, simply who Bob Bradley chose to play and how much he chose to play them could tell us a lot, so I’m going to divide the team into several groups.

First, there were the guys that I mentioned above who are locks to start or at least solid locks to make the team. This includes Howard, Donovan, Bocanegra, Demerit, Spector, Dempsey, Bradley, Clark, and Altidore. Really, the only intriguing member of this group is Clark, who is by all accounts assured of a spot in S. Africa. His not appearing tonight could actually be a good thing for him, if Bradley has him favored to start alongside M. Bradley and felt no need to trot him out. If, as we’ve been led to believe, Edu and Clark are in a dead heat to break into the starting lineup, Clark’s omission tonight while Edu played 90 minutes definitely tells us something. Bradley obviously chose to leave Edu in the game to give him a try at center back, but he also chose to start him at center-mid. Not entirely sure what this means for either Edu or Clark.

Okay, the second group of guys are the dudes that are good bets to make it S. Africa but still played tonight for various reasons. I’m thinking Onyewu, Holden, Edu, Ching, Bornstein, Guzan (obviously), Cherundolo, Feilhaber and Goodson. Goodson is obviously the fringiest (I just made that up, like it?) player in this group, but I definitely think he’s headed to S. Africa. He played 90 minutes all right, and Bob Bradley stated after the game that Goodson was the player that impressed him the most. I already talked about Edu, and besides him, Onyewu and Holden are the only other two guys that played tonight that are likely starters in S. Africa (Ching also has an outside shot). Obviously, Onyewu got the run out since he’s recovering from a serious knee injury and needs every second  of game time he can get. Holden is in that same boat a little bit. He made one appearance for Bolton at the end of the season, and his injury wasn’t as serious, but he still needs the game time just like Onyewu. The interesting part is that you would’ve thought Ricardo Clark would also be in that category. He made three starts for Frankfurt to close our their season, but he also missed significant time with a calf injury and you would think he would need some game time as well. I don’t want to read entirely too much into Clark’s absence, but I do think it’s worth noting. Some people might think Feilhaber is more on the fringe than I do, but I simply can’t believe his stock could have dropped so far as to not even warrant his seeing the field. Bradley simply had a limited amount of subs and didn’t feel that he needed to see Clark or Feilhaber on the field tonight. The interesting thing with Clark is that Bradley chose to play Edu, his competitor for the center-mid spot, 90 minutes. I have more to say about Onyewu, but I want to constrain myself to questions about the roster for now, so I’ll leave that for later. For that same reason, I also don’t have much to say about Bornstein, who, despite his many detractors, is still almost assuredly headed to the World Cup.

All right, this is where things get interesting. These are the players who are definitely on the bubble. Pretty much everyone in this group got significant playing time tonight, for the simple reason that if a guy was in this position, he had to play. This was Bradley’s only chance to see some of these guys before he sent them on their way so if there was any chance a guy was (or conversely, wasn’t) going to be on the plane down South, he played tonight. These players are Buddle, Gomez, Johnson, Rogers, Kljestan, Bedoya, and Pearce. Lots to talke about here, so I’m going to give a little attention to every one of them. 

Buddle and Johnson both got the start and went until halftime. I wasn’t super impressed with either of them, and I’m finding it hard to really get too excited about either of them. I thought they each did a good job holding up the ball, and their first touches were pretty good. Unfortunately, I still haven’t seen either of them put themselves in positions to really use their speed, which is really the only reason they’re even being considered. If Bradley is set on having a speedy option up top, I think one of them can make it (I’m leaning towards Buddle, but it’s really a toss up), but if he’s content to move Donovan or someone else up there at times, I could actually see neither of them making it in order to make room for someone else in the crowded midfield. 

Can either of these guys make the final roster?

Gomez got a good goal, but I don’t want to overreact with him either. I didn’t see a whole lot from him, and there were moments where I would have liked to see a little more creativity (like the breakaway with Ching). However, I think he’s done enough at this point to make the squad. He’s shown more of an ability to track back for the ball than Johnson or Buddle and also appears a little better technically.

I think Rogers and Kljestan were in the similar positions of coming into tonight on the outside looking in. The fact that they got into the game shows they have a chance of making the squad, but I think they would have had to really impress Bradley in order to do so. I don’t think either of them really did so, and therefore, I think they’re both still out.

