HexagonalBlog

A trip to an Arizona Rush game

If you drive around Tucson it's possible to find billboards advertising Arizona Rush soccer matches.  I knew that they were a women's team in the semi-pro WPSL, but not much more than that.  Two weeks ago I finally got around to seeing a match and I traveled to the University of Arizona's Murphey Field to watch the Rush play the Utah Spiders.

Arizona Rush are having a very good season at the top of their division with an unbeaten home record.  I arrived about 20 minutes into the game, and the Rush had already scored.  Sure enough, that would be the only goal of the game.  There was some good play from the midfielders on both sides -- such as Alexandra Davis who plays a central playmaker role for the Rush and the Utah #10 (don't remember her name) who plays on the wings -- but there were few scoring opportunities.  Most of the players are college level players drawn from the local universities, with a few players from out-of-state universities and a couple more with WUSA experience.  The crowd was what you'd expect for a semi-pro league, small (around 100) and relaxed.  I ended up sitting next to a woman who plays goalkeeper for Berkeley (I looked past that) and the Sacramento WPSL team, and I learned quite a bit about the players on both sides. 

Murphey Field is about two miles from the UA campus, in a complex with some other athletic facilities that can't be accommodated on the main campus (University of Arizona's campus is very compact, very much like Georgia Tech).  All of the stands are on one side, with tall trees bordering one end of the field.  I haven't been to a UA soccer match but I can't imagine them drawing more than a modest crowd.  It's not an easy stadium to get to, and you can't walk to it from the main campus (I suppose you could, but I wouldn't want to, especially at night).   The natural grass field looks to be in decent shape with the exception of a few brown spots. 

The WPSL seems to be a feminine analogue of the USL's Premier Development League: an opportunity for college-level players to play competitive matches during the off season.  In the wake of the WUSA's demise, it's also served as an opportunity for former top-flight players to remain in playing shape.  I think the WPSL is one division below the W-League on the American women's soccer pyramid, but I doubt that there exists a big drop in playing quality between the two leagues.  Both leagues are big enough and distributed enough that a promotion/relegation scheme might work.  Don't expect such a setup between the professional league -- whenever it starts up -- and the W-League/WPSL; perhaps some sort of feeder network with affiliations with the professional teams (like baseball) will occur. Heck, it would be better if the professional soccer leagues in this country knew that the lower divisions even existed, which I doubt if some of their decisions are anything to go by.

Anyway, it was a nice evening out.  Unfortunately it won't be able to attend any more games this season (their home finale was Wednesday July 2nd, when I was out of town, and then the playoffs), but I'll watch out for those billboards next season.

Not much to say

I didn't watch the England-USA friendly last Wednesday (I was at work during the day and could only read internet updates), and I wasn't able to watch any replays, either.  So I can only pass on the match reports from here and abroad as well as some of the comments from the various blogs. 

When I read early in the day that Landon Donovan wouldn't be appearing in the match, the outcome was a foregone conclusion.  I'm not much of a believer in fairy tales at this level of sport, and the odds of a side without its most dynamic and creative player against a team composed of seven Champions League final participants were wafer-thin.  The outcome was wholly predictable and there weren't any new insights learned from the defeat, but that doesn't mean that what we already know isn't depressing. 

This USA side is too lacking in top-level international experience to feel comfortable in settings such as Wembley, ball possession is lost far too easily at almost every position, there is no dynamism up front to create scoring opportunities, and the composition of the team is a collection of athletic, hard-working, and ultimately uncreative players.  It's nothing that I haven't opined on before, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one.  These problems exist at national team and club levels, throughout the age classifications, and -- if things stay the same -- will be seen in the women's game as well.  In a confederation where the talent level is not very high, these shortcomings are not enough to prevent qualification to the World Cup.  But until they are addressed properly, a short stay in the World Cup finals -- barring some strokes of luck a la 2002 -- will be the future of the national team. 

I don't know all of the solutions, but they must go deeper than merely changing the manager's nameplate at the senior national team.

An honorable choice

Yesterday, Peter Nowak had a choice:  either go out for the win against a Honduras side already through to the Olympic qualifying semifinals and risk a winner-take-all match against Mexico, or rest key players, require less than a full effort from his side, and end up with an easier semifinal.  He made the honorable choice.

Somewhere, Glenn Myernick is smiling.

USA and World Cup 2018 - Why not?

Now that I've discussed some of the reasons the USA might host the World Cup finals, it's time to give some reasons why they might not get a bid. 

