Concluding this series reviewing CONCACAF's performance at the World Cup finals, I discuss the performance of Mexico and the United States.
MEXICO
Coming into this tournament, Mexico's supporters set very high expectations for them - way too high, in my estimation. While Mexico have a number of talented players, and should not be underestimated at international level (as recent performances in Confederations Cups indicate), they only won their first World Cup match in Europe in 1998 (against South Korea), and have struggled against top European and South American sides. The final result was the same as in 2002, a better performance in the second round than last time, but the same frustrating exit.
I saw Mexico's overall performance in Germany as very uneven. I had always thought that Iran would prove a tougher challenge to Mexico than a lot of the Mexican press, supporters, or even players. In the end Mexico's experience took advantage of Iran's lack of nerve in the back to earn the three points, but you can guarantee that there were some frayed nerves in Nuremberg and Mexico (and some parts of the USA). The Angola match was Mexico's worst of the tournament. Joao Ricardo had a brilliant match for the Angolans, but I was shocked by Mexico's lack of ideas in the final third. Mexico started poorly and nervously against Portugal, and paid for it in the first 20 minutes, but fought back into the match. In the end Iran's late goal ensured Mexico's passage into the second round, against Argentina.
That match against Argentina was the best of the second round, and one of the best of the tournament. Mexico were much more brave than they had been during the tournament, and they gave as well as they got from Argentina. Part of the reason could be that Mexico was for the first time playing an out-and-out Latin team (Portugal still retains a Latin style, but with a European flavor thanks to Scolari), and the tempo of play suited Mexico's style. In the end, it took a moment of individual brilliance to decide such an evenly-poised match. One wonders what might have happened had Pardo and Guardado been able to complete the match.
So in the end another win for Mexico in a European World Cup (and as things turned out, the only CONCACAF win), but out of the final eight once again. Despite the impression in the Mexican press of yet another 'failure', a number of players made good accounts of themselves, such as Márquez, Pardo, Guardado, and Osorio, among others. As a matter of fact, Pardo and Osorio will play for Bundesliga side Stuttgart next season. And with the U-17 stars Giovanni dos Santos and Carlos Vela playing for Barcelona and Arsenal, respectively, Mexico looks set to not just maintain (or regain, depending on what part of the Rio Grande you live on) CONCACAF supremacy, and make a greater impact on the world stage.
USA
Next to Costa Rica, the USA had the most disappointing World Cup of the CONCACAF participants. After their fantastic performance at the Far East finals, where they beat a contender and a bitter rival and narrowly lost to the runner-up, expectations were much higher for team that many thought were stronger than the 2002 squad. The hype machine was getting out of control when people like Eric Wynalda, an analyst who I have grown to like and thought would know better, said that he felt the USA had a good shot to make the semifinals if things went their way. There were even sillier things said by the mainstream press, which knows even less about soccer and can only be bothered to think about it every four years (and almost always with that oh-so-clever fútbol spelling). The USA's group was always the true Group of Death, and even advancing from the group would require the team playing at their full potential. And then there awaited a likely matchup against Brazil. As things turned out, the USA were up against it almost since the opening whistle, and despite fighting hard, never looked like a side playing at their peak abilities.
Parallels were sought between these finals and Italy 1990, when the USA played Czechoslovakia and Italy. There really weren't any parallels to speak of -- for one, today's USA squad is fully professional -- but it did provide an opportunity to demonstrate how far the national team had progressed. In that respect, the 0-3 result against the Czech Republic was a brutal result. That match was perhaps the most comprehensive defeat of the USA during Bruce Arena's tenure, and it laid bare the deficiencies of the side that need to be addressed in order to crack into world soccer's elite. From my standpoint, the team was disjointed in attack, gave away possession too easily, and not brave enough. There were a number of players who were expected to make an impact on the game who never did so, most notably Donovan and Beasley. And when you had a situation where Reyna had to drop further back into the defense in order to win the ball and start offensive thrusts, it was clear that confidence in the remaining midfielders was being lost. I'm sure that many casual soccer fans in the US saw that match and said, "This team is supposed to be ranked #5 and played like that??"
If the match against Czech Republic was the low point of the USA's World Cup adventure, the match against Italy was its height. That match was the most intense match involving the US team that I had witnessed - it took me several hours to get over the emotional high from that game. The USA played much better in midfield than they did against the Czechs, and they more than held their own against a star-studded Italian midfield. A well-taken free kick from Pirlo opened the advantage, but US pressure and Italian generosity brought the scores level. De Rossi's ejection gave the Americans a vital opportunity, but they failed to gauge their tackles under the eyes of an overly strict referee. I have less argument with Pope's second yellow than Mastroeni's red, but both involved plays far from the penalty area and in the end both players had themselves to blame. The remainder of the match was a physical battle as the USA fought for its point. The intensity of this match was reflected not just on the field but in the stands - that was perhaps the most intensely pro-US crowd that I had seen in any match, Stateside or otherwise.
In the match against Ghana, frustration reigned once more. Arena once more chose to play a lone striker up front, ostensibly to give midfield players like Donovan more room to venture upfield. Well, Donovan failed to move upfield and the result was an offensive buildup built on long balls that fizzled out in the attacking end. And the opening Ghana goal occurred at the result of an uncharacteristic blunder by the hardest-working American player at the finals - Reyna. Would that play have been different had Mastroeni been back there? Perhaps. It took almost twenty minutes for the USA to claw back to level terms with an equally uncharacteristic move forward by Beasley and a clinical finish by Dempsey, who was the one American player other than Reyna not afraid to take the game to his opponents. That goal shifted the momentum of the game, and with Italy defeating the Czechs, the Americans looked poised to take the lead. Until the phantom penalty on Onyewu during stoppage time. There was simply no way that there was a penalty on that play, but nevertheless the call was made and up stepped Appiah to make the match 2-1. The USA did try hard to get back into the game - McBride will think of that ball hitting the post for many years to come - but a draw was no more than what they deserved, and a draw was insufficient on the day.
On the whole, the USA's World Cup experience was ultimately about frustration. The team played a different style in the finals than they did in the qualifiers. For one, they were forced to do so by the higher quality of their Group E opponents. For another, the 4-5-1 formation was not the best formation for the squad that was picked. Perhaps a striker like Twellman would have been a better selection than someone like Johnson. Ching might have been a better strike partner for McBride, but he never appeared in the finals. More needs to be said about the anonymous performance of Landon Donovan in these finals. In the buildup to Germany, he was expected to take the initiative and take the leadership mantle from Reyna. In Germany, he never showed up, never took the initiative to put his stamp on the game, and relegated himself to an invisible presence in midfield. Maybe Jen Chang of ESPN was right when he said that Donovan is not worthy of the hype, and it irritates me to no end to see someone throw away his talent.
And now, a final word about Bruce Arena. It's too bad that I wasn't able to finish this review before the announcement that Arena would leave the national team at the end of his contract. The move wasn't unexpected; eight years is a long time to be a national team manager, especially in today's football. Bruce Arena has been the best national team coach that the USA has ever had, and has taken them to unprecedented levels in world soccer. However, it became clear during the World Cup that there remains a gap between the USA's current state and the world elite, and a coaching change might be necessary to breach that gap. This isn't a knock on Arena - closing this gap will require big leaps in talent selection and development in US soccer, as well as improvements in the quality of coaching and refereeing. A simple change of coaches is not sufficient to make US men's soccer a legitimate contender. Deeper reforms along the entire system are required, and as Arena said when he assumed the post of the NY Red Bulls, it will be at least a ten-year project. The USSF has time to take the first step of this project. One hopes that they choose carefully and wisely.