It might seem strange for me to include Pearce in this group, but you have to think his stock dropped more tonight than any other player’s. He was, in my opinion, the biggest culprit in allowing the winning goal-getting caught between helping out or hanging back and then coming in with a late slide that allowed Fenin to break free and send the cross in. The U.S. defense looked suspect on several different occassions tonight, but I thought Pearce looked the worst consistently, and his distribution is also rather suspect. In my opinion he pushed himself down the list, and at this point the back line is in such flux it’s hard to pinpoint exactly who Bradley has penciled in for the backup spots. 

Pearce: Questionable Facial Hair and Questionable Play

 The last two guys in this group, and perhaps the most important U.S. chances in S. Africa, are DaMarcus Beasley and Alejandro Bedoya. The impression among outsiders and the media during training camp has been that these two guys are battling for one of the final roster spots. I’ve been an outspoken fan of Bedoya’s for a while, and I think he’s one of the few wild cards (in a positive way) for the U.S. team. I think Bedoya, Holden, and Torres might be the only guys that I really think are capable of surprising U.S. fans in an awesome way during the World Cup. He’s sort of like Ke$ha in that regard. I’ve just thought all along that Bedoya brought a bit of something that Beasley didn’t, and I also wasn’t ready to forget the last four terrible years from Beasley after one good showing against the Dutch. That being said, I’ve heard positive things about Beasley throughout training camp, and Clint Dempsey said that Beasley was the guy that had impressed him the most so far. I think Beasley is definitely one of Bob Bradley’s “guys,” and I have to admit he did look a bit sharper tonight. On the other hand, Bedoya cam in around the 60th minute, and never really got involved in the game. However, I saw a lot of hustle from Bedoya and nothing to make me lessen my opinion of him. I think his lack of involvement had more to do with the team’s play as a whole during that period, which I think stemmed a lot from having Kljestan and Rogers in the midfield with him. I’m also not sure how I liked Holden in the center. Anyway, these two are the toughest for me to call right now. I’d have to give a slight edge to Beasley in terms of his chances of making the team, although I’d personally still like to see Bedoya.

The last group is reserved for the poor guys that essentially have zero chance of making the roster. I’m looking at you Robbie Findleyand Chad Marshall. Sorry, but if you already had a slim chance of making the team and didn’t even make it on the field tonight, your prospects aren’t looking good.

Okay, so after all that I’m going to make this really simple and just name the 23 man roster that I expect to see tomorrow. Following the roster, I’ll give my reasons.

Keepers: Howard, Guzan, Hahnemann

Defenders: Onyewu, Bocanegra, Demerit, Spector, Bornstein, Goodson, Cherundolo, 

Midfielders: Donovan, Holden, Dempsey, Feilhaber, Bradley, Edu, Clark, Torres, Beasley, Bedoya

Forwards: Altidore, Ching, Gomez

I think Bradley is faced with a pretty interesting conundrum here.  He’s in a position where he can bring pretty much every player that U.S. fans want to see and who have a real chance of making an impact. I don’t think anybody’s crying when they wake up tomorrow and find out they’re not going to see Marshall, Findley, Kljestan, Rogers, Johnson, and Buddle. However, you’re then faced with the issue of not having any serious speedy option up top. I don’t think anybody honestly expects Buddle or Johnson (especially Johnson) to do anything against top class opponents at the World Cup, and the fact that your two best options at forward after Altidore are actually listed as midfielders also allows you to leave off an extra forward. Most people don’t expect Ching or Gomez to start anyway, so you still have two backups.

Therefore, that last roster spot really comes down to Beasley, Bedoya, Torres, and Pearce. The defense is up for debate, but anybody that has played soccer for any length of time knows that your defensive unit is the one that you tinker with the least. You want to find some guys, get them serious minutes together, and stick with them, because communication is so key. One miscue can cost you the game. Therfore, I find it hard to believe that Bradley would include Pearce at the expense of another midfield option, considering he might be moving one or both of his best midfielders to forward at various times. Let’s just be honest, if Pearce sees the field, someone has already gotten seriously injured or red carded in an earlier game. The back line will feature some combination of Demerit, Onyewu, Spector, Cherundolo, and Bocanegra. After that, the back-up left back is still Jonathan Bornstein in my opinion, and I don’t think Pearce needs to make the trip.