One significant reason is the sheer logistical nightmare of scheduling matches in order to satisfy the demands of the European audiences.  I felt the 1994 World Cup could have been one of the best tournaments ever if a majority of the matches had been played at night.  The heat and humidity at many of the matches, some of which were played at 12 noon, had a debilitating effect on the play.  (I had the misfortune a couple of years ago of attending an outdoor wedding in Orlando at high noon in mid-June.  I can only imagine how football players could run at normal speed in that environment for 90 minutes.)  Now, when the European audience is the largest and wealthiest soccer audience in the world, one has to dance to their tune, so to speak.  If rescheduling the matches to a nighttime kickoff is a non-starter, then FIFA may insist on the matches taking place in stadiums with an overhead roof.  However, a minority of stadiums in the USA have overhead roofs, so if FIFA sticks to that point it could negate an advantage of the American bid -- the abundance of stadiums that seat 60,000 or more. 

The other factor that works against an American bid is the sporting culture of the USA.  In my opinion, this factor could be significant enough to not give the USA a bid.  The argument goes roughly like this: an American World Cup final tournament would be hugely profitable at the gate and the merchandising booth, but no one really cares about "soccer" in the USA -- the country is so darned big that the finals won't be noticed in most of the country, and the passion that you see for the game in other parts of the world is nonexistent in the USA, in short, the tournament would be missing its je ne sais quoi that one could find anywhere else.  I can recall two statements that illustrate that point.  The first was a video interview that Argentina's La Nación conducted in 2002 with Víctor Hugo Morales, who is perhaps the most famous radio football commentator in Argentina over the past quarter-century.  He was giving his opinion of the various World Cups he had witnessed, and he felt that USA '94 were the worst he had ever seen.  Not really for the quality of play, but more because the atmospherics were too sterile to be a true World Cup. Another comment that I remember after the World Cup came from Michel Platini, who said that he wanted France '98 to be a cultural event -- something he felt was lacking in USA '94.

"It was only a World Cup in the stadiums."

I think that statement goes to the heart of American sporting culture.  The foreign media got a lot of enjoyment from the factoid that only 30% of the US public knew that the World Cup finals were going on in their country.  The man-on-the-street interviews that probed knowledge on the game or the major stars were painful to watch. (My personal favorite was the woman who, when asked if she had heard of Diego Maradona, replied, "I don't let my kids listen to that kind of music.")  While all of these anecdotes are amusing, frustrating, or infuriating (depending on your point of view), the fact is that it is very difficult for any sporting event -- outside of the Super Bowl and a US-hosted Summer Olympics -- to achieve complete penetration in the sporting public.   It is very easy to attend a major sporting event, walk up to 10 blocks from the sporting arena, and have no idea that said event is going on. 

I don't think it is good enough, to foreign eyes, to have the World Cup be felt in the stadiums and the immediate surrounding area. Rather, it must be felt to envelop the entire country, to dominate the national landscape and culture for 30-odd days.  If anything, American culture is large enough and complex enough to envelop any event, even something as big as the soccer World Cup.  It is impossible for any event to achieve 100% awareness, attention, or involvement from the American public.  But it's possible to attract a sizable percentage of the population and still be wildly successful, even if one never reaches 100%.  Forty percent of 300 million people is still a very large number, bigger than any European or South American country except Russia and Brazil.  Perhaps the best way to involve as much of the population as possible is to borrow the idea of the "Fan Mile" that worked so well in Germany 2006, and replicate them across the country.  It would also be good to involve MLS and host viewing parties in their stadiums before a league match -- since they probably won't suspend the league during the World Cup, even though they should.

The USSF is going to start the process of putting together a bid for the 2018 World Cup this year.  They have enough resources and experience to put together a very strong bid, such as the abundance of large stadiums, an excellent transportation and hotel infrastructure, a large audience of soccer supporters and observers, and the expertise of putting on big events.  However, they have to be aware of the potential pitfalls, such as the scheduling logistics that might force redevelopment of the stadiums, and the sheer size and complexity of the country that can swallow up any international event.  If the Federation put together a package that plays to their strengths yet recognizes their weaknesses and presents ideas to mitigate them, they will have a strong bid indeed.  Given the competition that they will face for WC 2018, they'll have a challenging task ahead.

USA and World Cup 2018 - Why?

This post is a long time coming, but has fortunately not been outdated by events.  As a matter of fact, FIFA's decision to open the bidding for the 2018 World Cup beyond CONCACAF, the resulting increased competition from European and Asian countries, and the recent and ongoing  controversies involving Jack Warner and the British federations might serve to bolster some of the arguments that I want to make.  IMO, another World Cup final in the USA would be fantastic, and it would be even more of a financial success than 1994.  However I think it would be very difficult for the USA to be selected for the 2018 finals, for reasons that seem to have nothing to do with football but in a way have everything to do with football.

