Video of the Week: "Oh Africa!"

This week's Video continues the trend of great World Cup commercials, and I think this one's my favorite. Can't even do it justice with a description, just an awesomely cheerful commercial marrying football and Africa. You really should watch this, all 2+ minutes.

Side note: Funny how the best World Cup commercials are from non-sponsors of the tournament: Pepsi beats Coke, Nike over Adidas, etc. (Though their Star Wars ad is worth a look, if you somehow missed it.)

When referees play karma

After the USA-Slovenia rollercoaster ended Friday afternoon, our entire nation seethed at one man alone. Koman Coulibaly's phantom call was inexplicable at the time, and it still remains mystifying no matter how many times you replay the free-kick itself: no offsides, no fouls (aside from the slew of Slovenian ones), nothing at all. It was, easily, one of the worst calls in World Cup history.

Most media sources have largely chalked this one up to gross incompetence, but some have started to realize that we've been robbed much worse than we knew. I noticed this via a revelatory tweet, as Twitter user paddytim wrote to WhitlockJason:

"bs call was a make up call for a bad call on awarding free kick to US. Ref blew whistle before play even started. US guy dove"

Upon further review, this is exactly what Coulibaly was thinking. Here's how the play happened by his reasoning. (Click link for full video.) Jozy falls under contact to the neck from a Slovenian defender. Coulibaly blows his whistle for the free kick. He quickly doubts his decision, and this doubt is reinforced when he notices the linesman doesn't raise his flag. When the free-kick is struck, Coulibaly already has his whistle in his mouth and blows the play dead, without hesitation or any particular reaction to what's in front of him. In other words, he was resigned to whistling a makeup call from the moment he doubted his original call.

I barely even know where to begin with this logic. I guess let's start from the beginning: the play leading to the free kick was absolutely a foul. Jozy certainly embellished the contact, but it doesn't change the fact that the Slovenian defender put a hand to his neck. That's a foul and a free kick in any circumstance. It's comparable to Nigeria's red card against Greece: Torosidis rolled around like he was shot, but Kaita had still tried to spike a dude in the thigh. That's a red card no matter what, and a hand to Jozy's neck is a foul, no matter what.

Into the real issue: the make-up call. Let's even put aside that make-up calls are explicitly outlawed by FIFA. Simply put, it is still an unacceptable justification. Think about it, where does that thinking lead to? If he thinks he mistakenly awarded a penalty, does he give another one later? (What if that guy misses, how do those mistakes cancel out?) If he didn't realize he was giving a second yellow to a player, does he send off someone from the other team? A referee should never play karma by retrospectively evening out his own mistakes, because these decisions have ripple effects.

This human interference is even worse than getting unluckily screwed by human error. At least poor officiating is an honest mistake, something we've long understood and forgiven as a part of sport. (Just ask Jim Joyce.) The U.S. fought back deservedly, and the game was decided by the players on the field, until Coulibaly decided that it wasn't. Such revision is absolutely intolerable from someone who is only supposed to enforce the rules of the game, and whatever punishment FIFA hands out is warranted.

As for the U.S., Algeria's draw with England means that the U.S. controls its own destiny, advancing with a win over Algeria on Wednesday morning (10 AM, ESPN). A draw can also put them through if England fails to win, yet without Coulibaly's input, that draw would have sufficed no matter what. The resolute Algerians make such a specter haunting, yet the U.S. proved its toughness against Slovenia, and this squad is ready for the fight. Bottom line, the USA showed that it's capable of advancing, but nobody will benefit if more than 11 men stand in their way.

Examining the past, to fix the future

By now you've all seen the reports and headlines from USA-England, from both neutral observers and American homers (and British ones too). Some say the Americans' point was deserved, and some say it was simply lucky, but neither side can argue against the fact that Robert Green's mishap changed the face of the whole game. Earned or undeserved, the point now puts the U.S. in a great position to advance past the group stages.

In order move forward, the U.S. must learn from its past, examining both successes and weaknesses. The squad played exceptionally in many areas of the field, notably its resolute defending, but they were certainly exposed in predictable areas. England couldn't produce anything out of this exposure, but eventually someone will exploit these weaknesses if they aren't addressed. Essentially, the U.S. is playing very well, and it still has the precious opportunity to go from good to great.

Three things the U.S. needs do:

Sit Ricardo Clark...

