Bleacher Report - International Football

U.S. Soccer's Ben Olsen Will Be Remembered for What He Symbolized

Ben Triana — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:03:36 -0500

Ben Olsen announced his retirement earlier this week. He retires with a number of accolades: having played the most continuous games for his MLS club, DC United (I'm not quite sure how to rank that accolade), 1998 MLS Rookie of the Year, second in games played and started for United, third in assists, seventh in goals, and winning Comeback Player of the Year, this year, the year he decided to retire.

Many of his fans and admirers responded with anecdotes from his career, most notably his hat trick against the New York Red Bulls in 2007. I have my own as well.

But as soon as I read Olsen's comments as he retired, in particular his comment that "It spooked me a little bit, it spooked my wife, the way I couldn't carry my child down the stairs at times. You come to a crossroads: At what cost do you come back and play? I don't want to play another season at the cost of damaging my ankle even further. It's damaged enough," that the comparisons to other athletes (NHL's Cam Neely) and the search for what Olsen's soccer career, influence and impact actually meant.

Neely is a great place to begin. At Neely's retirement announcement he mentioned his inability to race his ten year old brother-in-law from the front of a movie theater to the corner as the moment when he realized he would retire. The eerie parallel doesn't end there. Cam Neely became the prototype for the most successful type of hockey player in the NHL, big build, but the skill and accuracy to score as well as a physical force.

Similarly, Olsen is the prototype for the most successful export for American soccer: the outside midfielder with a mixture of technical ability, speed, and a tremendous work ethic. Landon Donovan, early Clint Dempsey, Benny Feilhaber and to a lesser extent, DeMarcus Beasley come from this mold. The list could go on indefinitely as Bobby Convey, Justin Mapp, Stuart Holden, and Robbie Rogers all have exhibited play much like the early Ben Olsen.

It could be argued that the Olsen template is how the outside midfield is played, but Cristiano Ronaldo isn't this type of player nor Lionel Messi. What Olsen offered the United States was a resume of attributes that would be a valuable asset to any team, anywhere in the world, if they didn't already have that option, and most importantly, Olsen proved that the American system could develop this type of field player (and a lot easier than trying to develop the next Messi or Ronaldo, something a perennial soccer powerhouse country would have trouble doing). Olsen seemed to personify the gifts that U.S. soccer players can reproduce with a little more ease than other countries.

Why? I'm not really sure. And yes, other countries do produce well-rounded midfield players like this and better than American players (Franck Ribery for example), but many midfielders tend to specialize: play-maker, dribbler, speedster, or defensive cover. Nevertheless, for the right team at the right time, an American player with a basic mastery of soccer fundamentals can be had for a cheap price. Olsen gave the U.S. the formula for its most oft-produced soccer export outside of the goal area.

*Some individuals would argue that the United States has produced more defenders that have played overseas than midfielders, but the struggles and less notable European careers of many defenders tips the argument in favor of midfield players. Keep in mind, after all that DaMarcus Beasley has been through, he is still peddling his wares in Europe.

Even without his career altering ankle injury, it is likely that Olsen's career would have been cut short in the end. Like many other athletes, he realized that he could compete by sacrificing his body much like tennis' Rafael Nadal.

So like Nadal's developing injuries, it was inevitable that Olsen would develop his own set of physical ailments (he had an ankle injury before the one that prompted his first round of ankle surgeries, required surgery on his other ankle, and had issues with one of his knees). What most fans admired in Olsen's play, ended up shortening his career.

And the comparison's don't end there. Olsen was forced to change his style of play once he returned from injury. He had lost the speed that was integral to his wing game, and if he was to have a career, he needed to adapt.

Just like Boxing's Muhammad Ali recognizing in his old age that he didn't need to dance and could sit back, take a punch, and wait for an opponent to tire, or like basketball's Michael Jordan developing the fade away once he lost a step, Olsen learned to use his experience and intelligence to make up for his physical losses, all the while never altering his "never give up" mentality.

*I understand Olsen never had the skill set of Ali or Jordan or he would have played for the best teams in Europe and gone down as one of the best soccer players of all time, but the ability to adapt as an athlete ages separates journeymen athletes from the ones that had an impact on the game. For Olsen, I'm referring to American soccer in particular, not the international game.

My Ben Olsen anecdote has to do with the second phase of his career.