If there are differences between my roster above and Bradley’s released tomorrow, I would expect it to be either Pearce or Buddle in and Bedoya out.

Reward Video

Green-On-Green Violence Part 2

So, having outlined the conflict, I want now to further explore the psyche of humans when it comes to environmental issues in general and what this means for the future. Earlier, I imagined two groups: those who think we just need to stop what we’re doing and change our whole mode of living in order to lessen our impact on the environment and those who think we just need to come up with better, more efficient technology and techniques for doing what we already do in our everyday lives. So now, the question is which of these thought processes is more likely to prevail? It seems sensible that if, as I claimed above, the former way of thinking is more prevalent among the older demographic and the latter more prevalent among the youth, then the latter is more likely to win out in the end. I do, in fact think this to be true, but I would also think it to be true if, for some reason, the positions were reversed. This is because, as I alluded to above, the former costs us a lot more in our everyday lives. A minimalist approach relies on actions that any regular person can take, if they’re willing to make the sacrifices. Grow your own produce, stop relying on so much stuff, heck, buy a patch of land and become a self-sufficient farmer.

Good, clean, hard work

However, a new-age environmental approach that focuses on technology as the answer doesn’t require the same types of sacrifices. In fact, it encourages you to be trendy in some ways. Buy a hybrid, buy more efficient utilities, buy organic produce at Whole Foods. The onus isn’t on us, the everyday person, to do anything other than embrace the new, more efficient stuff that is being provided to us. Instead, the onus is on scientists, engineers, and corporations to provide us with the technology and products so we can make these decisions. This works out nicely for businesses and us. We’ve shown that, given the choice between shelling out a little more money or spending large chunks of our time to fundamentally change our habits, we’ll gladly choose to spend a little more. Of course, there are still many, perhaps the majority, who choose to do neither, but for the purposes of this post, I’m mainly concentrating on those that care about the environment to some extent, one way or another.

Good, clean, efficient energy?

The second reason why I think the new age, technologically reliant mode of thinking will prevail is because it always has.

Let me explain. Assuming a minimalist, back to nature approach, expects a massive, popularly supported move back to a traditional way of living. It assumes a disavowal of many recent innovations and technologies. This sort of backwards movement is something that humans have not yet shown ourselves capable of. I don’t use the term backwards in a negative sense or to disparage this idea. I just mean that it would be backwards in the sense that it would be willingly giving up new techniques and technology in order to adopt a way of life that, quite frankly, has been done before. It assumes that technology, even if it’s “green,” is contrary to what is natural and best for the Earth.

Unfortunately for the proponents of this, it will be unprecedented if humans show themselves capable of abstaining from technology that makes their lives more convenient, and this thinking also implies that the ultimate goal of the environmental movement is to do what’s best for the Earth. However, the appeal of global warming is that it makes environmentalism necessary for human interests. We care about the Earth’s best interest when it coincides with our own best interest. I don’t want to be the pessimist who claims that humans are incapable of compassion for the Earth and its inhabitants. I’m just pointing out that history has shown that sustained long-term interest in the wellbeing of the planet has only occurred when it has either been convenient or, more recently, absolutely necessary for our own wellbeing.

Therefore, if we eventually reach a point where it is shown without a doubt that human innovation, technology, and all the rest of our tinkering is incompatible with a healthy Earth that can support human life, then the minimalist approach might catch on. Until that happens, though, we’re going to continue to wanna have our cake and eat it too.

Yeah, you want that cake

 

Reward video.

Green-on-Green Violence

This post is inspired by several different factors. First, my dad and I have been in an ongoing argument during the last few weeks about the state of environmentalism today. The debate boils down to my dad, a former hippie who came of age amid the huge environmental push of the sixties and seventies, claiming that we haven’t really made any progress in helping the planet and are actually doing worse than ever.

His philosophy is quite basic and is really centered on the modern desire for more. How, he asks, can we be getting greener when we are consuming more than ever, and there’s simply so much more of everything?

