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.