It was June 28, 2007 and the U.S. was playing Argentina in the Copa America. Bruce Arena had resigned by then, and Bob Bradley was attempting to make a case for himself as the rightful choice for manager. There was a lot on the line for the team. The U.S. had played well in the Gold Cup, but against some questionable sides outside of the Mexican national team. Few had any realistic evaluation of the USMNT. So the Copa America tournament gave the team an opportunity to test itself against elite opposition.

Unfortunately, Bradley had opted for a mostly B squad of players to the dismay of the Copa America organizers (we were invited as guests, so there was no tangible incentive to field the best team.) and fans. Expectations were low for most. It was clear that the tournament was to be used to evaluate U.S. pool players that had not seen much playing time recently. As far as how the A team would play against the best in the world, U.S. fans would have to wait until the Confederations Cup, but no one had told Ben Olsen little was expected of his side.

The U.S. came out and took an early lead on a penalty that Eddie Johnson put away. At half, surprisingly, the United States B team was tied with Argentina 1-1.

*I keep labeling this U.S. team as a 'B' team, and for the most part they were at the time. Demerit, Feilhaber, and Clark played in the game, but at the time, they were not staples of the USMNT. For context, this is before Feilhaber had his falling out with Bradley and would not see consistent playing time for another year.

For over a half, the aged, slow, past-his-prime Ben Olsen shut down the key to the Argentinean attack, Lionel Messi. I don't know if a single person outside of Olsen's immediate family believed he could shut down one of the top five best players in the world, but he did. He was subbed out in the 62 minute for Eddie Gaven; a player that the entire USSF federation was attempting to groom.

The U.S. went on to lose 4-1.

In large part, the U.S. lost as no one on the pitch could contain Messi. Marvel Wynne, the defender left alone to subdue Messi, was too inexperienced and gave up too much room for the player to maneuver, and two minutes later, Messi sent a pass to Crespo to take the lead and open the floodgates.

While Olsen would probably choose a more sentimental moment, like his World Cup cap, or a more prolific moment like his hat trick, I can't think of a more significant instance in his career that summed up so much.

First, his performance exemplified his most important value as a player. No matter what the situation, Olsen would find a way to be relevant in a match. This seems to be a reoccurring comment when people describe their impressions of him as a player. He's labeled as an inspiration, a leader, an integral piece of the team. He must have been as he received consistent playing time even without scoring a multitude of goals or amassing a ton of assists during the second half of his career with DC United.

Secondly, Olsen made a statement about the successful MLS player: even on the international stage, strong players can play a competitive role. It didn't mean that MLS players were going to set the world on fire, but they could be useful in the right team and the right system.

Third, Olsen gave the team stability, albeit a brief, sixty minute period of stability and competitiveness. He reminded fans to be patient, that the U.S. team will have its ups and downs, but there are good players out there; we just have to work out the kinks. A brief respite for any overzealous fan that looks at every game, every play and pass as life and death.

Finally, he pointed out the flaws that the national team is still struggling with today. It's well known that Bob Bradley has issues with timely substitutions and inability to recognize the value, tactics, and roles a number of his players can make.

His substitution raised questions about the USSF selection and developmental system by highlighting the failure of the "Eddie Gaven Experiment"; a player-one of many-coddled and protected by the establishment because of his highly touted potential, and as of yet to reach it. How could a forgotten player outperform an up and coming American star in the making?

It forced discussion about the selection process for Generation Adidas (formerly Project-40), the Bradenton Academy, the make-up of the U-16 and U-17 teams and the allocation of their resources.

*Again, I recognize that Ben Olsen was also discovered and developed through Project-40, although I question how much of an impact Project-40 had on his career as he had already played three years at UVA and went immediately into the MLS as soon as he finished up at the college level.

Also, Olsen, after his ankle injuries, was no longer a constant member of the national team while Eddie Gaven, whether in or out of form, was being groomed for a spot on both Bruce Arena's and Bob Bradley's roster. Even though Gaven was never able to earn a consistent spot on the U.S. roster, Olsen had no business out-performing a USSF darling.

Supposedly, Olsen's personal life mirrored his professional one. Starting out cocky, arrogant, and self-centered, either through experience, hardship, or family (i.e. having children of his own) he became a kind, unselfish, humanitarian, ready to give to the community and to treat individuals with respect and dignity.

