Aftermath

Entering the tournament, I figured advancement out of the group was the key goal. Anything past that would be gravy. Yet, I can't help but feel the US team did not meet expectations. True, they did win their group for the first time in the modern age. But they were presented with a golden opportunity to advance to the semi-final round without having to play a traditional power. Ghana and Uruguay clearly play top-tier soccer, but they're no Brazil. They're no Netherlands.

So, yeah, the Ghana loss still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

This US team provided extreme highs and lows. They strangely started every game a bit flat, and then finished with late-game heroics worthy of Roy Hobbs. The puzzling lethargic openings could ultimately be the undoing of Bob Bradley. The common thinking is that a coach is responsible for team preparation. I'm no Bradley fan, but I don't think that's completely fair. It's not Bob's fault the players started slow. It's the players' fault. But it IS Bob's fault for starting such a clear underperformers in Ricardo Clark and Robbie Findley.

And, as for the Ghana game, it was more than just the Clark and Findley gaffe that resulted in the loss. Bocanegra, Demerit, and then Howard all had chances to stop that first Ghana goal. They all failed. Then the team proceeded to let Ghana dominate them for the remainder of the half. I guess I'm not terribly surprised. As a fan, I was hardly ready myself for the Ghana game. The emotional toll of the previous two games was substantial. These guys are professionals, but they're also humans. If the refs actually allowed the disallowed goals against Slovenia and Algeria, I firmly believe the US would've been in better mental shape. That's no guarantee they would've won, but perhaps they wouldn't have sleepwalked through the opening 45.

After the Ghana loss, I asked my brother John if he felt the US was better than in '06. That team had many the same players and crashed out of the Cup without a win. Yet, their group was significantly harder. They were demolished by a strong Czech team, and they lost 2-1 to a strong Ghana team. The middle game was a valiant 1-1 draw with Italy that easily could've been a 2-1 win if not for another disallowed US goal. The US was the only team to score against Italy other than France in the final game. That's rather notable. So is the '10 version stronger or just more fortunate to have an easier group?

My initial thinking was that there's not much difference, but John disagreed. He felt the '10 team showed more skill and class. Upon further review, I think he's right. And I also think they're better than the '02 team that advanced to the Quarters. I had the sinking feeling in '02 that the US team was living on borrowed time. Yet, I honestly felt this '10 version had a chance to really do some damage and surprise people like they did in the Confed Cup. Last year, this squad put two in against both Spain and Brazil, and that's no fluke. It's pretty clear to me now that the '10 team, despite the absence of Charlie Davies, can put the ball in the net better than any other US team, perhaps ever. Unfortunately, they're weaker defensively. Perhaps those two things go hand in hand. Or perhaps not. I look at Boca and Demerit and think neither are as good as the '02 Eddie Pope. Or the '06 Onyewu. Ricardo Clark is no defensive stopper like Pablo Mastroeni in '02 and '06.

So, in many ways, the Confed Cup was the coming out party for the US team. It ushered them into - hopefully - a higher tier of international football. They're certainly not on par with the top tier (Brazil, Spain, Argentina, Italy, etc). But they're solidly tier 2 - with teams like Mexico, Czech, Sweden, and South Korea and Japan (two teams often overlooked like the US).

Next up... player evals.