Plain and simple, England's goal is the epitome of why Ricardo Clark is ineffective as a holding mid. Clark was inexplicably ball-watching as his man Steven Gerrard, only one of the best players in England's history, sped past him to score the opening goal. I gave Clark the benefit of the doubt in my USA preview, since he often unglamorously plays ball-denial by blocking passing lanes. Nevertheless, he showed against England that not only does he doze off at times, he doesn't have enough impact when focused to shut off a higher calibre of player. Too often he disappears like this, failing to stall offenses like a holding mid should, and as such he should lose his claim to this role to Jermaine Jones after the World Cup.

...in favor of an aggressive holding mid.

In the meantime, the U.S. needs a more aggressive holding mid anyway, since Slovenia plays a slower passing-oriented offense than England. As a result, look for Bob Bradley to start Jose Torres at holding mid on Friday. While he could opt for Maurice Edu instead, the U.S. may need Torres' creative passing to break down the resolute Slovenian defense. The combination of these two strengths makes me think Bradley will call on Torres.

Offense is a great form of defense...

Thanks to the U.S. speed up front and on the wings, England could never fully commit forward to attack Tim Howard's goal until the very end. In one of the few instances where England ignored the threat, Jozy was on hand to break forward and rattle the post, a reminder of the consequences to pouring forward. This threat of counter-attack is one of the most viable ways for the U.S. to restrict a superior team's offensive might, reinforcing that Robbie Findley's speed is needed from the opening whistle in this scenario.

...but tailor it to the opposition.

This counter-attack works best against clear favorites, who typically take the fight to the Americans. However, Slovenia is an underdog, more likely to control the ball and expose the U.S. when it goes too far forward. In other words, the roles are somewhat reversed from the England match, so the U.S. offense must shift away from speed and athleticism, and towards passing and ball skills. Edson Buddle should therefore replace Findley, since he distributes the ball better and shoots more clinically.

The defensive spine is solid...

Questions about the defensive spine were resoundingly addressed against England. Oguchi Onyewu looked completely healthy both in his tackles and in the air, and DeMerit bottled Wayne Rooney as well as anyone can expect. Emile Heskey occasionally got free when defensive resources were focused elsewhere, but as I rationalized before the game, he's still Emile Heskey. This squad is well-equipped to handle threats through the middle.

...but the wings must work together defensively.

However, Aaron Lennon and Shaun Wright-Phillips put in dangerous crosses far too often, predictably exposing the wingbacks as our remaining big weakness. Simply put, no wingback has both the speed and skill to keep up with speedy wingers like Slovenia's Valter Birsa. As such, other players must help compensate for the team's personnel weakness. Primarily, the wing-mids must track back to impede runs down the sideline, since then the pressure of stopping opposing wingers doesn't fall solely on the backline. Dempsey and Landon are still needed offensively, but they must help defensively to solve the team's biggest weakness.

In my opinion, the U.S.-England game was an extraordinary display by both teams, marred by one stupid mistake by one player on each side. That said, the U.S. did not play perfectly, but after all, it was the opening game against a vaunted opponent. Going forward from here, the U.S. has a great chance to retain its pole position, making a couple minor tweaks along the way. Things are looking up from here.

(Thanks to Bleacher Report for scouting Slovenia.)

Video of the Week: A Nation's Expectation

Our Video of the Week is this awesome segment on the USA, part of ESPN's "32 Teams, 1 Dream" series summarizing each country at South Africa 2010. The piece shows just how far we've come as a footballing nation: not only do we hope for the U.S. to advance, we are expecting it. What a tribute to the USMNT. (To see segments for the other 31 nations, search "32 teams, 1 dream" on ESPN's YouTube page.)

Say what you will about ESPN's journalistic practices, but they are absolutely the single biggest factor in promoting American enthusiasm for the game. Check out the huge difference between the USSF's World Cup commercial and ESPN's two build-up commercials, all aired during the warm-up match against the Czech Republic. ESPN's are just flat out funnier, and their TV expertise makes them second to none at getting an audience's attention. For soccer to continue its growth in America, the game needs the continued support and reach of the ESPN family of networks.

The point of no return

As I intimated last week, if you're not excited for the World Cup yet, you're either soulless or Shakira. Personally, the World Cup's arrival really dawned on me as I watched the U.S. squad round into form over the last two weeks. The squad looked downright poor in the 4-2 loss to the Czech Republic, but really found their stride three days later in the second half of the 2-1 over Turkey, saying goodbye to America in style. The last game, a 3-1 demolition of Australia in South Africa, proved that they'd adjusted and shaken off the rust for good.