That's what his legacy does. Every time his name is mentioned, all that happened during his career is referenced. Olsen was one of the first groomed from the beginning to play at the professional level, either overseas or in the burgeoning MLS. The Eric Wynalda, John Harkes, Claudio Reyna generation was forced to do it through college, minor league, regional American soccer teams and overseas.

Olsen was part of the generation when it all changed, when there was a concerted effort by everyone involved to create a true, nationally organized American soccer identity that could play competitive, consistent, professional soccer.

When his name is mentioned, even though he was injured and did not make the 2002 World Cup roster, it is mentioned alongside Clint Mathis, Landon Donovan, and Brian McBride...as players that forced the world to pay attention and prepare when facing the United States Men's National Team...at least for a short period of time.

As American fans, analysts and coaches discuss Ben Olsen, it won't only be about his career, but how to measure oneself. He is a barometer of where American soccer was, where it is, and where it has to go. He reminds us that we must constantly adapt, evolve, and commit everything we have to the goal. Those are pretty admirable ideals to embody.

Read more International Football news on BleacherReport.com

England To Be Seeded in Euro 2012 Qualifying Draw

Matt S — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:20:29 -0500

England will be among the first group of seeds for the Qualifying draw for the 2012 European Championship to be co-hosted in Poland and Ukraine.

UEFA introduced a new coefficients system last year which takes into account matches played in the last World Cup and European Championships including the qualifiers.

Also placed in Pot One for the draw are reigning champions Spain and three-time winners Germany.

Croatia are also amongst the top nine, meaning that England cannot be drawn against Slaven Bilic’s side for the third consecutive qualifying campaign.

This will be the 14th European Championships, and the last one to have 16 teams in the final tournament after UEFA voted last year to expand it to 24 for the 2016 competition.

Poland and Ukraine will co-host the tournament, making it the third out of the last four to be co-hosted.

The qualifying draw will be held on 7 February 2010 in Warsaw.

The 51 teams will be drawn into nine groups. There will be six groups of six teams with the remaining three groups consisting of five teams.

Due to Poland and Ukraine co-hosting the final tournament, there are only 14 places up for grabs in qualification.

The nine group winners will qualify automatically, along with the best runner-up

The remaining eight runner-ups will then face a two-legged play-off for the final four places.

The qualification period will run from September 2010 until November 2011 with the first qualifying matches being played on 4 September 2010.

England will be keen to avoid Sweden from Pot Two, having not beaten since them since 1968, the winless streak currently standing at 12 matches—the worst run against any opponent in England’s history.

There is a one-in-three chance of England playing a local rival with the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Northern Ireland all in Pot Three.

Slovenia look the most dangerous team by far in Pot Four having just qualified for their second World Cup by beating Russia on away goals in a playoff.

Ranking Pots for the Euro 2012 Qualifying Draw

Pot One: Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, England, Croatia, Portugal, France, Russia

Pot Two: Greece, Czech Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, Serbia, Turkey, Denmark, Slovakia, Romania

Pot Three: Israel, Bulgaria, Finland, Norway, Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina

Pot Four: Slovenia, Latvia, Hungary, Lithuania, Belarus, Belgium, Wales, Macedonia, Cyprus

Pot Five: Montenegro, Albania, Estonia, Georgia, Moldova, Iceland, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein

Pot Six: Azerbaijan, Luxembourg, Malta, Faroe Islands, Andorra, San Marino

Read more International Football news on BleacherReport.com

For the U.S. Men's National Team, Friendlies Are Key To Success

Ben Triana — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:43:22 -0500

Too often, the friendlies following a successful World Cup qualifying campaign are dismissed. Club demands outweigh national commitments. Squad selections fluctuate, and more often than not, there seem to be too many variables in order to gain an accurate assessment of the team.

And so, the initial response from many is, “It’s only a friendly. It doesn’t mean much, or, the ultimate lineup wasn’t available.”

Many feel rightly justified in reacting in such a manner as every four years some World Cup favorite is ousted in the first round while a tournament long-shot makes it to the quarter finals.

In most of these cases it's a surprise star or a team with the right chemistry, playing well that exonerates such misunderstanding. It is true that sometimes these factors can’t be helped, and maybe this is what confuses fans, and so in the end, friendlies mean nothing.

