Month: October 2014

soccer

My retirement from the soccer culture wars

Posted on by Beau Dure

The unexamined life is not worth living, Socrates is alleged to have said in Plato’s telling of the story. Shortly thereafter, Socrates said his last words: “I drank what?”

If you prefer more modern fare, picture Jules at the diner near the end of Pulp Fiction. “I had what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity.”

I had a couple of moments like that yesterday. It all started innocently enough — a well-intentioned but ill-advised campaign from a few soccer media types (not including me) to tweet roughly the same thing about the MLS playoffs fed the conspiracy theories in certain quarters of Twitter that all reporters who cover MLS are the soccer equivalent of pro wrestling broadcasters. We’re part of the “show,” in certain circles.

Of course, that conversation spread to well-trod pathways of discussion. And as I mentioned in my latest dispatches from the soccer culture wars, we’ve seen evolution at play among the culture warriors. We have reasonable strains and unreasonable strains.

Yesterday’s conversations brought out some reasonable people. It also brought out some of the most virulent people in the conversation. Like Ebola, they aren’t particularly contagious, but they’re intent on wreaking as much damage as possible.

So when I found myself patiently explaining to someone that the USA does indeed have a considerable number of journalists who cover MLS for outlets other then MLSSoccer.com, I asked myself: “I drank what?” I’m not sure what sort of conversation I can really have with someone who deals in such absolutes (insert “Sith lord” joke here) that all journalists who cover MLS are part of the league structure, and England has only “independent” media.

Oh … right. Those guys. Or those who pay for interviews.

Anyway, after talking offline with a couple of people yesterday, I no longer think such conversations are necessary.

Were they ever necessary, or at least productive? Years ago, perhaps. And recently, I had started to think we needed to talk about these things because the culture wars were seeping off Twitter and into the mainstream of sorts. The New York Times and the NASL have taken a few fringe elements seriously. The soccer mag Howler is doing a piece on He Who Shall Not Be Named (a well-known Twitter persona who asks journalists questions along the lines of “When did you stop kicking your dog?”). So these discussions are getting into the public forum. And a basic function of journalism, one that’s being forgotten these days, into keep inserting facts into the public forum and to challenge incorrect information. It’s why PolitiFact is such an important news outlet.

But so much of the discussion in the soccer culture wars has little to do with the actual issues at hand. We’ve discussed pro/rel to death. We all talk about single entity, but I’m not sure anyone understands it other than MLS executive Mark Abbott.

Much of it is just character assassination. It’s not fun to leave such things unchecked so that someone just joining the discussion on Twitter hears and, at least initially, believes that mainstream reporters are all puppets of Don Garber. But what’s the point in talking with someone who refuses to listen to things I know, first-hand, to be true?

https://twitter.com/duretalk/status/528213669696782336

Some people, often but not always young, have legitimate questions about how MLS came to be the way it is and why it’s staying that way for the foreseeable future. For them, conversations about promotion/relegation, single entity and other idiosyncrasies are new. Unfortunately, some of them find and fall under the influence of the fringe elements online. Some of them resist such lunacy, and they’re actually fun to talk to.

But Twitter, along with many open discussion forums, just isn’t a good venue for that conversation. As I’ve said a few times, the well has been poisoned.

I personally don’t need to be involved in it, for the following reasons:

1. I’ve said everything I know. It’s either in my book, Long-Range Goals, or on my blog.

2. I’m not even doing much on MLS these days. I spent much of 2013 working on a book about the Washington Spirit. I’ve written about various topics for OZY, a general-interest site I’d recommend checking out even if I didn’t write for them. And I’m working on a book on youth soccer.

3. For all the Twitter hoopla, we’re getting no closer to fundamental changes in how professional soccer operates in the USA and Canada.

If the NASL chooses to seek out the tinfoil fan base with a few encouraging words about pro/rel and some sort of MLS ankle-biting, that’s their decision. NASL’s gonna NASL. Those issues aside, the NASL has some terrific talent from the playing field to the club offices, and all I can do is wish them well. And maybe point out that the good crowds at Indy are probably there not because they’re making a grand statement about soccer business models but because (A) they like soccer and (B) Peter Wilt knows how to run a soccer team.

Within U.S. soccer circles, very little has changed. We’ve had umpteen new MLS owners in the past decade, and still Don Garber, speaking on behalf of the owners that hired him, says an absolute “no” to promotion/relegation. MLS is going to try to improve by investing in youth soccer to increasing degrees and trying to attract better and better players.

So if you’re looking for one legitimate issue of conversation that isn’t just idle talk, it would be the upcoming CBA talks. The salary cap will go up, but how much? Will players get more freedom, perhaps full-fledged free agency? Will the allocation system, already far removed from the days of centralized planning from the league office, drop out of existence? Those are interesting topics, and you may find me talking about them here or on Twitter.

But promotion/relegation, which I’ve already steered away from? The evils of MLS? Corporate manipulation of the now-sprawling and diverse U.S. soccer media?