A second influence in this post was an article by Tim Dickinson in this month’s Outside magazine on the current battle between two segments of the environmental movement:

“On one side: environmentalists seeking to stave off a climate holocaust by fast-tracking renewable-power development. On the other: environmentalists determined to protect important habitat and sacred landscapes, no matter what.”

His article goes on to detail the potential of the Green movement, especially solar and wind power, as a major business, and the battle being fought by old-school conservationists against the proliferation of more stuff on wildlife reserves and open land, even if that stuff happens to be wind turbines and solar panels.

Finally, I read a blog post on the Charleston City Paper website talking about the state rebates available to those who purchase Energy Star appliances, essentially rewarding people for buying more efficient and less wasteful products. However, the author ends the article by wondering  “Hmm. Why is it that in order to “go green” you have to buy a lot of shit? You know, it’d make sense if we just used up all the stuff we’ve already bought. Just saying.”

Ok, so from these three examples we can see the battle lines being drawn pretty clearly.

On the one hand, there are what I consider to be new-school environmentalists and those who have a strong trust in science and technology to provide the answers to the Earth’s problems. On the other, there are the old-school folks: guys who wonder how a bunch more new stuff could possibly help.

I summarize the latter viewpoint in this way: the best thing that humans can do is try to lessen their presence on Earth as much as possible through a minimalist approach. Don’t just go to Whole Foods and buy local produce, plant your own garden. These folks tend to have a very cynical viewpoint towards new environmental movements. My dad says that back in the 60s they all thought we’d be living in small huts, wearing homespun robes, eating homegrown fruit and vegetables, and mainly minding our own business. That may be an extremist point, but I think it captures the spirit of what a lot of old-school environmentalists think should be defining the Green movement.

Instead, the movement today seems to be defined by efficiency as opposed to minimalism. Let’s not stop doing what we’re doing and lose all of the great stuff that has made our lives easier and more convenient. Let’s just do it better.

The reason that I’m talking about all of this is because I think it signifies a basic conflict that we (humankind) are going to have to face at some point, unless of course we decide that we just don’t care about any of it and figure we’ll just treat the Earth like a rich guy hosting a house party (Ke$ha sings about this) and leave the place looking like this. However, as I’ll talk about below, that’s actually highly unlikely.

(Quick apology: I’m doing this thing where I go out of my way to mention, reference, or link to Ke$ha in every post. It’s sort of my own personal project after I created a Ke$ha radio station (don’t ask) on Pandora, and I discovered that it was the secret to music nirvana. I get Basshunter followed by Creedence Clearwater Revival followed by Sublime followed by T.I. followed by, well, you get the point. Anyway, I figured if Pandora could connect Ke$ha to all of these different artists, the least I could do was connect her to whatever I happen to be blogging about.)

So I’ve, perhaps unfairly, divided the modern Green movement into the techies and the minimalists. My point is that at some point mankind is going to have to decide which way it wants to go. See, I think environmentalism is more mainstream than ever before, because the people that really matter are being forced to go “green”, at least to some extent, by the pressure that’s mounted throughout the 20th and 21st century. It’s debatable whether everyday citizens are actually more environmentally conscious than they have been in the past. It certainly seems to me that I hear about organic produce, more efficient vehicles, more efficient appliances, and everything else that has become a part of the modern Green movement that ever before, but I’m only 20. It’s not really a fair assessment, since I can hardly even remember anything that happened before The Spice Girls were big.

Yeah, I saw this movie...

However, I maintain that environmentalism is more commercialized than ever before. As Dickinson states in his article, environmentalism is a big business these days, with major corporations involved. It’s also a big government business. Whatever people might claim about environmentalism being a fad, about businesses just using it to garner profit, about corruption being just as common among organic and Green corporations as it is among oil tycoons and wasteful factories, I would assert that all of this focus on the Earth is a very good thing indeed.

See, I argue that the commercialization and mainstreaming of environmentalism is due to global warming. I don’t believe that the appeal of global warming as a motivator in drafting people into the environmental movement can be overstated.