These types of games are usually tune-ups for the main squad to jell before The Big Show, but they took an even greater significance for a USA squad still struggling to define its identity and starting XI. The absence of Charlie Davies prompted questions about the structure of the 4-4-2 lineup, as many wondered if we'd be less effective without his speed up front. Coupled with legitimate debates over the starters at multiple positions, the team came into to the Send-Off Series collectively more undefined than it was a year ago. Not a great place to be two weeks before playing the 3rd best team in the world.

Yet experimentation is sometimes why these matches are scheduled in the first place. By testing many different players and lineups under the pressure preceding a World Cup, Bob Bradley saw how much more dangerous the team was by the end of the warm-up slate, ending a brief attempt at a 4-4-1-1 and settling all debates over who plays where in the 4-4-2. Thanks to these matches, we've got a solid idea of the team's best options. And even if we didn't, the countdown is already on until England on June 12. For better or worse, the line-up has likely been decided. World Cup 2010 is here.

Judging by what we've seen over the last year, here are my picks for the 2010 USA World Cup starting XI:

Goalie: Tim Howard

Least shocking pick of the whole team. The USA's best player will need to be at the top of his game, and at this point, we expect and receive nothing less from him.

Center-backs: Oguchi Onyewu, Jay DeMerit

These two have easily been the most solid defenders for the U.S. over the last year. DeMerit's positioning is nothing short of superb, and while he started slow against quick teams like Turkey, he picked up the pace and showed against the Turks that his shot-blocking ability simply keeps the team in games. His constant presence in the squad shows how reliable he's been in this capacity for Bob Bradley.

On the other hand, Onyewu's absence is what hammered home his value to the team. Finally back from injury, Gooch showed his near-full fitness with multiple great sliding tackles in all three warm-ups, so for the most part, we have our stud defender back. Sivok's opening goal for the Czechs did raise doubts about Oguchi's aerial ability, so if strikers like Peter Crouch could be too big an issue for the backline, Clarence Goodson has been more than impressive enough (and tall enough) to fill the spot.

Left-back: Carlos Bocanegra

He's often played center-back in Onyewu's absence, but Bocanegra's veteran presence is sorely needed at the weak left-back slot. Jonathan Bornstein's performances there are consistently riddled by positional mistakes, and he has been burned too often by skilled players like the Czech Republic's Martin Fenin. (Nevertheless, Bradley bafflingly continues to use Bornstein as an offensive-minded sub, despite losing the ball frequently against poor teams like Australia.) As a result, Bocanegra's positional instinct makes him the only reliable player at the position, short of emergency backup DaMarcus Beasley. Bocanegra showed last summer that he can shut down the world's best, and the team needs that form out of its captain again to plug its biggest gap.

Right-back: Steve Cherundolo

Just like his counterpart on the left, 'Dolo is needed as a experienced hand. Jonathan Spector doesn't commit atrocities like Bornstein does, but Arda Turan outran him multiple times against Turkey, hinting that he may not be capable of stopping England's speedy Aaron Lennon. Cherundolo is better than Spector positionally but not athletically, making this a question of trade-offs. It's a tough call, but the American defense relies on its defenders to back each other up, and positioning is a huge part of that. Since the differences aren't too pronounced, I'd rather have Cherundolo as the starter and see Spector come off the bench late in the game.

Holding midfielder: Maurice Edu

The U.S. has three quality choices at holding mid, and Bob Bradley's choice will say a lot about how he wants his team to play. Traditionally, Ricardo Clark has manned the back of the midfield diamond, but every time he has played lately I ask myself "Wait, Ricardo Clark is playing?" He never has any visible impact on the game, since instead he's passively blocking opponents' passing lanes.

Using Clark like this isn't the worst thing in the world, except that opponents then have so much time on the ball. A more aggressive holding mid like Maurice Edu would be a better choice, since he's stronger, faster, and more disruptive to attacking offenses. Clark is better against patient teams like Spain who unlock defenses, but since the teams in Group B are more likely to pressure with athletic dribblers, Bradley should select Edu based on his impressive tackling performances of late.