Yeah. I’m done. I’ve had that moment of clarity or examined my life or whichever reference you prefer. And I’m not drinking the hemlock or the Kool-Aid or anything else.

2
olympic sports

Just when you thought the Olympics were dead (bowling edition)

Posted on by Beau Dure

If only the IOC had as many suitable hosts for the Winter Olympics as it had sports who want to get on the Summer Olympic program …

The sport of bowling, long an Olympic aspirant, is taking aim at the Olympics, with a new scoring system that more closely resembles match play golf. (Which, ironically, is not the format golf will use in its Olympic rollout in 2016.)

Here’s how it works:

In the Tour finals, held at the South Point Bowling Plaza in Las Vegas on Sunday, matches will effectively become a frame-by-frame showdown, with each bowler initially rolling a single ball per frame.

If a player outscores their opponent, they win the frame and go “one-up”, like in match-play golf. If both hit a strike, each gets a half. If both hit, for example, an eight, each competitor would attempt to complete their spare, with the higher scorer taking the frame. Matches tied after 12 frames continue until there is a winner.

It’s a strange proposal on two levels:

1. Bowling proponents have long tried to explain to us that lanes are like holes in golf — the wax patterns give them distinct identities. To make this format work, each bowler will have to be on a different lane. (Unless they reset the pins after each shot, which would kill the “speed up the game” component of this argument.) So that would be like Tiger Woods facing off against Rory McIlroy with Woods playing the fifth hole and McIlroy on the 15th.

2. Bowling is already all about match play. Two bowlers go head to head. If one bowler gets a strike in a particular frame and the other doesn’t, it’s pretty much the same thing as winning the hole.

But the fact that bowling is willing to consider such a radical change should remind us: A lot of people still care about the Olympics. Never mind the fact that a lot of Olympic sports barely get a minute of coverage in any mass-media coverage. The mere association with the name “Olympics” carries a lot of prestige. Just as softball organizers still reeling from being excluded or wrestlers who fought tooth and nail to keep their sport back in the Games.

These are crucial years for the Olympic movement. How can we encourage diverse opportunities without creating (or continuing) a giant tangled mess?

And how can soon can we get this new bowling format on Wii Sports?

 

1
soccer

The annual request to change the MLS playoff format

Posted on by Beau Dure

This is how the MLS playoffs should be. Home teams listed first.

ROUND 1

East
#1 D.C. United – #2 New England
#3 Columbus – #4 New York, loser eliminated

West
#1 Seattle – #2 Los Angeles
#3 Salt Lake – #4 Dallas, loser eliminated

ROUND 2

East
D.C. United-New England loser vs. Columbus-New York winner

West
Seattle-Los Angeles loser vs. Salt Lake-Dallas winner

SEMIFINALS

East
D.C. United-New England winner vs. Round 2 winner

West
Seattle-Los Angeles winner vs. Round 2 winner

FINAL

East winner vs. West winner (or vice versa)

—

It’s called the Page playoff system (or a slight variant thereof). Every seed gets a unique reward. The top two teams in each conference get a second chance if they lose their first game. The first-place team gets to host that game. The second-place team hosts the next game. The winner of their game hosts the semifinal. The third-place team hosts its first game.

Cool, isn’t it?

You could mix it up a bit if you like. Maybe the losers switch conferences so no team plays another one twice.

I’ve been pushing it for years. Not stopping now.

 

4
soccer

USWNT vs. Mexico: Key moments and random thoughts

Posted on by Beau Dure

The USA advanced to the Women’s World Cup with a lopsided victory over a Mexican team that left a couple of solid attackers on the bench and never threatened to come back from an early U.S. goal.

Costa Rica advanced in penalty kicks in the first qualifying semifinal, with Dinnia Diaz saving all three Trinidad and Tobago kicks she faced while the Tica kickers calmly converted their attempts. Costa Rica and the USA will play in the final for bragging rights but little else — even calling it the CONCACAF championship seems dubious when Canada (automatically qualified for the World Cup as hosts) isn’t participating.

As promised in the headline, here are the key moments and random thoughts (the latter in italic).

LINEUPS:

USA: Hope Solo; Meghan Klingenberg, Whitney Engen, Christie Rampone, Ali Krieger; Lauren Holiday, Carli Lloyd; Tobin Heath, Megan Rapinoe, Christen Press; Sydney Leroux

Starting Leroux instead of Abby Wambach isn’t that much of a shocker; Jill Ellis has rotated attackers at times, and Wambach could always come in off the bench. The shocker is the omission of center back Becky Sauerbrunn, arguably the world’s best defender. She should be rested and ready to go. Why leave her out here?

Mexico: Pamela Tajonar; Bianca Sierra, Christina Murillo, Alina Garciamendez, Kenti Robles; Liliana Mercado, Arianna Romero, Lydia Rangel, Dinora Garza, Tanya Samarzich; Luz Duarte

Veronica Perez, Monica Ocampo and Teresa Noyola on the bench, leading the Fox broadcasters to question whether Mexico was simply writing off this game and resting players to try to clinch a World Cup berth in the third-place game instead.