It has been a trend, since the concept that humans were doing real lasting damage to the surrounding ecosystems and environment became solidified over the last few centuries, that humans have alway

s been relatively willing to embrace cleaner and more eco-friendly modes of living right up until the moment it inconvenienced them or cost them money.  This is due to an overall lack of urgency. It’s so ridiculous to hear people claim that environmental regulation has done great damage to American businesses and the economy. The powers that be throughout the Western world have very rarely shown themselves willing to sacrifice anything at all for the sake of flora and fauna. I think that’s because, in the back of their minds, most people can’t really bring themselves to feel a do or die attitude about saving disappearing wildlife or even disappearing rainforests. Ultimately, they figure, life will go on, whatever doomsday predictions they might hear from conservationists.

Global warming is different, though. This isn’t about humans edging out our neighbors. This is about us destroying the whole neighborhood, with us in it. It’s hard not to feel some urgency about this, and it’s important to note that global warming is also a relatively modern phenomenon. Although the term was used as early as the late 19th century, global warming, as we know it today, has definitely developed recently. The hole in the ozone layer, which is a separate phenomenon but still related, was only discovered 25 years ago. Global warming, if you give any credence to it, demands action because of its fatalistic nature. Therefor

e, I find it hard to believe that the mainstreaming of environmentalism hasn’t been a direct result of the appeal of global warming.

The Neighborhood

Global warming is an important issue to my overall point, because I think it has become a sort of touchstone for the chasm in environmental thinking. Those that believe in global warming tend to place that as the highest priority on their list on environmental concerns, especially if they haven’t been involved with conservation and naturalist movements for years prior. That’s the case for many young people, who have come of age and become aware of these issues in a time when global warming, harmful emissions, oil dependency, clean energy, etc. are the issues for those trying to “go green.” In contrast, old-school naturalists, who tend to actually be older, have been involved with many environmental movements over the years and are not fond of forsaking those causes in favor of concentrating on global warming. I think that, in part, is what has driven the hatred towards global warming theory, completely apart from the polarization caused by its politicization. I am not suggesting that these other causes must be abandoned to address global warming. I’m only saying that environmental issues conflict at times, and new-schoolers put issues of global warming at the forefront. Therefore, if, as in Dickinson’s article, wind turbines and solar panels interfere with animal migration routes, younger activists would be in favor of the panels and turbines for the reason I outlined above.

End of Part 1-Check back for Part 2 tomorrow when I talk about  what this means for the human mindset about environmentalism and the future of environmental action

Reward video

Summer 2010

I’m tired of heavy thinking, and I need something a little more lighthearted (and easier to write), so I’m debuting my 1st “goals for the season” edition of my blog.

Ah, summer! This is the time of year when I feel the most conflicted. On the one hand the relief of school getting out, an emotion that evolves but still makes me feel like I’m 9 years old when the last exam’s over and an overwhelming sense of freedom engulfs me. On the other hand, nowadays, as a junior in college pursuing a degree that doesn’t exactly guarantee a postgrad job (of course this is promising…oh wait that was five years ago), there’s also an overwhelming feeling of…well panic might be a bit strong, but urgency or pressure is definitely applicable. I’m variously puzzling over jobs, grad school, internships, all of the different aspects of resume-building, not to mention all of the traditional things college students are supposed to do-like make good grades and be involved.

In other words with freedom and the feeling of finally having some time comes the responsibility of filling that free time with something useful and worthwhile. Thus, the list:  in honor of these worries, I’ve decided to  take an optimistic approach and list the ten things that I hope to accomplish this summer to better myself for my future!

1. Get a job…quick. Unfortunately, the place I worked last summer has had a total overhaul in management, meaning my place there is no more guaranteed than anywhere else. Even summer jobs, which used to be relatively easy to find in a tourist market like Charleston, are hard to come by. I think it’s b/c all those laid off older ppl. are going back to their roots and taking the jobs they worked as teenagers to make ends meet. I’m just trying to get a job waiting tables and there’s a guy with an MBA ahead of me telling the manager how his managerial experience at a design firm can help improve camaraderie between the servers and kitchen staff…jeez. Fortunately, I have a pretty strong resume myself between working as a fun park ride attendant, mall store sales rep., barber shop custodian, lifeguard, valet, and intramural referee…um, yeah!

