Mexico. Five-time Gold Cup Champions.

The US men's team was absolutely demolished in the second half of a cup final this year, for the second time.

One soft penalty and the US team went to pieces. After Jay Heaps tugged at Giovanni Dos Santos' shirt, Gio went tumbling down into Heaps. The call was questionable, but the US team had plenty of chances in the first half to score and put the Mexicans on their heels.

But even worse was what happened after the penalty: the US looked like it was committing every man forward, leaving the inexperienced backline at the mercy of Dos Santos and Carlos Vela. The US lost discipline, shape, the match, and, eventually, dignity by a 5-0 scoreline. That's the kind of score we haven't seen in about 25 years.

Some fans will say that this doesn't mean anything. After all Coach Bob Bradley brought an inexperienced roster and decided to stick with them to see how they handled the pressure. And that's fair enough: there are lessons to be learned in defeat. And Bradley should be commended for sticking with his young team, when he could have brought in more experienced reinforcements.

But here's what should never happen: if you are a weaker, less talented, less experienced team, you must never be beaten on heart or organization. And this young US team was beaten on both accounts. Sure, they showed me more than enough in the first half of the game: this young team had the potential to beat this Mexico. If they played with the same discipline and marksmanship of US team's past, they would have put away one of their decent chances in the first half and known how to manage the result. It's fair to say that the US sometimes got lucky against Mexico during its near decade-long home unbeaten streak, but you'd also have to admit that the hard work those US team did made its own share of "luck". I saw none of that yesterday at Giant's Stadium.

Soccer's a funny game (as most sports are) with near overnight comebacks. But it will take more than a good US performance in Azteca on August 12 to convince me that Bob Bradley knows how to organize this team. For once, the US team has talent. How ironic, then, that its heart has seemed to fade away almost in tandem with the growth of the American's skill.

You're almost always wrong if...

You're almost always wrong if you write "If X doesn't happen, there's no way the US team can be successful at the next World Cup." (unless, of course, X is "score more goals than their opponents...)

This week's entry is Jamie Trecker's assertion that "It's been clear for some time that Adu needs to be a part of the 2010 effort for the USA to have a real chance."
Jamie's latest

So we're all clear on one thing: Freddy Adu can do things with the ball that no other US player can do. But the US had a good run in 2002 without anyone remotely resembling Adu. Not to mention the US's recent run in the Confederations Cup, in which Freddy didn't play a second...

So... no... Adu doesn't need to be part of the 2010 effort for the US to have a chance.

But here's hoping that Adu gets more playing time in the Gold Cup and shows that he can play against tighter defenses. Just because the American path to success need not be trod solely behind Adu's little footprints doesn't mean the team can't use him.

It's an OUTRAGE that Torres/Adu/Whoever Didn't Play Because They Were Out of Form!

The anger starts from somewhere deep within.

Some fans of the US men's soccer team are outraged when Coach Bob Bradley keeps talents like Freddy Adu on the bench, obstensibly because Freddy's "out of form," yet still has the audacity to play Sacha Kljestan, who is also "out of form." These fans ask: "Why can Bradley play Altidore, who also hasn't played for his club team, and then sit Adu BECAUSE he's not playing for his club team? It just doesn't make sense!"

Of course it does.

Part of the problem is that we don't always mean the same thing when we say a player is "out of form." It could be the player is injured. It could be the player simply hasn't seem much action. Or maybe the player is just not performing. Sometimes, it's all of the above (consider poor DaMarcus Beasley).

But a bigger part of the problem is that different players will react... wait for it... differently to being out of form.

Remember John O'Brien? One of the US's most talented midfielders, he was also always one wrong foot away from an ambulance. As a result of his many injuries, he didn't always see much time with his club team. But if he was healthy, you had to play him. He was that good: he got healthy just in time for the 2002 World Cup and put in a great tournament.

Similarly, Jozy Altidore played a decent Confederations Cup, despite not playing a minute for his second division club in Spain. Granted, he looked gassed at times later in matches. He likely would have been even better if he was getting serious playing time in Spain. But you could count on him to play his way into form.

Coach Bradley decided that guys like Adu couldn't play their way into shape but bet that Klejstan could. He clearly made a mistake with Beasley, who had taken advantage of past experiences with the national team to regain his form. But overall, I'm inclined to give some deference to the coach: he sees what's going on in practice. If he decides that Jose Francisco Torres is too tired to play, then he's making the decision based on information that you and I don't have.