FIRST HALF

10 seconds: Boom, up to Leroux. She’s offside.

Despite that direct start, the USA spend its next several possessions going through the middle through Lauren Holiday.

4th minute: USA free kick, far right, 25 yds out. Rapinoe serves to box, nothing doing.

6th minute: GOAL USA 1-0. As they had early in Monday’s game, the USA has too many players sitting in the middle of the box — three this time — but Tobin Heath’s excellent cross goes straight to the head of Carli Lloyd. Credit Holiday with switching the point of attack out to Heath.

9th minute: Quick ball from the left flank ahead to Press in the middle, and Tajonar has to race out to head it away awkwardly.

15th minute: Mexico has a possession in the U.S. half. Possibly their first, at least their first with more than 1-2 touches.

Mexico has been defending in two lines — the four at the back, then five at midfield, the latter about 30-35 yards up the field, trying to make it difficult for Holiday to distribute. They’ve been somewhat successful, but they only needed to fail once, and they have.

19th minute: Two U.S. shots, the first (from a curiously open Press) saved, the second blocked. Rapinoe, slightly right of center, flicked it to Leroux at the top of the box, who one-timed it to Press. Then Leroux pounced on the rebound but couldn’t punch it in. The danger continued for another few seconds.

22nd minute: Good U.S. chance on a smart ball from Engen at midfield that floats over Sierra to Press. Her shot finds the side netting.

https://twitter.com/MichelleAkers10/status/525798631714996224

Not really sure I see that, but I’ve been watching Haiti play, so the bar has been lowered for me.

28th minute: Good 1v1 play from Press on the right. Rapinoe can’t quite get onto the cross. Holiday blasts a follow-up shot well high.

29th minute: Penalty kick USA, and on first glance, I don’t buy it. On the replay, I definitely don’t. That’s a dive from Tobin Heath. Lloyd converts it. 2-0

https://twitter.com/thrace/status/525802348833431552

32nd minute: Free kick USA as Mercado tangles with Leroux. Rapinoe takes it about five yards outside the arc. Puts it on goal, but Tajonar handles it easily.

https://twitter.com/Sarah_Gehrke/status/525800962586578944

Indeed — Rapinoe is often up at center forward. Or Lloyd.

35th minute: Ali Krieger gets forward, tries a cross, gets it back and gets hammered by Samarzich. Rapinoe’s free kick from the side of the box is easily cleared.

36th minute: The first corner kick of the game goes to … Mexico! Robles works up the right channel and wins it. The ball bounds out to Mercado, who takes aim from 25 but sends it comfortably wide of the far post. First shot for Mexico, but nothing to trouble Solo.

38th minute: Two more crosses from Press. Also an odd moment on the first one as a second ball materializes on the field. Mexico’s defense alertly clears both of them.

40th minute: Another good cross from Press, this time to Lloyd, who ends up laying it back to Press. She tries to lob it over the mass of red defenders, but it’s over the bar as well.

43rd minute: Second U.S. corner kick, both within a couple of minutes, and Holiday shanks it over the end line.

45th minute: Press crosses to Klingenberg, which makes sense because the outside backs have gotten bored and are just racing into the Mexican box at will now. She receives it at an awkward height and sends it over.

HALFTIME

Shots: USA 11-1; Shots on goal: USA 4-0; Corner kicks: USA 2-1; Offsides: USA 3-0; Fouls: MEX 7-2. But the CONCACAF site credits Mexico with an impressive 16 clearances (USA four) and 27 recoveries (USA 1).

Mexico is playing with no confidence, no discipline, nothing to suggest they’re doing anything other than going through the motions before facing Trinidad and Tobago in the third-place game.

SECOND HALF

48th minute: An actual attacking possession for Mexico, with two crosses coming from the right — one cleared, one out of play. First test of any kind for central defenders.

49th minute: Chance for USA. Ordinarily, you’d laugh at someone who hit the crossbar from three yards out, but Leroux had to stretch out her foot after Rapinoe’s cross went past/was flicked on by/was dummied by Heath.

54th minute: Lloyd tries a little too hard to get something done in the box and is called for the foul.

MEX substitution: Sandra Mayor for the exhausted solo front-runner Duarte, who has not been able to get on the end of whatever hopeful balls the Mexican midfield has lobbed up in her direction.

56th minute: GOAL 3-0 USA. Leroux with a nicely weighted through ball to Press, who was kept onside by a stray center back. Press takes one touch as Tajonar lunges, then finishes into the open net. Rapinoe also could have finished it.

So here’s how fluid the formation is — the forward just played a through ball to the right wing, which she finished alongside the playmaking midfielder.

61st minute: Chance as Leroux hits the woodwork again, this time finding the right post from 18 yards out while her defender retreated.

Well, if it’s any consolation, it’s three now.