It's also worth mentioning, Jose Torres might be the best choice in our system. Torres proved himself to be an exceptional tackler in the second half against Turkey, yet he sets himself apart with his passing ability after the tackle, since he distributes excellently from the back once he's disrupted the opponent. This is exactly how Xabi Alonso ran the dynamic Liverpool offense a year ago, and it makes the team as a whole incredibly dangerous, since the defense is actively launching counter-attacks more quickly and more frequently.

In the end, Bob Bradley is most likely to pick Edu or Clark since they've both played often and admirably in the role, while Torres has only had a couple appearances. However, since he played so well when given the chance, don't be surprised if we see him at some point during the Cup.

Attacking midfielder: Michael Bradley

No surprise here, since by now Bradley is no longer "the coach's son", but rather one of the most consistent performers in the squad. As my friend George put it, he's a very American center-mid, since he'll win a ton of challenges and out-hustle everyone else on both sides of the ball. He's our starter here for the long haul.

Left wing: Landon Donovan

Little new can be said here, but Landon has been incredible for the national team on either wing. He's played as a striker for most of his career, but by putting him here, Bob Bradley takes advantage of Landon's speed and passing skill, without preventing him from shooting the ball himself. He displayed his pace and trickery with a couple awe-inspiring runs against Australia, and for the U.S. to operate at its best, Landon will need to have more impact than he did in '06.

Right wing: Clint Dempsey

Where can the U.S. best utilize Dempsey? It's been a major question for quite awhile, but if the Confederations Cup didn't answer it, the last three games certainly have: Dempsey needs to be a winger.

Here's the logic behind the pick: as a team, the USA's strengths are its athleticism, speed, and power, while its largest weakness is its technical skill on the ball. Therefore as a team, the U.S. wants to maximize its strengths by directing play to the wings, where athleticism is most useful and the team is less likely to be outclassed by superior ball-handlers. The U.S. will then want its most complete players on the wings, and that clearly nominates Dempsey and Donovan, both of whom have the speed and skill to control play once it's been directed to them. (As their backup, the slower Stuart Holden has filled the role at times, though much less effectively when tracking back.)

For proof, witness the team's play during the Turkey game. The U.S. played miserably in the first half, and Dempsey looked unable to get going without room to run. Yet once they moved Dempsey back from forward to the wing opposite Landon, the team dominated play and fought back to win. Part of this was from switching back to the familiar 4-4-2, but moreso this was thanks to a more athletic player filling the wing spot. I understand (though I personally disagree with) people saying that Dempsey's the team's second-best forward, but for the sake of the team's playing style, he's needed more on the wing.

Forward #1: Jozy Altidore

In the current 23-man squad, Jozy is irreplaceable as the team's only possession forward. No other striker can play particularly well with their backs to goal, to the point that it may have been a mistake to take Gomez or Buddle instead of Brian Ching. Not to mention that Jozy is easily the best finisher of the four strikers, or that he makes the best runs at goal with the ball. As long as he's healthy, Jozy has to play as many minutes as possible.

Forward #2: Robbie Findley

Possibly the most controversial pick, but as with Dempsey, Findley is needed to facilitate the team's goals. As a counter-attacking team, the U.S. needs a forward with enough speed to keep defenses honest, since runs from the wing aren't too threatening if defenders aren't worried about being outrun to a through-ball. Neither Buddle nor Gomez presents that threat, as they've mostly scored by popping up well to poach goals, a la Michael Owen.

Not that Findley is being picked for his blazing speed alone. The 24-year-old has incredible passing vision beyond his years, shown when he set up the tying goal against Turkey with a brilliant chip over the defense. Moreover against Australia, he similarly created the third goal with a great flick back to Landon, and his electric run down the sideline in the 58' should have resulted in a Buddle finish. His finishing has been suspect, but as Martin Tyler put it during the Australia game, he's created so many chances for himself and others that the goals will come. Buddle or Gomez may replace him in the later stages of games, but Findley needs to start so that the U.S. is a threat from the opening whistle.

There's some room for personal choice, but in all likelihood, Bob Bradley will start this XI against England. He's tested everybody, and thankfully he found the team's rhythm... just in time too, since we've reached the point of no return. Everybody put your game faces on, it's time to make waves.

Video of the Week: Glory

Simply put, if you don't like our Video of the Week then you have no soul. In 10 days, England-USA. 1:30 PM. World Cup 2010. It's gonna be a hell of a show.

Article to follow this week.