But too many times, quality showings in friendlies set a team up for success down the road. For the United States in 2010, these games might decide the team’s fate.

One need only look at the USMNT’s games before the World Cup in 2006. The team started out well enough, winning five games in a row at the beginning of the year, but it is after the team was selected and a trifecta of games were played aptly labeled the “Send-Off Series,” that problems began to arise.

First, like now, a goal scoring tandem was never found. In five out of the six games, only one goal was scored by a U.S. player. In the other match, only two goals were scored, and Clint Dempsey, a midfielder, was the only player to score more than once in that six game window. During the Send-Off games, six different defenders were featured and one midfielder (Eddie Lewis) was assigned to the left-back position.

Bruce Arena’s selection hinted at his concern over his defense, an issue that would not be resolved, and then perhaps only through card count, by the second group stage game against Italy. Unfortunately, at that point, chances of the U.S. advancing to the second round were all but lost.

The USMNT isn’t the only team that has utilized friendlies to fine-tune their roster. Italy, 2006’s World Cup champions, played three warm up games in the months before the tournament. They won two out of the three and drew the third. Gilardino scored in consecutive contests. Also, three out of the four goal scorers during the friendlies found the net in the World Cup.

Clearly, Italy was using these games to create chemistry, select starting players that would more than likely be playing that summer, and fine tune tactics.

Throughout history, teams have used the friendlies before a World Cup to create their most dangerous squad.

Alf Ramsey, manager of the 1966 English national team, used the run of games to quell any doubts that his change of tactics was the right choice, a monumental decision that produced England’s only World Cup title and workout one or two final position players. Like Italy in 2006, England finished out his last three warm-up games with wins.

This philosophy appears to still be practiced today. England and Brazil squared off recently in an obvious assessment as to where they ranked on the world stage. While the game was timid, and the goal scoring limited (as expected), the teams were able to determine that they were on the right track, relatively, heading into the last six months of preparation (after the Christmas break of course).

The same could be said for the U.S. team, again relatively.

On paper, Slovakia and Denmark are great friendlies to end the year. They are both teams that qualified for the World Cup final, they are both European teams that the U.S. rarely has the opportunity to face, and the weather may well mimic what the team will be forced to stumble through in South Africa (with varying amounts of precipitation of course). Granted, neither team is as revered as the powerhouses that England and Brazil are, but neither of those teams were likely to schedule a game against the United States. The team takes what it can get, and currently, Slovakia and Denmark are better opponents than San Marino and Cyprus.

However, it appears the American soccer media and fans have shrugged off the importance of these friendlies. Two mediocre performances have been dismissed as key individuals were missing from the side.

Wasn’t the opposition missing players as well? At least Denmark was, and a number of analysts have marked Slovakia as a diminutive side, surprise winners of their group, enjoying a strong run of form, with few standouts in the side. Therefore, even if the U.S. was missing key elements of its team, shouldn’t the team have fared decently?

As I mentioned earlier, it seems that most have shrugged their shoulders and replied, “It’s a friendly, who cares?”

But just like 2006, these friendlies are warning signs. At best, the team appears confused from top to bottom.

The defense is fragile and has lost its identity. No longer is the back line the spine of the team, playing as one single, albeit conservative unit, bending, not breaking, giving up its collective body in a very “American” last ditch effort to deflect a shot or save a goal. Tactical and mental errors abound, and after simple offensive adjustments by the opposition, the goals follow.

There is no chemistry, creativity or philosophy to the midfield setup. Who distributes the ball? Who is the playmaker? Who should attack? Who is the best defender? Which tandem works best? Which players pull middle or open up space for attacking fullbacks?

Supposedly half of the midfield is decided with starlets Clint Dempsey and Landon Donovan secure in their outside positions, but Dempsey has not shined recently, does not play inspired, passionate soccer for country like he does for club, seems confused with how the team should interact, is a defensive liability, and gives the ball aware during transition. During the first half of the Denmark game, the midfield, at the very least, played a much more controlled, patient, organized game—the team may not have played better overall, but it gave the team an interesting different feel and personality that is rarely replicated with Dempsey on the outside.

