World Cup 2010 Previews: The United States of America

Nice shoes!

We are now about halfway through our world-class, not half-assed World Cup previews. If you are even a semi-regular reader here at UF, you already know everything you need to know about the U.S. Men’s National Team.

You already know about the Confederations Cup, and Charlie Davis, and Bob Bradley, and Brian Ching, and Jozy, and Lando, and Deuce, and Joe Gaetjens, and the matches against England, and Slovenia, and Algeria, and all the rest.

So, instead of our usual preview, we decided to put together a round table amongst us Yanks to weigh in on the pressing questions. You’ll notice that, unlike the U.S. Soccer hype machine, there’s a lot of trepidation in these here parts. Have a look after the jump. Oh and of course share your own thoughts in the comments below. That’s what comments are for anyway.

1. Describe in three words your feelings about the U.S. men’s team.
The Fan’s Attic: Bradley causes ire
The NY Kid: Shambolic f**king defending
The Stretford End: Optimistic yet worried
Precious Roy: Please. Don’t. Suck.
Autoglass: Promising but overhyped
ü75: Needs more discipline.
Ian: Group stage exit
The Likely Lad: Determined, inflexible, lacking
Moonshine Mike: Not properly prepared
Spectator: Won’t be pretty

2. What facial expression do expect to see most often from Bob Bradley in South Africa?
The Fan’s Attic: The constipated face.
The NY Kid: Confusion
The Stretford End: A baby pooping
Precious Roy: He has more than one?
Autoglass: The same stoic Bradley look. While I was horrified when he was appointed, and he’s only made half that back with the Confed Cup, I actually have no problem with his stony jaw. He yam who he yam!
ü75: Blank stare
Ian: Befuddlement.
The Likely Lad: The way I used to look during stats class exams in college. Trying to keep cool, but really just overwhelmed.
Moonshine Mike: The standard “I just got an enema” face
Spectator: Testicles in a vice

3. What would be your preferred starting formation for the U.S.?
The Fan’s Attic: 4-2-3-1
The NY Kid: I would prefer that we play a 4-4-2, because it is the simplest formation, and therefore the most difficult for Bradley the Elder to f**k up.
The Stretford End: 4-3-2-1
Timmay!
Cherundolo — Demerit — Gooch — Boca
Edu — Torres — Bradley
Dempsey — Donovan
Altidore
Precious Roy: The one where Spector is on the bench.
Autoglass: I think that the Turkey match showed that Clint should be on the wing. So, 4-4-2 is the way to go. It’s that or 4-5-1 or 4-4-1-1, but I honestly have yet to receive a clear explanation as to what definitively differentiates the three. I know them when I see them, but with the overlapping is it really all that clearly defined? I mean, I get 3 or 4 at the back, God knows we need 4, but after that is a 3-3 that different from a 4-2 or a 5-1 or a 4-1-1?
ü75: Anything but the 3-6-1
Ian: 4-2-3-1 (Two holding mids provide decent cover for a shambolic back four, which gives the more advanced midfielders license to make attacking runs. And we only really have one striker anyways.)
The Likely Lad: Depends on the game. 4-4-2, with Cherundolo, Bocanegra, DeMerit, Onyewu; Torres/Edu, Bradley, Donovan, Dempsey; Jozy, Findley or Gomez. Edu should start vs. England. Torres in the other two. First man off the bench in attack is Holden.
Moonshine Mike: The Jose Special – put Landycakes in the middle front feeding Gomez and Altidore. He’s got the best vision on the pitch for the team, and is the least likely to get worked up in big matches.
Spectator: If ever there were a roster handmade to mimic Jose Mourinho’s formation, it’s the United States. Put Ricardo Clark and Maurice Edu in front of the backline, harass your opponents, limit opportunities on goal, and score on breakaways and set pieces. Not saying it’s foolproof, but the idea that Bob Bradley expects the U.S. to win mano-y-mano with a 4-4-2 against the likes of England or Germany is just insane, and yet again will show why Bradley is totally out of his depth tactically.

