Are The USA Team and Fans Naive?

I have had this nagging suspicion for quite a while that the sensibility of American soccer fans, and indeed of the their soccer team, may actually tend towards naivete in so far as it regards their status as a soccer nation.

The feeling began in 2006 at the very eve of the World Cup tournament in Germany. This was birthed by the hype and comments regarding the team in the build up to their match against the Czech Republic.

Hope and optimism were high and not without reason, since the USA enjoyed a high FIFA ranking at the time. And if I recall well, their successful pre-tournament friendlies reinforced the notion that they were now a force to be reckoned with in the world of soccer.

The USA's quarter final stage success at the previous edition of the World Cup could only boost confidence.

I had my suspicion.

When I watched the USA play in Korea-Japan 2002, even then, the word that kept popping into my mind as a descriptive for their approach to the game and their manner and style of play was naive.

Now, this word cuts two ways.

It may be construed in the negative and therefore deemed offensive. Or, it may be understood as connoting innocence.

The two senses of the word are meant here, though as I shall show, the usage here leans towards innocence.

In the negative sense, especially as it relates to the context of this discourse, naivete could mean the inability of one to realistically assess his or her true station.

On the down side, this may lead to the overrating of oneself, a sure snare to a rude  awakening.

This is exactly what happened to the USA in 2006, where flattered by FIFA ranking and the previous successful run at the World Cup, the USA team and their fans fancied themselves to have finally arrived on the world stage of soccer.

We all remember the result of that forgettable campaign.

Let me anticipate a counter argument to this.

Take France.

They had won the '98 edition of the World Cup but crashed out at the group stage of the subsequent edition without scoring a single goal. Does this failure then mean that France are not a great soccer nation? Someone might ask.

To this they may add Italy's unsuccessful run at this present edition, and France yet again.

I would reply to this and other such counter examples by posing a counter question: What makes a nation a soccer world power? I would posit consistency as the answer.

Brazil, the world's most successful soccer nation has had setbacks similar to the USA's debacle in 2006, notably in the 1990 and 1966 editions of the World Cup. These setbacks are simply that, especially when one considers the entire picture of Brazilian soccer. In other words, despite these setbacks, Brazil are still a world power in soccer.

Consider Greece in contrast.

They won the 2004 European Championship, jolting the world in the process, but have been unable to replicate this success. Is this one success enough to consider them a world power in soccer? obviously not.

Let's take an example from the political realm as a further argument. Can we say that Vietnam's victory by default over the USA in 1975 suddenly made them a world power and the USA not? Certainly not.

To show that I'm not simply picking on the USA, let's consider Nigeria, who fell into the trap of naivete (in its negative sense) as a result of their winning the  '94 Africa Cup of Nations, their "successful" run at USA '94 World Cup, and their Olympic gold medal success at the Atlanta games in 1996.

Suddenly, they began calling themselves the "Giant of Africa," even though, in truth, their success in African or world soccer was at best moderate. Since then, Nigeria has not replicated the same level of success. Definitely not "Giant of Africa."

Let us return to naivete.

Here is why I thought in 2006 (and still think) that Americans may be naive when it comes to soccer.

Their Pattern of Play

Korea-Japan 2002

I rooted for this energetic and fast-paced team but couldn't help but notice that they played the most basic of styles, bordering on the naive, if effective: Quick one-two passing, fast, forward and constant drives, and a conventional use of the flanks.

This had an unsettling effect on their opponents, causing them to give away goals to the USA.

When I thought of the word, naivete then, I meant innocence. I was positively delighted by this exuberant style of playing and felt strongly that they deserved a victory over Germany.

South Africa 2010

Even at present, the USA are still playing a direct sort of style that lacks subtlety. Again, it still borders on the innocent. Guileless is another word.This manner of playing is well and good if you yourself are aware of your lack of subtlety and depth.

Note that I'm not saying that this manner of playing is not successful, I have already noted that it can be, as it was in 2006 and as it has been in the last two games the USA team have played. What I'm saying is that you should be aware that you have not yet arrived.

Fans and Pundits

The sense I get from listening to USA fans, the players, the coach, and the pundits is that they seem to fancy themselves as some sort of power in the present world of soccer.

Such thinking leads to disappointment when reality fails to meet expectation or notion. That said, the USA team have a chance to prove me wrong by convincingly beating Ghana in their second round match on Saturday. But even so, they'd still need consistency to earn a place in the ranks of soccer powers.

The other side of naivete

Here is what is good about naive sensibility.

First, it shuts the door to second-guessing oneself, making one oblivious to the weaknesses that are obvious to others. One doesn't get paralyzed by them.

Example.

The USA honestly thought they could win against their Group C opponents, and they did in a way. A further proof of this psychological mind set is their upset of the then unbeaten Spain in the Confederation Cup in the Summer of 2009, held in South Africa.

This might yet be the mind set that could give them a surprising result at the current tournament.

Further examples of positive naivete

Italia '90: Cameroon

San Siro, Milan, June 8, 1990

Cameroon file out for the opening match against the defending champions, Argentina. The TV commentator calls them (not maliciously) "a happy-go-lucky bunch who are here to enjoy themselves." In other words, no one expected Cameroon to win anything.

But if they should have been nervous or afraid of Argentina, they didn't know enough to be. They attacked the game with naive gusto and shocked the world by defeating Argentina by a goal to nil.

USA '94: Nigeria

Cotton Bowl, Dallas, June 21, 1994

Nigeria filed out against Bulgaria with the sense that they were the kings of African soccer out to conquer the rest of the world, as such, they had no concept of the opening match conservative approach. They burst out of the gate, as it were, and smacked the Bulgarians 3:0.

And against Argentina, they appeared to have no fear of Maradona or any of his team mates, soon drawing the first blood, but for Maradona's tactic that gifted Argentina a goal that under any other circumstance would not have been allowed, the match would have ended as a tie.

Now back to the question: Are the USA team and fans naive?

Yes.

But it is good sometimes to be. In fact, it is okay to be, other things considered. Naivete can be a potent weapon. It could be the weapon that may secure success for the USA in the current tournament.