Currently, there is no remedy when Donovan is not included in the squad, but it was not too long ago that Donovan was not playing well, and the entire team struggled. Also, Donovan is the free kick taker, a poor one at that, scoring once off a set piece in recent games, and nowhere near the dead ball server that others, specifically Benny Feilhaber and Stuart Holden, have proved themselves to be. Dempsey’s free kick in the Slovakia game was a welcome surprise from the norm. There are limits to Donovan’s game. What is plan B if he is to go down injured or is out of form come this summer? There should have been glimpses of the possible options in these friendlies. Unfortunately, there were not.

The struggles up front for the United States have been well documented elsewhere, and there seems to be no respite for any players currently enrolled to score from a forward position. Discounting the dearth of goals, the forward lines fails to take pressure off of the team by spreading the field, challenging the defense, forcing other teams to be honest in their positioning and helping to retain possession.

If friendlies are an indication of what to expect from a team—and friendlies are—the situation for the United States is dire. Ignoring the writing on the wall is inexcusable.

In the end, there are elements that can be overlooked in a friendly. The ideal lineup is not always available, but that issue is often mitigated by the unavailability of players from the other squad. However, the famous Argentinean coach Cesar Luis Menotti that led the team to World Cup glory once said, “I maintain that a team is above all an idea, and more than an idea it is a commitment, and more than a commitment it is the clear convictions that a coach must transmit to his players to defend that idea.” Currently, the USMNT exudes no idea. There was no through line, no philosophy, no plan evident in their play.

No matter who is on the field, the idea should be present when a player wears the U.S. jersey. It does not matter if it is a friendly, a qualifier, or the World Cup final, a philosophy can be found.

Both Slovakia and Denmark demonstrated a style of play. Slovakia: to play a controlled, disciplined, patient game. Let playmakers do their job, and do not give up an easy goal. Denmark: to, like Slovakia, play disciplined, intelligent soccer, pressure, attack and overwhelm the opposition.

Where does the United States National team stand?

The initial reaction is to look to the coach, and Bob Bradley has taken his fair share of criticism. But who, outside of the USSF and the USMNT really knows how much is Bradley’s doing and how much is a team that failed to implement his plan? Either way, he will be held responsible in the end…and rightfully so.

In the meantime, the media and the fans should be doing more. Too easily do we dismiss friendlies. Too easily do we let the team and the manager walk away from a game without questioning their actions and motives. Such leniency does not help the cause.

We should question the team’s philosophy: What was the plan for the Slovakia and Denmark games? What changes were implemented once you considered a European defense rather than a CONCACAF team? With star players out of the lineup, what attacking philosophy did you stress? Why call up this individual? At this point in time, should so many new faces be placed in the lineup, or should some continuity be considered with, realistically, six months left to go before the World Cup?

These questions are obviously for the coach, but the same should be asked of the players: Why did you choose to play so directly? Why press forward when you should be covering an opposing player? What caused you to be so out of position? Are you on the same page with your partner?

Perhaps these questions are being asked. Maybe they are not making the front pages as soccer is not one of the predominant sports in America, but certainly, when friendlies are concerned, these concerns are dismissed as “it’s only a friendly.” Unfortunately, these friendlies prophesize how the team will play when it matters, and right now, too few are reacting like any of this matters.

Read more International Football news on BleacherReport.com

Heading into 2010, More Questions than Answers For U.S. Men's National Team

Jim Nguyen — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:05:36 -0500

The two losses in Europe last week's friendlies must have left a bad taste in the mouth of US Men's soccer supporters and, if anything, ended a rather positive year on a down note.

But with the 2009 calendar now complete for Sam's Army, it's now time to look ahead to 2010 and the World Cup.

The success of the team in South Africa come next June depends on many factors. I'll address some of the most vital ones here:

We need a favorable draw on December 4th. Unless FIFA drastically changes how it seeds and places teams into pots for this upcoming World Cup, the US of A will likely be in a challenging group (top two teams advance to knockout play). In the 2006 World Cup, the USA was grouped with the Asian federation. If that happens again, here are what the 2010 pots may look like:

POT 1 (seeded teams plus host) -Brazil, Spain, Argentina, France, England, Italy, Germany, South Africa

POT 2 (UEFA) - Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Slovenia, Greece, Slovakia, Serbia, Switzerland

POT 3 (CONCACAF and Asia) - USA, Mexico, Honduras, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand

POT 4 (CONMEBOL and CAF) - Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Nigeria, Algeria

This would probably put the US in one of the more difficult groups, with a seeded team, a European team, and possibly an African team playing on home soil. Not good.