4. Which player are you must looking forward to seeing on the big, big stage, and why?
The Fan’s Attic: After the performances put in by Donovan and Dempsey during club season this year and their performances in the Confederations Cup last season, I am very excited to see how they perform in the World Cup.
The NY Kid: I am most looking forward to the Haitian Sensation in his big-time debut. He showed in the Confed Cup (against good competition) that he has what it takes, but a lot of people question whether he is ready because of a relatively poor season at Hull.
The Stretford End: This will seem too obvious, but I want to see if Donovan can be the player he’s acted like over the past year. From the Confed Cup to the trip to Everton to last weekend vs. Turkey, he seems to have shed his “disappearing” label. We need him to be everything he can be if we have any chance to win.
Precious Roy: Jozy. If we’re going to do anything memorable in this tournament, he’s going to have to come up large in a couple of spots.
Autoglass: I’m a Clint guy. Also, Landon completely won me over between last summer and his Everton run. As to a surprise? I’m going to say DeMarcus Beasley. I’ve been utterly unimpressed for years, but something about the way he’s managed to pull his head out of his arse lately…
ü75: J(F) Torres. I just want to see what he can do now that he has dropped the middle name.
Ian: Landon. He’s pretty much at the peak of his career, has been on excellent form this year, and seems revitalized by the Everton loan earlier this year.
The Likely Lad: Landon Donovan. This will be his third World Cup, so he’s no stranger to the stage. But in 2009-10 he’s taken the big jump. Maybe it’s emotional maturity, maybe (gasp!) a year on the pitch with Beckham, or maybe it’s that darn delicious lamb pizza. Whatever the cause, Donovan has been all class for more than a year — his performance for Everton a grand rebuttal to all those who said he wasn’t suited to Europe. Now, he’s being taken seriously as perhaps America’s first legitimate, influential, world-class outfield player. (Honorable mention: Stu Holden. Don’t know how and when his opportunities will come, but he’s clearly “a bit special.”)
Moonshine Mike: I want to see how Onyewu is doing on his injury and I want to see how Davies will handle the big stage. He strikes me as someone who steps up their game when the stage gets larger. (ed: he was kidding)
Spectator: Tim Howard. If the U.S. will have any chance of an upset or even advancing, then Timmy needs to make a few spectacular saves and organize that awful backline.

5. Which player are you most afraid will take the pitch, and why?
The Fan’s Attic: Damarcus Beasley. Did you see his performances last year?
The NY Kid: I don’t want to see either Feilhaber or Bornstein on the family. Apparently I’m a closet (semi-self-loathing) anti-Semite.
The Stretford End: Jonathan Bornstein sees one minute of playing time, that’s a horrible sign for the team’s future. He’s just over his head with top-class opposition. Also, he plays against the opposition’s right wing, which is often among the best and most creative player on the field. Yikes!
Precious Roy: Spector or Bornstein or Goodson. Or even Gooch is he’s crocked. Basically any defender not named Bocanegra or DeMerit. Pity we’re probably going to need two more people on the backline.
Autoglass: His first name is Jonathan. I frankly don’t care what last name comes with Jonathan. I’m just terrified of any Jonathans taking the field for the USA.
ü75: If the ghost of Connor Casey isn’t available, I guess it’s Guzan/Hahnemann. If Timmay’s not out there, the US have serious problems.
Ian: Spector. See the first half of the Turkey game.
The Likely Lad: After Saturday, you’d think Spector, but he’s not quite as bad as Arda and Co. made him look. Onyewu worries me, as he was a PK-conceding machine when fully fit and fast. And he’s neither, for now. Who scares me though most is Bocanegra, at left back. It’s not his fault, but Bradley (as evidenced in the Mexico qualifier at Azteca) has no sense of when the elder statesman is gassed. I’m afraid other teams will run their attacks through the right side and he’ll get outpaced more often than not. Disclaimer: I’m not sure there’s a better option. Maybe Beasley? Sigh.
Moonshine Mike: Gooch because of his possible injury, or anyone playing left defense. We seem absolutely outclassed on that side and it seems like this is not going to change anytime soon.
Spectator: Gooch. I always thought he was slow and lummoxy, and that was before he was playing on one knee. He’s going to be constantly exposed in the air and on one-on-ones, and I can’t believe the U.S. doesn’t have a better defender who could take his place (yes, I really can believe it).