USA substitution: Abby Wambach in for Sydney Leroux. Not sure why, other than perhaps to please the crowd. It was not a popular substitution on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/thrace/status/525813399553593345

62nd minute: Cross from Press to Wambach’s feet. She’s wide open on the 6. Can’t get it. Perhaps not quite in the flow of the game after two seconds.

65th minute: Cross from Wambach to Holiday, whose header from 10 yards dead center goes wide.

It’s garbage time now. 

67th minute: Tobin Heath tries to keep the ball in play by leaning forward and kicking it like a one-footed scorpion kick. But it was already out. Did I say it was garbage time?

USA substitution: Morgan Brian for Megan Rapinoe.

71st minute: U.S. corner kick sent to Wambach, who’s defended well enough that she can’t get the header on frame.

MEX substitution: Monica Alvarado replaces Murillo.

74th minute: Press with yet another terrific cross, Holiday dummies it for Heath, whose shot is blocked by the sprawling Robles.

USA substitution: Heather O’Reilly replaces Lauren Holiday. Surely, the USA will juggle the lineup somehow to account for the flank player subbing for the converted center mid, but does it matter at this point?

75th minute: With the first kick after the substitution, a free kick is floated to Lloyd. She’s clearly offside, but everyone briefly celebrates her hat trick before realizing the flag is up.

MEX substitution: Noyola for Robles. They’re rolling the dice on offense now. Well, not really. They’re just throwing warm bodies onto the field until this is over.

Cat Whitehill tells us Abby Wambach has dropped into the No. 10 role. But she’s not going to try to be a playmaker like Rapinoe.

Meanwhile, Tobin Heath is dribbling like Curly Neal against the Washington Generals.

84th minute: Chance as Wambach’s shot is saved by Tajonar. Press follows up but hits the left post.

Fox raises a pointed question: Given Hope Solo’s impending trial, do you play Ashlyn Harris in the final, just for the experience? Cat Whitehill agrees that it’s a good opportunity to play Harris.

Shot count is now 18-1 USA.

Tobin Heath is down holding her shin. From the replay, I’m not sure she’s wearing shin guards. Actually quite common for players to use tiny, flimsy shin guards, which baffles me. But Heath is back up quickly. And Whitehill is now lobbying for Ellis to play Julie Johnston in the final.

90th minute: The USA officially shifts to keepaway mode.

92nd minute: Wambach shoots from 25, easily saved.

So the USA advances for the World Cup, avenging a loss at this stage to Mexico four years ago that sent the Americans on an odyssey to reach the tournament.

The final against Costa Rica could be an interesting test of U.S. depth if Ellis puts out a few reserves. Costa Rica is clearly the third-best team in the region at the moment and should be the toughest opponent the USA will face until it goes outside the continent for opposition.

0
college sports

War on Nonrevenue Sports returns: USOC gearing up

Posted on by Beau Dure

USOC CEO Scott Blackmun isn’t going to give up on Olympic sports in colleges without a fight. He sees the threat of budget cuts and reallocations as athletics departments start paying more for its football and basketball players.

There are so many things that we can do. What we need to do is get together and decide what is our top priority, what are our top three priorities. We have identified a donor who’s willing to support us, subject to us collectively — and by that I mean the athletic directors and the USOC — finding a program that we think is really going to move the needle. … We need to preserve these Olympic sport programs.

College campuses are ideal training grounds for Olympians. They have the facilities, and athletes can live, train and study in one spot. We’ll see if these sports can hang on.

A couple of reports: USA TODAY, Louisville Courier-Journal.

And the previous dispatches from the War on Nonrevenue Sports:

More to come. I hope not, but probably.

0
soccer

How will the USWNT line up?

Posted on by Beau Dure

All the tactical talk of the U.S. women’s soccer team may boil down to one question: How’s Lauren Holiday’s defense?

Everything else is working. Tobin Heath is a creative monster on the left. Megan Rapinoe has the playmaking skills and the engine to run all over the field and distribute. Right wing may not be the best place for Christen Press, but it’s good enough. Carli Lloyd’s role hasn’t changed all that much. The central midfield triangle, well-profiled this week by ESPN’s Jeff Carlisle, has plenty of attacking power.

First things first — let’s clarify that the difference between a 4-5-1 and a 4-3-3 is minimal.

Here’s a 4-5-1:

football formations

Here’s a 4-3-3:

football formations

Either way, the left and right wings will get down to the end line to put in crosses, and they’ll have some defensive responsibilities.

Back to the main question here: There’s little question Holiday can distribute from a deep-lying role. But she hasn’t been challenged defensively.

Maybe Mexico will provide that challenge. Maybe not.

The best precedent the WNT has for an attacker-turned-defensive … er .. holding mid … er … No. 6 would be Michelle Akers. She won everything in the air as a forward, then won everything in the air as a No. 6.

If Jill Ellis wanted to follow that precedent, she’d move Abby Wambach to No. 6. That’s not happening. And the “Wambach to No. 10” discussion hasn’t gained a lot of traction — it’s too tough a gear shift to switch from Rapinoe covering the whole field as a No. 10 to Wambach covering a bit less. And while Wambach has underrated foot skills, playing No. 10 might not give her as many opportunities to use her world-class aerial ability.