So what's the bottom line? It doens't make sense to expect Bradley to be "consistent" in his decisions about playing guys who are out of form. Consistency for consistency's sake is almost worthless: all we really care about is who performs. We can criticize Bradley for not recognizing the depth of Beasley's problems and wonder what else he got wrong, but criticizing him for his inconsistency doesn't make any sense.

US-Brazil-- The Sad, Sad Aftermath

Danny Karbassiyoon.

That's who I thought about watching Brazil completely dismantle the US men's soccer team, 3-0.

After the 2002 World Cup, where the young Americans shone brightly, US soccer fans were optimistic. Young MLS players, Landon Donovan and DaMarcus Beasley, had acquitted themselves well under the spotlights in Korea. The US had been, for many years, tough to beat. But now the team had young talent! And Donovan and Beasley were just the start of it: Bobby Convey would soon join them! Kyle Martino was amazing. Eddie Johnson looked like he could become the superstar forward that the US sorely needed. MLS was producing real talent.

And we had an amazing overseas contingent of young Americans at top flight European teams: Danny Karbassiyoon, Zak Whitbread, Frank Simek, Kenny Cooper, Jonathan Spector, Cory Gibbs... The list was long.

We understood that not all of these players would pan out-- but they were playing with first tier European teams! At least a few of them would be great players by 2006. And, if not 2006, then just imagine 2010!

But here we are in 2009, looking dismally back at our demolition by Brazil. The embarassment of riches has given way to simple embarassment. The post-2002 generation of young Americans has not produced. Danny Karbassiyoon is retired. The other young Americans have, so far, had disappointing careers. Sure, some players came out of nowhere: Clint Dempsey has a productive career in the English Premiership. Jozy Altidore might become the superstar forward that the US sorely needs. There are still many names that give US fans hope.

But there is a fundamental fact we have to face: the US has not progressed. Much of our talent has not panned out, whether it's in Europe or MLS. The national team now looks unprepared for big games, soemthing for which coach Bob Bradley surely must take responsibility. But for whatever the coach's faults may be, I go back to talent and professionalism: would you rather have Claudio Reyna and Brian McBride or Michael Bradley, Benny Feilhaber and Jozy Altidore? I have high hopes for the young Americans, but I know what my answer would have to be today.

US-Brazil Preview, or "You're An Idiot If You Think the US Has Any Chance of a Result"

No Chance? In the wake of the United States' loss against Italy in the Confederations Cup, I was struck by how many fans from outside the US thought it was ludicrous to suggest that US might get a result from Italy. They explained that the US has no futbol tradition and vastly inferior talent. They noted that the US coach was tactically naive and had no experience outside of the United States.

All true. But the conclusion that the US never had a "chance" is just stupid. Unforgivably stupid, really. The US got a result against Italy just three years ago, in the biggest stage possible: the World Cup. Would a rational human being expect a US win or even a tie? Of course not. But you'd have to be truly slow to say that a US result is "impossible" when they earned a hard-fought point so recently. Unfortunately, a lot of fans don't seem to understand the difference between "unlikely" and "impossible".

So what's this mean for the up-coming US-Brazil match tomorrow? I expect a competitive game. I think the US has typically done well against possession teams, so I don't think a positive result is out of the question. Is there also a decent chance the scoreline could get ugly? Certainly. The recent debacle in Costa Rica shows that this US team may not be quite as tight defensively as in year's past. Just don't discount either possibility entirely.

Was that a red? The international take. Was Ricardo Clark's tackle on Gattuso in the Italy match worthy of a red card? Some, like the master of false controversy Jamie Trecker, seem to think the tackle was clearly a red. The Italian press was rather more equivocal, with Gazzetta dello Sport noting that the tackle was more "theatrical than aggressive". Rossi, for his part, thought it was a yellow. The BBC thought it was harsh. But the Spanish press? Almost universal in deeming Rico's expulsion justified.

What do I take away from this? I think it's anecdotal evidence that countries see fouls differently-- it would be no surprise if the Italians and English saw the same tackles as innocuous while the Spanish viewed them as harsh.

And Trecker? His writing seems to lack internal consistency-- his opinions seem to shift as needed so that he can write the most inflammatory piece possible. But kudos to him: his boneheaded style keeps me reading his columns.