6. Any points against England would be a huge upset, but do the Americans at least look respectable?
The Fan’s Attic: No. They will come out exactly like they did against the Czechs in 2006 — timid, scared and an inability to respond to an in-game gut check nor will the manager be able to make the necessary adjustments to help his squad perform better.
The NY Kid: No, we do not look respectable. Have you seen the way the boys dressed to meet the president?!?
The Stretford End: Yes, the Yanks do look respectable if they can survive the first 10 minutes of the match. Catching England in the first match is probably the best opportunity because the U.S. has a chance to recover and can really go for it. I truly believe they will keep it close.
Precious Roy: Depends. The American team that showed up in the first half against Turkey, that team gets beat 5-0 or 6-0. The team that showed up in the second half, that one could earn a draw with a couple of breaks.
Autoglass: We concede an early goal, Then we battle back hard. England 2-1 USA, but it’s closer than that on the field.
ü75: Yes. I think a nervy draw is in the cards.
Ian: No. A 3-1 drubbing with our lone goal coming on a set piece. The media will spin it as a decent loss but the massive gulf in class will be all too evident.
The Likely Lad: For a half, yes. The Americans will run and tackle with gusto while England settles into their nervous equilibrium. Ultimately, barring a significant gaffe in the English back five (GK included), I see a late first half goal from Rooney, then one or two more in the second. Maybe some consolation late… 3-1.
Moonshine Mike: Hopefully, they will look respectable, but they are maddening inconsistent. If anything we will surprise the English, but not the entire group.
Spectator: Yes, but only because it will be the England’s first match and they will be a bit rusty. I see it being relatively close for a while, but England’s superiority will show, likely 3-1 in the end thanks to a couple late goals.

7. Do the Americans advance to the knockout stage? If so, how far do they advance?
The Fan’s Attic: Yes. After the loss to England the Americans will regroup and pull off two victories to reach the knockout stages where they will lose in the first knockout match against Germany.
The NY Kid: I think the boys will finish 2nd and advance to the knock-out stage, eventually progressing to the quarterfinals, where Torsten Frings leaps out of the stands to commit a blatant handball and crush our dreams of World Cup glory.
The Stretford End: Do the Americans advance to the knockout stage? If so, how far do they advance? Yeah, the Yanks get out of the group with a draw vs. England, a win over Algeria and a draw vs. Slovenia. They’ll get Germany in the round of 16 and win in penalties, then lose in the quarterfinals.
Precious Roy: Yes. They beat Slovenia and Algeria and get to the knock-outs. They lose to whoever or Germany, Ghana, or Serbia they get matched up against.
Autoglass: I say no. This kills me, but I can’t escape my fever dream. As I said, the US battles hard to a loss to England. We bounce back and beat Slovenia 2-0. Then, with it all there for us we lose to Algeria 2-1. 3 points from 3 doesn’t cut it. But we will have left it on the pitch twice. Once after conceding the obvious early goal to England. Then, with an epic performance over Slovenia. But in the final hour, we lose a game we should win to Algeria.
ü75: Yep. Round of 16 exit.
Ian: No. First round exit but guaranteed lifetime employment for Bob Bradley.
The Likely Lad: YES! How ‘bout that? I think they do it on four points. Capello’s England will run the table and it’ll come down to the Algeria match, where the US will need just a draw. They’ll get it, 2-2, with a 79th minute equalizer from Dempsey. After that, I expect a matchup with Serbia and Benedict Subotic. A tight affair, but the USMNT go out in PKs.
Moonshine Mike: I want to say yes, but that would give Bob Bradley the credence that he knows what he is going. which would be wrong. But I think they are capable of sneaking out.
Spectator: Despite the Confederations Cup, I’m a cynic. I see a repeat of 2006 in the cards, with a really bad showing against either Algeria or Slovenia sealing the Americans’ fate.

Parting words of wisdom
The Likely Lad: I’d like to introduce The Bob Bradley Corollary: It states that, when watching his USMNT play, the supporter must root against any American goals being scored in the first half. Bradley has time and again shown his inability to cope with holding a lead before half time. If we were to somehow take a lead off a Glen Johnson OG in the first ten minutes on June 12, I’d expect him to order nine men behind the ball for the next 85+ mins. And as we saw with Brazil in the CC final, that does not work against world class opponents. It hardly works against Trinidad.
Precious Roy: It’s amazing to me that defensively we are still this bad and this thin. And I don’t expect Bradley to consistently put players in the best position to succeed.
Autoglass: I remember the good times – the Portugal opener, the Mexico round of 16, the Italy draw in 2006; and the bad – 1990, 1998, 2006…2010.