The common refrain after Meghan Klingenberg’s scorching performance Monday night, including that goal, was that we couldn’t award her the left back (No. 3) spot until we saw her against better competition.

The No. 6 spot seems to be Holiday’s. But can she fill the defensive duties?

It’ll be a while before we know, so to fill the time, here’s the Klingenberg goal again.

 

1
soccer

Dispatches from the U.S. soccer culture wars

Posted on by Beau Dure

From Tarkus to Fury, the artistically inclined people among us have sketched out portraits of conflict that just keeps going and going, eventually devouring the war-weary veteran and the new enlistee alike.

(At least, I think that’s what Tarkus is about. I get lost somewhere in the middle of Keith Emerson’s fourth keyboard solo.)

And so it goes with what Charles Boehm has succinctly labeled the Soccer Culture War.

Some people are willing, even enthusiastic participants. Some aren’t, but they feel some twisted sense of duty.

Like a lot on conflicts, the root is more rhetorical than real. Deep down, most of the warriors all want the same thing — good soccer in the United States. But fragile identities and defensiveness make us easy to call out.

(Yes, The Simpsons riffed on that scene last season, one of the more esoteric pop-culture references in show history.)

Let’s look at the issues and the opinions:

Promotion/relegation is something U.S. professional soccer …

  1. … really needs to do as soon as possible, and we shouldn’t take MLS seriously in the meantime.
  2. … should work toward in 10 years or so, and it would make us all feel a lot better about MLS if we knew it was in the future.
  3. … may be in position to consider in 10 years or so, but it really doesn’t affect how we feel about MLS at the moment.
  4. … can never consider. Ever.

Most people fall in the “2” or “3” category. But I think most of the online battles take place between the “1” and “3” groups, with the occasional rant from a “4” and some interjections from the “2” group.

The single-entity structure in MLS …

  1. … is proof that this is just a bunch of NFL owners trying to squeeze money out of a sport they don’t care about it, and it inhibits clubs from competing about anything.
  2. … is something the league may have needed in the first decade or so but needs to hurry up and dismantle.
  3. … is something from which the league has gradually moved away and should continue to do so by eliminating its vestigial restrictions on player movement.
  4. … (OK, honestly, I have no idea what the “4” group would be here.)

Again, the loudest group is “1.” You can have productive discussions between “2” and “3.”

Soccer fans in this country are as likely or more likely to watch European or Mexican soccer than MLS because …

  1. … MLS has single-entity and no pro/rel, which obviously makes all its players stink like an overflowing hog waste lagoon.
  2. … MLS isn’t quite doing enough to improve the quality of play. It can’t catch the EPL in the foreseeable future, but it needs to make a few strides.
  3. … these overseas leagues have generations of history and giant fan bases that allow them to spend freely on players and/or bring them up through well-established academy programs, and soccer is better entrenched in those countries as the top sport by far. (Which is not the case in, say, India, China, Australia, etc.)
  4. … they’re snobs who feel the need to differentiate themselves to feel superior to others. They used to be able to do that by being soccer fans in a country of baseball and gridiron fans, but now that the soccer fan base has grown, they have to be part of a more elite subset.

Again, I’m probably a “3,” but I see the “4” group’s point. And “2.”

People who watch MLS …

  1. … are ignorant tools who are content with mediocrity and don’t want anything better.
  2. … support the domestic league despite its faults, and it’d be great if they could also demand more change.
  3. … feel that the only way the league will improve will be if it’s stable and bringing in more money to invest in players and academies.
  4. … are patriotic Americans.

See the pattern? The “2” and “3” groups differ only in the details.

The NASL …

  1. … is the home of true American soccer because the commissioner says he wouldn’t mind seeing pro/rel at some point, and it’s only a matter of time before they start outbidding MLS on players (even though no one has shown much interest in doing that beyond the occasional fringe player).
  2. … is an interesting league that may provide just a bit of competition to keep MLS on its toes.
  3. … is a second division, no different from the old A-League (which actually did experiment with pro/rel but didn’t get very far), that is valuable because it put professional soccer in more cities and allows some owners to test the waters before moving to MLS.
  4. … has delusional fans.

“4” is certainly an extreme generalization. “1” is pretty ridiculous and doesn’t mesh with the way NASL teams are actually acting.

The U.S. soccer media …

  1. … is totally in the pocket of MLS and the USSF. Or scared to lose their credentials. Or just idiots. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.
  2. … needs to take a harder look at what’s holding back MLS and U.S. Soccer.
  3. … are diverse and rapidly growing, from independent bloggers to mainstream media reporters who now have soccer as their primary beat (or only beat) rather than a secondary or tertiary thing … or even something they used to hide from editors.
  4. … are just great.

I don’t think “4” actually exists. “2” has valid points. “3” is absolutely correct. Just consider Sports Illustrated — a few years ago, Grant Wahl covered soccer and college basketball. Now he’s one of a handful of soccer specialists.