Fans should be hoping for something like this: South Africa, USA, Slovenia/Switzerland/Greece, and Chile (two teams from same federation cannot be grouped together). Or, if somehow the CAF and Asian federations are switched, you can replace Chile with North Korea.

Some may argue that the US should just take it's lumps and beat everyone, if they are to get better. This is simply not the case. The team will face difficult teams in any event in the second round, and FIFA looks at previous World Cup results in determining a team's seeding in the next World Cup, so it's important to advance. And getting in a more favorable group will make that easier.

We need to get and stay healthy. The injuries to Oguchi Onyewu and Charlie Davies have been devastating, and it is hopeful that Onyewu and Jay DeMerit will recover in time to make the team.

If anything, these last two friendlies exposed the US team's lack of depth, so all the key players have to stay healthy and those who are in the process of recovering, i.e. Jermaine Jones and Maurice Edu need to get healthy and contribute for this team to have any chance in June.

Bob Bradley has some decisions to make. Not only does he have to decide who to take to South Africa, but he also has to figure out some key position battles.

For instance, who will pair with Jozy Altidore up top? Jeff Cunningham showed something with his goal against Denmark, but will Bradley opt for a traditional holding forward such as Brian Ching or Conor Casey? What about Robbie Findley? It seems to me that he has a similar game to Charlie Davies and can possibly replace him. Also, would Bob experiment and move Clint Dempsey or Landon Donovan to the striker position? Lots of questions here.

Who starts in the midfield? I believe that Michael Bradley and Jermaine Jones will be our starting central midfield pairing if the latter gets healthy in time to gel with the team. I do see Dempsey moving up top with Altidore, leaving the right wing open for someone like Stuart Holden with Donovan on the left. I also see Benny Feilhaber and Robbie Rogers being substitutes on the left should Bob Bradley decide to move Donovan from the left to the right.

In the defense, injuries abound and questions remain other than Tim Howard as the stalwart in goal. Who will play left back? It seems Jonathan Bornstein is the starter in Bradley's mind, but you get the feeling Edgar Castillo (who got his first minutes with the team against Denmark at left mid) will get an audition there.

I would not discount Carlos Bocanegra moving there and using DeMerit and Onyewu in the middle, which was the lineup in the Confederations Cup in June. Otherwise, we'll see Bocanegra and Gooch in the middle, presuming the latter is healthy.

On the right, it appears Steve Cherundolo is the starter right now, but I can envision Bob utilizing Jonathan Spector off the bench or as a starter depending on the matchup, as Spector is a a better crosser of the ball than Cherundolo.

Here's my projected 23 right now assuming everyone is healthy:

Forwards: Jozy Altidore, Landon Donovan, Robbie Findley, Conor Casey

Midfielders: Michael Bradley, Clint Dempsey, Jermaine Jones, Benny Feilhaber, Jose Francisco Torres, Stuart Holden, Maurice Edu/Ricardo Clark, Robbie Rogers

Defense: Carlos Bocanegra, Oguchi Onyewu, Steve Cherundolo, Jonathan Spector, Jonathan Bornstein, Edgar Castillo, Jay DeMerit, Chad Marshall

Goalkeepers: Tim Howard, Brad Guzan, Troy Perkins

Hope it all comes together and sprinkle in some luck. As we saw in the Confederations Cup and the U.S.'s deep run there, a lot of things need to come together for the U.S. to do well in an international tournament.

If you recall, the U.S. started the tournament off playing poorly, but then started catching fire playing a combination of a counterattack/possession game, finishing off most of the few scoring opportunities it had. Players like Altidore and Davies proved to be menacing in the scoring third, while Donovan was an effective playmaker. Bradley and Ricardo Clark broke up plays in the midfield and the back was solid, if not spectacular. The team played hard and for each other.

If this team can get healthy and get on the same page between now and June, it has a chance to advance out of group play in South Africa. If players can emerge in this interim, like Davies before them (Robbie Findley, Edgar Castillo, Jermaine Jones, Maurice Edu or someone else), the U.S. Men's National Team might catch lightning in a bottle and reach it's potential.

It all begins with some luck at the draw on December 4th.

Read more International Football news on BleacherReport.com