2. Study for the GRE. Let’s face it, everybody, i mean everybody, is thinking about graduate school at this point. A year ago, I was 100% sure that I wasn’t going to grad school no matter what. I had been in school since I was 4 years old I figured, and why spend several thousand dollars more to sit in a classroom for another year or two? After all, was a Master’s really going to make that big of a difference in terms of whether I could get a job or the type of  job I might get? Now, that seems overly optimistic. At this point it’s not even  about whether grad. school can actually help me launch a career, it’s more the idea that going to grad. school can help stave off the overwhelming, and seemingly inevitable, sense of failure that accompanies my inability to get a meaningful post-grad job (you know the kind that you expect to get when you just spent four years of your life and anywhere from $50,000-$100,000 of your own, your parent’s, or someone else’s money getting a degree),the kinds of conversations with parents and extended family that you just don’t want to have, and falling into a trap of doing nothing and eventually beginning an affair with a much older woman before falling in love with her daughter (who smartly, decided to go to grad. school). So….um, I’m not really sure how to follow that up. I figure studying for, and taking, the GRE is worthwhile even if I’m not sure what my exact plans are next year.

3.  Learn to surf. Ok, I’ve been living in Charleston for about 12 years now, and, although my knowledge of waves, water, and beaches in general is relatively miniscule, I am aware that Charleston isn’t exactly Surf City. However,  that doesn’t change the fact that it is possible to surf here, a lot of people do it, and it’s reprehensible for any relatively young and active person to have not learned how to do it after 11 years unless they’re a) terrified of sharks and/or b) a crappy swimmer. Unfortunately, I actually fit both of these criteria. Plus, I also have this thing about cold water (by thing I mean I just don’t like it) that basically prevents me from getting in the ocean anytime before like June 1 and anytime after the end of August, so, yeah, in spite of my picture above, you’re probably thinking this is actually what I look like:

However, this summer I plan to overcome all of these obstacles (with the help of my studly, though, unfortunately for you ladies, currently taken friend). Perhaps I’ve romanticized the idea of surfing in my mind, but that’s my prerogative, because in my imagination it’s the secret to inner peace, transcendentalism, and a full, happy life. Not to  mention several of my childhood heroes did it.

4. Get clips and gain experience with my internship. I got pretty lucky and got an internship with the Charleston City Paper in Charleston this summer. It’s unpaid (see my above mention of finding a job), but I’m really excited for two main reasons. First of all, I really wanted to write for the  City Paper, as opposed to a bigger publication like the Post and Courier, because I knew I would get a lot of chances to write. That means clips (printed, or, nowadays, online, published articles by yours truly), which is pretty much all anyone wants to see if you’re trying to get a job  at a magazine or newspaper. Secondly, I don’t particularly like to think of myself as a reporter or a journalist, because to me that has all sorts of boring connotations. With the Charleston City Paper, I get to use my own voice and get a little creative with what I right, unlike writing I would do elsewhere that sounds like a robot (albeit one that knows AP style) wrote it. I’ve only been there for a few days, but I can already tell that the kind of writing I get to do with the City Paper is definitely the kind of stuff I could see myself doing later in life, if that’s the direction my career takes. Not to toot my own horn (but what’s a blog for ?), but if you wanna check the paper out, or see anything I’ve written, you can do so here.

5. Do a lot of cooking and hopefully experiment with some new stuff. I love to cook. While in school, I basically reached a point where my two hobbies that I managed to fit into my schedule were cooking and working out, which, as my g/f pointed out, neatly cancelled each other out. I like to think that my cooking isn’t too unhealthy, but that’s not really the point. The point is that when I have the time, the equipment, and, of course, the food, there’s not much I’d rather do than get in the kitchen for an hour or two and come up with something delicious. While at school, I sort of fell into a routine of cooking some of the same stuff, since I didn’t have the time (at home or the grocery store) to really cook many elaborate meals. I’m hoping to have a lot of fun this summer in the kitchen, to my dad’s dismay, and also take advantage of living at home to do a lot of grocery mooching.

I needed to redeem myself after the first picture.

Please excuse my narcissistic post.

Reward video

Illegal Immigration Number 2

So, what we can safely say is that we have a lot of immigrants coming every day, a lot of people already here (many of which are themselves immigrants, legal and illegal). There are two issues, how to stop people coming and what to do with the ones already here. The fence controversy targeted the former problem while the Arizona law targets the latter. I personally feel a lot more comfortable with most solutions to the former. I had no real problem with the fence on a fundamental level. I think more of the issue was how it would be paid for, via state or federal funds and cooperation between states as well as Mexican and American border control.