And finally, the most recent flare-up …

Jurgen Klinsmann’s fretting over U.S. players returning to MLS …

  1. … is right on! Go, Jurgen! And how dare Don Garber oppress him by disagreeing!
  2. … is a legitimate concern, perhaps inelegantly expressed but still valid.
  3. … misses the mark because the players in question found better situations in MLS than they had in Europe, and players should always seek out the best situation rather than simply assuming the top European leagues are better.
  4. … proves that he’s clueless. Fire Klinsmann!

To sum up … if you find yourself most often associated with one of these groups, you are …

  1. … a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist who is probably on my “block” list on Twitter.
  2. … reasonable. Perhaps easily offended from the occasional interaction with a “4,” but you can be talked back into a productive discussion on the issues.
  3. … too reasonable. Get over yourself and argue with the rest of us.
  4. … too cynical, having been through too many of these arguments.

The people who’ve been around the longest tend to be “4.” We’ve discussed a lot of these issues since the old days of the North American Soccer mailing list and the launch of MLS. And the “1” list dominated conversation for too long.

I think the “2” group is growing. They skew younger, asking legitimate questions about why MLS and U.S. Soccer are the way they are. Show them the answers, and they’ll understand but continue to seek ways to push everything toward Eurotopia.

The “3” group needs a nap.

One day, we may have pro/rel in this country, and we may see little difference between the way MLS operates and the way the Bundesliga operates. (My guess is that the Bundesliga will lead the way in pushing “Financial Fair Play” so that its teams don’t explode in spectacular fashion.) But if that happens, it won’t be because of someone unreasonably screamed for it on Twitter.

Milhouse: We gotta spread this stuff around. Let’s put it on the internet!

Bart: No! We have to reach people whose opinions actually matter!

That said, I think some good could come of talking through all these issues. MLS has a history of talking with and listening to its supporters. So if you’re for that, go ahead.

If you’re screaming at me, of all people, now four years removed from USA TODAY and with no major pro men’s soccer platform, I’m just going to block you. Life’s too short for all these wars.

6
soccer

U.S. women’s national team: What are they doing?

Posted on by Beau Dure

I figured it out. The USA is playing a 4-3-3 formation with fluid interchanges in midfield.

No, wait — it’s a 4-5-1, with one target forward and two traditional wingers.

Or maybe it’s a 4-2-4, with Carli Lloyd and Lauren Holiday as the only actual midfielders.

No, no. I’ve got it. It was Col. Mustard with the lead pipe in the conservatory.

In some senses, the Jill Ellis Way isn’t all that complicated. At least, it wasn’t in Monday night’s rather routine 6-0 rout over Haiti that clinched first place in their World Cup qualifying group and moved the team into the semifinals, the first of several chances the team could have to make it to Canada 2015 but also the only chance they should need.

On Monday in lively RFK Stadium, the USA lined up with …

– a traditional back four (Whitney Engen took a turn at center back in place of Becky Sauerbrunn, while Kelley O’Hara joined the right back mix, but neither Engen nor O’Hara made a compelling case for the starting XI).

– Lauren Holiday in her new spot as a deep-lying midfielder who can switch the point of attack and play long through balls.

– Carli Lloyd in her central not-quite-defensive but also not the playmaking midfield role.

– Tobin Heath (left) and Christen Press (right) on the wings.

– Abby Wambach as a target forward, putting to rest (for now) the talk of making her a sort-of playmaking midfielder.

– Megan Rapinoe all over the damn field.

“We asked Abby to sort of stay high and leave the space open for Pinoe and Carli to get into,” Ellis said. “Megan has a pretty free role and roams a lot, and sometimes that’s a good thing.”

U.S. Soccer calls it a 4-3-3. That’s about as close as we’ll get.

Ellis has been fond of using numbers rather than names to refer to positions. The left wing is an 11. The right wing is a 7. Center mids who are not the attacking midfielder are 8 and 4, though the 8 may attack more than the 4.

The numbering system is an odd fit for this team. It dates back to a particularly rigid era of English tactics, when Hungary could turn up at Wembley and completely flummox the hosts by dropping the center forward back into midfield.

So then what would you call Rapinoe, who turned up on both flanks and, early in the game, alongside Wambach at center forward? Do you take the average of 11, 7, 10 and 9? (At least 9.75 would’ve been a decent score in the old gymnastics scoring system.)

“I think when I start in the 10, more central, then I have the freedom to roam. I can shift out wide, which is a 7 or 11,” Rapinoe said. “But if I start out wide, then I’m supposed to stay wide more.”

This team is more fluid than that. Particularly in Rapinoe’s case and to some extent in Lloyd’s. The wingers are sometimes midfielders, sometimes forwards.

Ellis said the team’s “mantra” is to get that early goal and set the tone. So it was little wonder that the formation looked like a 4-4-2, with Heath, Wambach, Rapinoe and Press all surging ahead like a direct counterpart of Haiti’s back four.

