Although everyone but the staunchest US fans had been maliciously awaiting a good old-fashioned slogging ever since the draw came out (remember: most of the world hates the US and therefore our soccer team), in the final weeks before the start of the World Cup, analysts began to favor the probability of a 1-1 draw, given key injuries to Rio Ferdinand and Gareth Barry, upon whom England relied to shore up the center of defense and midfield, respectively. Add to that the growing confidence of the US team (emphasis on team), England's predisposition for slow starts and the immense pressure from their country's--and the world's--great expectations, and the certainty of an English victory--much less a rout--was shrouded in a fog of doubt.
To tell the truth, the honesty and realism of these doubts made me nervous. The US was supposed to be the underdog: a team that was vastly underrated due to its lack of talented individuals, but at the same time a team that could really come together, a team that was far greater than the sum of its parts, a team that could surprise the world. Now that analysts were considering that a side chock-full of big name players wouldn't necessarily congeal, I almost began to feel like England was the underdog! And I did not want the US team to waltz onto the field brimming with confidence because now everyone was expecting a surprise upset (tie).
I liked it better when I was BOLD enough to predict a draw. That's because I have faith in the US team when they play outside of Europe--after all, we did great at home in '94 and even better in Korea/Japan '02 (compared to failing in France '98 and Germany '06). We're good... every other World Cup. And 2010 was on key to be a good one. Of course, I would subscribe to insanity like Alexi Lalas, who predicted a 2-1 upset and has devoted every other comment in protesting that his faith in the US team is objective. But could you really trust a man who walked onto the pitch sporting this 'doo?
When the game started and the USA didn't look half bad, I breathed a sigh of relief, happy to know that a draw was indeed possible. But when England scored in the FOURTH!!! minute, it was they that breathed the sigh of relief, as all their tension melted away. There was no worse way for that game to start for the US than for the doubtful English side to get a goal immediately. The future flashed before my eyes, Nike commercial style: US spanked 4-0 by England, tie Algeria, draw Slovenia, and fail to go on. Mass disappointment solidifies soccer as an edge sport in the US for another century.
But what I saw in the next 30 minutes of the game surprised me, pleasantly. The US began to...not dominate...but edge England on possession, and though England continued to have the dangerous chances, the US definitely had a large number of moderately decent ones. As it turns out, often quantity does beat quality and the US were rewarded with a goal in the 39th minute, and I mean rewarded. Robert Green (the English keeper) might as well have gift-wrapped Clint Dempsey's un-threatening shot before pushing it awkwardly into the goal. It just goes to show that any shot on target is threatening, more threatening than the closest shave off a post or the most beautiful rifle from distance that just fails to dip that extra foot. I can hear coaches all over the US annoyingly emphasizing the importance of getting shots on frame...their young players' eyes rolling as they dream of more epic shots. And now they have undeniable proof: "shoot it at the keeper if you have to! You never know...he just might F$$$ up."
I was surprised to find that people are blaming the ball for this goal as well. The shot was along the ground, not sailing through the air where it would be "exposed to unpredictable atmospheric forces." I think Robert Green is alone on this one.
During half-time England recovered from their ill-fortune and came back out looking for blood. The US, very much content with a draw, came back out only to defend it. The last 45+4 minutes of the game were some of the most nerve-wracking of my life, especially because I was missing the line-up for my graduation ceremony to watch them. England looked sharp and lively. Wayne Rooney, silent in the first half, came to play in the second. And I was terrified we would not survive the onslaught, especially because our game plan seemed to be defend (poorly), get saved in the last minute by Tim Howard, and then play it up to our forwards who would immediately turn it over so that England could have another go. I mean honestly, what is so difficult about HOLDING the ball so that at least a few more players can join you, so that even if you don't get a scoring opportunity, you run some time off the clock between theirs. It's a frustration I've faced with my own club when we're under siege and a critical skill for forwards to exhibit when they're defense is getting bombarded. Give them a chance to catch their breath at least before you set the dogs loose. I saw Donavan hold it back once and shouted my thanks at the television, because the wise move produced one of our few good chances in the second half.
When time finally ran out, I screamed a triumphant "Yes!" in relief, only to find that time had not actually run out. I'm not sure the uninformed crowd around me understood the consequences of this game or the importance of this draw. They seemed a little disappointed in fact. But they had some right to be: the game was definitely not pretty. But it was great news for me and I booked it to graduation with my blood pressure not quite so elevated as it had been minutes before.
FUNNY COMMENTARY
Cross too high for Rooney: "Rooney...just couldn't quite grow enough!"
No comments:
Post a Comment