However, inherent in this issue is the basic inequality among different nations. The U.S., with very poor neighbors occupying the entire Western Hemisphere beneath us, is inevitably going to be dealing with this issue. That’s why, when protestors hold up signs that say immigration rights are human rights, they’re right, but not in the way they normally mean. It isn’t about the rights of immigrants after they get here and their ambiguous status as citizens. It’s about why they want to come here in the first place. That seems pretty obvious, but it isn’t the issue that normally gets talked about when illegal immigration is debated even though it’s really the fundamental one.

Americans, at some level, do always recognize this, because polls show that Americans, though always in favor of reducing immigration, are less sure about what to do with those here. Everyone recognizes that most illegal immigrants come here to escape desperate poverty, and we empathize with that. However, the bottom line is that it isn’t a formula for sustained success.

The bottom line: As long as we’re going to insist on dividing the world into the nations as we do, and as long as a small percentage of those nations have a very high percentage of the world’s wealth (due to their own good fortune with resources as well as what they’ve done with those resources), then the people from all the other countries are going to try to get into the rich ones.

Worldwide Wealth Distribution

Unfortunately, there’s a bit of a catch-22 here, since, obviously, wealthier countries, though able to support more people, definitely can’t support everyone. That’s especially true when illegal immigrants pay no income taxes. So, it seems like it’s a pretty simple choice to me: either declare amnesty for all of the illegal aliens currently here (again, since we’ve already done this once) or figure out a way to i.d. and deport all of the illegal immigrants currently here. The Arizona Immigration Reform is obviously an attempt at the latter of these two. There are some issues with removing the illegal aliens already here in terms of how we go about identifying them and what is to be done with their children who are often legal, U.S. citizens. There’s been a move among some conservatives to not award citizenship to children of illegal aliens, but I think there would have to be a constitutional amendment to really make this happen (thanks to the 14^th amendment), which seems unlikely to me.

The Arizona law addresses the problem of identifying illegal aliens, since it requires law enforcement to question people about their citizenship status if they have any reason to think they are illegal. The obvious criticism is that it basically gives police force a license to racially profile. Supporters claim that it simply gives law enforcement the power to enforce federal law. Ultimately, though, it places a lot of responsibility on local law enforcement, and there’s definitely room for ambiguity.

All of this is really pointless, though, if we don’t figure out some way to prevent illegal immigration. I have plenty of sympathy for illegal immigrants and the predicament from which they come and into which they place themselves here just to help their families. I hope I’ve shown that in what I’ve written thus far. However, having open borders are not a viable option, and if you’re going to have laws about citizenship, then you have to have border control. Obviously, we haven’t had the manpower thus far to accomplish the extremely difficult task of securing our borders. Any discussion about illegal immigration has to start there (if you’re not going to start with trying to tackle global poverty).

As far as the Arizona law goes, I’m in favor of identifying illegal immigrants, but I don’t think you should be able to question someone about their citizenship on a whim. Is it really that terrible to have someone ask you if you’re a U.S. citizen? No, after all, if you’re legal why would you care? Or so the argument goes. However, the bottom line is that it’s a basic right that’s being violated when a policeman can stop you and question you, because of the way you look, and whatever supporters of the Arizona law might say, I think that’s going to happen a lot. So, I’m in favor of the idea but against the means of accomplishing it.

In order to wrap up this rambling post, I’m going to finish with several bullet points that are really the essence of what I’ve been trying to get at.

• The illegal immigration debate is both very simple and unfortunately complex. It’s simple in that there’s only a couple of questions to really be considered, but complex in that there aren’t, in my opinion, very easy answers.

 

• Racism is not a primary issue in the question of illegal immigration. Americans have always been somewhat xenophobic and racist. I think it could be agreed that we used to be even more so. (Try passing a ban on all Asian immigrants, or, for a fair analogy, Middle Eastern immigrants, today and see how it fares). Anyway, Americans are more opportunistic than racist. In the 1800s, even among very xenophobic attitudes and calls for bans of foreigners, the corporate brass in America understood the uses of a huge, undemanding work force. The problem is that, nowadays, we have 300 million people and about 10% unemployment. The calls for immigration reform always get louder when the economy’s bad, because people care way more about money than race.