But it didn’t really work. The USA got an early lead off a Haitian lapse, with the visitors’ defense clearing the ball and pulling up but making the crucial error of leaving Wambach unmarked, then failing to account for Lloyd firing home after the keeper punched clear of Wambach. A few minutes later, the fault lines in the attack appeared — a cross went into space that Wambach and Rapinoe occupied. The moment of “I got it, no, you got it” hesitation surely cost the USA a second goal.

Asked if she and Wambach realized they shouldn’t be in the same place, Rapinoe laughed in agreement.

“It’s definitely different for me to be in the box like that to get on the end of headers like that. But I do my best. …

“It’s a bit of an adjustment, of course. I’ve been playing out wide, predominantly, for three, four, five years now. I come inside when I play out wide, anyway, to occupy that space a little bit. I’m not just going to run past you on the wing. So it’s pretty similar to my (wing) role, it’s more my starting position.”

It didn’t matter on this night, of course. Haiti had nothing to offer. By my count, they got into the U.S. box with the ball twice, tumbling each time as if in search of some call from the referee to give them a chance at the penalty spot. Their best chance was in the 33rd minute, when the USA faltered in the center at let Marie Jean Pierre race toward the goal, but Whitney Engen recovered and put her foot directly in front of Jean Pierre’s 25-yard shot. The other Haitian chance, if we’re stretching the definition of the word “chance,” was from roughly 35 yards out and near the right sideline, struck hard but nowhere near Ashlyn Harris’ goal.

Shek Borkowski, the affable Polish-American coach who has made Haiti his major project, gave a mixed report in the press conference. It was something along the lines of “Yes, we’re making some progress, but these players need to avoid getting caught up in the excitement of staying in nice hotels, a lot of these players are on the way out, I’m off to coach the U20s and get them ready to replace the senior players, good night.” He made no effort to hide his team’s strategy for this game — bunker and counter — but they simply weren’t effective. Trinidad and Tobago showed that it’s possible to pull a near-upset with an organized defense and an intelligent counterattack, but Haiti had neither.

And so we didn’t learn that much from this game. Meghan Klingenberg looked great going forward from left back, combining with Tobin Heath for some creative flank play that provided some relief from the endless parade of crosses, and she scored her first international goal on a blistering drive from 25 yards out. But can you anoint her the new left back starter after a game in which she was hardly asked to play any defense?

Chris Hummer, the SoccerWire entrepreneur and former Washington Spirit GM, was not impressed with what he saw from the USA. To channel the spirit of Pia Sundhage, my glass is half-full. I saw some creativity on display — some dummies, the occasional backheel, a pretty combination between Holiday and Leroux, etc. Holiday’s quality is a nice fit for that deep-lying (No. 4) role.

But it’s true that the U.S. tactics were less than subtle, sometimes bringing up bad memories of the team fruitlessly whacking the ball to Abby Wambach in the 2003 World Cup semifinal against Germany.

“Obviously, we were looking for diagonal balls and balls in the box, and I thought they defended very hard,” Ellis said. “Gradually, we sort of wore them down.”

And again, we’ll have to see if all of these things work against better opponents. How will Holiday fare defending a European playmaker? What happens when the opposing defense does not neglect the towering presence of 173-goal scorer Abby Wambach?

Friday night’s semifinal will be a step up in class — Costa Rica, Mexico and Jamaica all look considerably better than Haiti and Guatemala. The stakes are high, so the USA may have to resort to the tried-and-true whack-it-to-Abby ball just to make things comfortable. Then we’ll see what happens when the team tackles more powerful opposition later on.

So, Megan Rapinoe, should we in the pressbox and stands give up trying to figure out Ellis’ numbers?

“Yeah, I think so.”

She did say Holiday was a 6 and Lloyd was an 8. But some experts on English Football Positional Numbers (EFPN) would say 6 is a center back. Um, no.

Look — the English persist in calling center backs “center halves” because, a century ago, the people who wore those numbers were in the midfield of a 2-3-5 formation. When Ellis lines up the team in a 2-3-5, we’ll worry about the numbers again.

Just know this — Rapinoe is an effective playmaker with room to roam, Holiday is good the deep-lying role, Lloyd is always going to figure out a way to get into the attack, Heath is creative on the left flank, and Wambach is still a pretty good target forward.

And I’m now convinced that the players, at least, know their roles. We’ll see how they execute them against better opposition.

Notes:

– Ashlyn Harris had little to do on a rare start in goal.

“You have to be switched on, you have to be ready, you have to expect it. You have to play high off your line in case the ball goes over and takes a bad flick off a defender’s head, you have to be there to clean it up. But you also can’t flirt with danger. If they’re breaking our pressure and they can hit it over my head, I have to make sure I’m back in a good position. … I have to be a leader out there, be a voice, make my presence known, and when the ball comes, make sure I’m ready and I’m not sleepy.”

But she did get to soak up the love from her home fans in Washington, where the Spirit faithful chanted her name before kickoff.