This post is extremely long (even for me!), so I decided to split it into two parts.  The first part will give, in my opinion, the factors that are in the USA's favor as it prepares a bid for WC 2018.  In general  the climate for soccer in the United States is very different, and in many ways more hospitable, today than it was in 1994.  One example is the number of stadiums, in various parts of the country, that could accommodate such an event.  Last year I gave my list of stadiums that I thought might be suitable for a World Cup in the United States.  Almost all of them are NFL stadiums that have been built or redeveloped since 1994, and all of them were constructed to accommodate soccer pitches.   The only two stadiums on that list that haven't been renovated are Dolphin Stadium, which was built with soccer in mind, and the Rose Bowl, which is the only stadium of suitable size/location in the Los Angeles area.  I don't know how many stadiums from that proposed list would meet the UEFA 5-star criteria, but I would have to believe that it would be a higher percentage than the 1994 stadiums.  A World Cup match indoors is no longer as novel a concept as it was in 1994, which is the only way one could ever host a summer match in places like Phoenix and Houston.  The redevelopment wave of NFL stadiums brings into the picture cities that would make fantastic World Cup venues, such as Seattle and Philadelphia. 

Another set of stadiums that should not be neglected is the collection of soccer-specific arenas in the various MLS cities.  Even though these stadiums are too small to host a World Cup match, they could serve as training sites for the finalists and venues for warm-up matches.   There are also some smaller facilities in the lower divisions that could host some finalists, such as Atlanta, Charleston, and Rochester, but those cities (with the obvious exception of Atlanta) would pose some challenges for travel to the World Cup venues.

In addition to stadiums, the soccer audience in the United States is larger and much more sophisticated than it was in 1994.  Back then it was difficult to get matches on a regular basis from the European leagues, unless one bought pay-per-view packages or owned a satellite dish (not the miniature ones, a really big satellite dish).   Now, as Oliver Tse illustrated in his note on Soccer America, the American sporting public has access to a wider array of international matches than could have been imagined 14 years ago.  Moreover, the US national team has gone through three  World Cup qualifying cycles, and those matches receive enough attention that the general public is more  aware of the road that has to be traveled to make it to the World Cup finals.  What these changes mean is that a future World Cup in the USA would happen in a country where a sizable portion of the public is aware of the major players and the national teams that they represent.  (We can debate 'sizable' - is it 10%, 20%, or something else?)  Whether the Stateside broadcasters will recognize this sophistication and deliver an improved product to their viewers remains to be seen. 

Perhaps the most significant factor in favor of a bid is the Americans' experience in organizing and  attending major domestic and international events in their country.  People have said that the American public will come out for the big events like no one else in the world -- from active supporters and followers of the sport, to casual observers, to those who might not know anything about the sport yet attend out of curiosity and the desire to be part of a big event.  There is a significant track record and knowledge base in this country that has been attained from organizing major events (such as the Olympics, the Super Bowl, the major college championships in football/basketball), and that experience can be applied to ticketing, advertising, and volunteering.  The World Cup is a different event because of the national scope, so the challenge will be to run the local venues well while minimizing the isolation between geographic sites (easier said than done).  There has been some lessons learned on that count as well, thanks to hosting not just World Cup 1994, but also the 1999 and 2003 Women's World Cups.   Security will be a big concern, but for different reasons in a post-9/11 world.  I would like to think that in the last 14 years, we have a more sophisticated view of who soccer fans really are and what the level of precaution should be.  (The irresponsible US media caricatures of soccer fans seriously misallocated resources that might have been better applied elsewhere.)  Lastly, the ethnic diversity of the country will bring out the expatriates who will come to the stadiums to support their native national team. 

So I've discussed some of the reasons why the USA would be a good host for World Cup 2018.  In the next post I'll discuss some of the reasons why they may not receive that bid.

A question to be answered later

There will be a lot of recriminations from the rout that the US women suffered at the feet of Brazil in the World Cup semifinal.  Some of it is starting now, starting with Hope Solo's comments.

I might touch on some of that in the coming days, but on the dawn of a new era in women's soccer one question has lingered in my mind:  Is the USA on the verge of becoming the women's soccer equivalent of Uruguay -- a side that once dominated the game and from time to time produces excellent players, but is no longer the power it once was?  Or is it about to become an Italy - a team that was dominant in the beginning and also produces excellent players, yet consistently remains as one of the favorites every four years? 

I know that the question appears longwinded, but it's really simple -- are the US women about to become another Uruguay, or another Italy? 

I'm out of town for 24 hours, but when I return I hope to give my response to that question.  In the meantime I'd appreciate any comments that you might have.

(And congratulations to Brazil -- since the 2004 Olympics it's always been a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'.  And their achievement is especially impressive considering how little support women's soccer receives from the national federation or the broader society.)