 

• Until we’re ready to pony up the millions of dollars that will be required to really secure our borders, the other solutions to illegal immigration are just shortsighted. Would Americans be willing to accept a tax increase if it meant a large, well-trained border control that created jobs and helped vacate other jobs for legal Americans? Hmmmm….

Reward Video

What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Illegal Immigration?

I’ve been following the recent issue of Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law with some interest. Illegal immigration, at least during the short time I’ve been following national politics to some extent (7 or 8 years), is one of those issues that sort of ebbs and flows depending on whether any major changes have occurred or, more importantly, if there’s something more interesting and exciting to talk about.
The last huge immigration controversy was the fence that was to be built along the border amid protests by Mexico’s government, and there was a lot of continuing complaint that the fence’s construction was proceeding very inefficiently. Honestly, most Americans haven’t given much serious thought to illegal immigration in the last few years amid the much more interesting topics of the presidential election, Obama’s first year and a new administration, and, most recently, health care reform.

In my opinion illegal immigration just isn’t that fun to talk about, because I think for most political moderates (and even many others) it isn’t an issue with which one can stake out a definite position with any particular relish. For this reason, the issues associated with illegal immigration are always getting conflated, and enraged debaters always end up fighting about something only marginally connected to practical solutions to the problem.
What we’re really talking about, after all, is overcrowding. (Get ready for a run-on sentence) America’s like an awesome rager that you stumble upon, and at first it’s only you and your friends (after you displace all the other people that used to go there) but word spreads and people just keep showing up. You kind of have a feeling that maybe you should try to limit who’s coming in or keep track of it, but you’re having an awesome time and, besides, all these new people party hard (party = work), and even if they are kind of different and maybe you’re a bit xenophobic (it’s like racism but gentler and diagnosed) they also don’t drink much of your beer (drink your beer = demand minimum wages) and eventually they really join the party and get assimilated and soon their friends and their friends’ friends are there also.

This was like America all the way through the 19th century. In fact, not only were we letting people join the party, but we were actively trying to get more ppl. to join. It’s true that there’s been a nativist sentiment  sentiment in America since immigrants first started coming in large numbers (characterized by “Native American” party, or as they’re commonly known, the people that you definitely don’t want to name anything…ever), but the simple truth is that the government and most factories and corporations didn’t really share this feeling. They were more than happy to have huge amounts of cheap labor even if citizens complained about non-English-speaking foreigners stealing their jobs (just like they do today). That’s sort of the most basic reason why it’s so completely ridiculous when someone says something to the effect of

“My great-great-grandfather came over legally and so why can’t all these illegal aliens do that?”

I have to assume that everyone understands it’s not exactly an equal comparison, and they’re just spouting off empty rhetoric that they’ve heard from others. What I’m trying to say is that the issue of xenophobia, racism, or whatever you want to call it isn’t new, but the very real political, economic, social, etc. problem of modern illegal immigration is relatively new. The U.S. began implementing quotas around the beginning of the 20th century (outside of the Chinese who had been pretty much banned for years already), but we weren’t dealing with anywhere near the numbers that we’re dealing with in the modern world. Although, the U.S. saw staggeringly large numbers of immigrants in the latter half of the 19th century and the first couple of decades of the 20th century, the fact is that, in terms of pure population load, we could handle it much more than the we can today with a population of 300 million. The pure numbers of immigrants plus the more, at least compared with America’s past, stringent enforcement of the naturalization process means many immigrants are faced with long waits or difficulty attaining a visa. Suffice it to say that many of the great-great-grandfathers of yesteryear would find their trip to the great melting pot a lot more difficult, legally, if they were dealing with immigrating in today’s world.

So how does any of this inform us about the current situation and controversy?
I’m not going to pretend as if I’m actually leaving anyone hanging by ending this post here. That would imply that people were actually reading and interested in what I’m saying. However, just out of kindness for anyone who does stumble across this and wants to feel like they accomplished something but maybe isn’t in for a full 1500 words, I’m going to split this post in two parts. Second half tomorrow.

Reward video. Awwww, that’s cute-tastic.