“I’m in my home, you know. These are my people, these are my supporters. These are the people who’ve been there for a long time, rooting for me. It’s humbling, it’s honoring. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before at a national team event, and that’s pretty special, and I’m going to keep that with me for a long time.”

– Hope Solo was one of the first players to walk past the mixed zone. I didn’t see anyone ask to speak with her, but it’s possible someone down the line asked. The bulk of the media attention was on the goal scorers.

– Attendance was listed at 6,421. It felt like more, in part because the area underneath the pressbox and mezzanine was roped off, moving fans either to the corners or to the far sideline, where the crowd was strong and loud.

– University of Virginia midfielder Morgan Brian scored a goal to the delight of the plethora of Cavaliers fans in the crowd. She often plays a little farther back on the field, but not this time.

– The big game tomorrow sees Mexico and Jamaica play for a spot in the semis.

Hmmm … maybe I should take up gambling. I’d be happy to put down some money on Jamaica at those odds.

Highlights:

1
soccer

Single-Digit Soccer: Why play travel? What you think is wrong

Posted on by Beau Dure

You’ve seen plenty of skepticism in this space — and at U.S. Youth Soccer — about separating “travel” players from “rec” players before the age of 12, much less the age of 10. But the skepticism isn’t about the idea of having “travel” experiences — being paired with good teammates and good coaches, playing similarly skilled teams, and actually traveling more than 15 minutes away … on occasion. On the contrary, my sense for now is that “travel” should be open to more players and less exclusionary.

If you can make a strong case for or against that argument, please meet up with me at the NSCAA Convention in January. Or leave a comment. I want to hear all the arguments.

But today, I’m going back to the roots of “travel” from the parental perspective. Perhaps it’s just to smack around a few of the more elitist and ignorant (a redundancy?) people at a local parenting message board, but I think some other good may come out of my ranting here.

The question is this: Why do kids play “travel” at all?

The assumption some people make is that they play “travel” because their parents think they’re truly awesome players who are going to be the next Mia Hamm, Messi or some other player they’ve heard of. And yes, a few of those parents exist:

(No, I don’t know why this conversation is taking place in Beijing.)

Like all single-minded people, they fail to see that other people’s thoughts are more diverse. They think everyone wants the same thing. And so you see these people on message boards saying Club X is ripping off players by … letting them play travel when they’re not that good.

I never said this argument made sense.

In any case — some travel parents are more realistic and well-adjusted than the mom in the video or the stereotypical scholarship-chaser. They know their kids are likely to go no further than the local high school team. (In fact, in some cases, that’s the ultimate goal. Making a high school team isn’t easy.)

They play for these reasons:

1. The bonding experience of playing on a traveling team.

2. The training to keep up with the game so that they can play in high school, or in intramurals, or as an adult — or even a higher-level travel player should the opportunity arise. (Remember — puberty and growth spurts have a funny way of shaking up kids’ athleticism, and as much as we’d like to pretend athleticism doesn’t matter in soccer, those wonderful ball skills mean little if everyone on the field is three steps faster.)

3. Rec soccer can be frustrating. Teammates might not show up. Parent coaches may or may not know what they’re doing.

All of which are legitimate reasons.

So is it fair to accuse clubs of swindling parents by letting them spend extra money on a soccer experience that’s a little more serious than rec?

Consider the other things your kids might do. Piano lessons. Karate. Musical theater. Gymnastics. Ballet.

Are you spending money on those things because you think your kids might get scholarships or professional opportunities? Probably not. Should you be offended if some other kids who’s less talented than yours is taking the same class or visiting the same teacher? Definitely not. If your kid goes to an Ivy League school, should you complain about all the kids going to other schools in the U.S. News Top 25? Of course not.

So why do we get bent out of shape that our local “travel” clubs aren’t excluding more kids?

1
soccer

Turf questions: Not just scrapes, but cancer?

Posted on by Beau Dure

NBC’s Hannah Rappleye poured a lot of research into this piece on artificial turf, finding an alarming correlation between soccer players, particularly goalkeepers, and cancer diagnoses.

As exhaustive as NBC’s research is, it can’t really answer the question of whether artificial turf is to blame. That’s not NBC’s fault. The science just isn’t there. Most studies are in the “well, we couldn’t find a link, but more study is needed” camp. That’s somewhat comforting.

The follow-up questions aren’t just scientific but statistical. How many people have played soccer, goalkeepers in particular, on artificial turf? How many have been diagnosed with cancer? Now take that percentage and compare it to the incidence of cancer across the general population in that age range.

That’s obviously beyond my scope here. Maybe FiveThirtyEight could follow up?

One side issue for scientists to figure out — are turf fields more dangerous when they heat up and release vapors? Perhaps we’ll find yet another reason not to play on artificial turf when the air temperature is over 90 and the turf temperature is simply insane.

In the meantime, I’m going to try not to worry about the masses of rubber pellets I brought home from indoor soccer games over a few years. I don’t think I swallowed any, at least.

And then the more serious concerns: Do we worry about our kids playing on this surface? Or the pros?

0