USA to play Uruguay in U20 second round

Just confirmed an hour ago.  The match will be Wednesday in Toronto.

Uruguay is not going to be an easy opponent, but if the USA can get past them they would have a very good chance of advancing to the last four.

I hope this Adu sticks around

It's probably unfair to label Freddy Adu as an enigma, but he hasn't turned out to be quite the phenom that a lot of American soccer fans expected.  But he is a player with a lot of potential on the international stage, and his hat-trick against Poland was magnificent.  I really hope that Adu's first goal is replayed as widely as possible.  Absolutely fantastic. 

Not to leave anyone else out, Danny Szetela played well also by scoring twice, and Sal Zizzo was dominant on the right side.  Jozy Altidore chipped in with a simple finish off a Rogers cross. 

A tectonic shift

Sunil Gulati has been criticized (rightly in my opinion) for his handling of the process that selected Bruce Arena's successor on the men's national team.  Now he should be credited for putting through a youth development program that, at first glance, is the most important advance in America's youth soccer development in decades.  There's so much to digest in the proposed program and its objectives and details, but it looks like it goes a long way to addressing the challenges that youth soccer has to deal with in this country (geography, independent youth clubs, tournament/cup/camp mentalities, colleges). 

I hope to make my own comments soon, and finally address some comments made in my earlier post on MLS' Youth Development Initiative, but in the meantime here are some comments from the writers at Top Drawer Soccer, who have devoted a lot of time to youth development issues.

UPDATE: The 95-point argument in favor of an academy system should be read as well.

Bradley's ascension

(AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

After ten months, the USA has a permanent manager at the helm of the men's national team.  And after all of the suspense, I'm left with two sensations - the first being "This search ended up exactly as I thought it would" and  "Why did it have to take so long?"  You see, after the World Cup, I was chatting with a friend of mine about who the USSF might pick after Arena.  He felt that the Federation should go with a foreign coach; I felt that they would go in that direction, and after they get turned down, settle on a top American coach.  It happened in 1995, and it has happened again in 2007.

Some will see Bob Bradley's signing as another blown opportunity by the USSF; others will see it as the right decision given the circumstances.  You can find examples of such thinking here and here.   I think that once again the USSF backed into their decision in a less than graceful way.  It's not that Bradley isn't qualified to be national team coach; he has managed two MLS sides very well (we'll set the MetroStars disaster aside) and has earned the respect of his players.  But the way that Sunil Gulati handled the search and then gave Bradley an interim status for an extended period of time is just amateurish.  It must be discouraging to be given a job where you know you aren't the first choice, but in the end Bradley acted like the job was his and obtained good results in the friendlies that were placed in front of him.

So why didn't Gulati find success hiring a foreign coach?  The unwillingness to give up control of the national team may have had something to do with it (possibly in the case of Klinsmann), but another thing to consider is that the US national team position is not as glamorous or highly-desired as some would like to believe.  The advantage of the being the coach of the US national team is its anonymity -- he is not under an electron microscope like his counterparts in most countries.  But at this same time that anonymity is a liability -- it's hard to feel important when so little attention is paid by the national sports media.  I think it would be difficult for a foreign to completely get used to that.   I also get the sensation that coaching the US team, after being abroad, would be considered a step down by those who consider the American game to be inferior (yes, it has made strides over the past two decades in international competitions, but it will be explained so that the USA gets no credit whatsoever).  Notice that of the foreign coaches considered, the closest to get the position was a guy who has lived in the USA for many years. 

There is also a bit of an inferiority complex in many quarters of the US soccer community.  The arguments in favor of hiring a foreign coach (and please correct me if I'm getting this wrong) boil down to (a) hiring someone with better name recognition and (b) finding someone who has the tactical maturity/international experience to take the national team to a higher level.  On the first point, in a country whose sports media pays little attention to anything that happens east of New York City, I don't understand how a more widely recognized coach abroad would affect the way the team is portrayed here.  On the second, a so-called lack of international experience didn't keep Bruce Arena from being successful at the international level - he was not a tactical slouch by any means.  Nor did it hurt Juergen Klinsmann.   Believe it or not, there are American coaches who can coach at the international level, and are not naive in the slightest.  The problems with tactical and international experience go a lot deeper than hiring the "right" person to lead the national team, and believing that it is distracts from the hard issues surrounding the professional game in this country.

In the end, this is Bob Bradley's moment.  His first opportunity will be the Gold Cup, and his second the Copa América.  The Gold Cup is the bigger priority, but with the growing number of stars who will sit out the Copa, the USA might have more of a chance than previously believed.  The next three months will give plenty of material for Bradley's boosters and critics.