<p>MommaJ, so “we … all” who can forget about soccer don’t include those of us who are Hispanic? And evidently “we all” are not non-Hispanic soccer fans either.</p>
<p>Speak for yourself. I’m excited about Costa Rica. They probably won’t beat the Netherlands… but then, who thought they were going to make the round of 16? Or the round of 8? My husband and I know a Costa Rican. She reports that the entire country has exploded with joy.</p>
<p>It is not silly, Momma. Are we following the Olympic gymnasts and ice skaters more than every few years? Do many follow Phelps outside the Olympics or the WC? That is just the nature of being fans with plenty of choice.</p>
<p>We should applaud the fact that the US did embrace this WC more than any before, and especially after leaving the iconic London Donovan home (which was a terrible mistake, btw.) The TV ratings have been superb and have eclipsed some of the biggest TV draws in more … American sports. </p>
<p>It is indeed sad that the supporters are fickle. Just look at the Women Soccer teams of the past. But that is just the way it is. In the meantime, there are plenty of yound kids that are now dreaming of becoming the next Howard! And, with time, it will pay dividends. </p>
<p>For the record, Seattle has a Super Bowl team now. They also have the Mariners in the MLB. How do you think the local soccer team do in terms of fanatical fans who … go to the games? </p>
<p>The only thing needed is for a couple of future generations to eradicate the last remnants of the people who did not grow up with soccer and did not think it will ever be as popular in the US as it is worldwide. </p>
<p>PS It is also worth mentioning that the advent of the internet and worldwide access to foreign games has made a huge difference. More Americans than ever can now see how the games is played at the highest level. And THAT game is a lot more than having a couple of aging internationals elevating the MLS. </p>
<p>I think soccer is not popular because it does not generate much commercials for TV coverage.
I hope the networks will find creative ways to put ads during the game. The large TV screen now gives a lot of real estate for silent ads. Ads can be put on top or bottom of of the screen. And I don’t see the point in scrolling the scores of baseball and other sports at the bottom screen.</p>
<p>By the way, I like Nissan ads on the World Cup - “In my country this is called futbol”.</p>
<p>“Well I for one am glad we can all stop pretending we care about soccer for four more years. Four the last four years the only place I’ve seen soccer discussed or watched (other than kids games) is in local delis and variety stores where the employees are Hispanic. Then, suddenly, everyone’s a fan. So silly.”</p>
<p>MommaJ - I don’t care about soccer. I have zero interest in following any games, I shrugged and went back to work when my office stopped to watch US vs Belgium. I couldn’t tell you who is playing, when it’s over, nothing.</p>
<p>But I don’t feel a need to pretend to care about soccer. I don’t, that’s me. Other people don’t, and that’s great for them - I hope they have fun and enjoy it. </p>
<p>Why do you think it’s “pretend”? People get caught up in sports they don’t normally follow. Most people don’t ever follow gymnastics or ice skating, but they watch those sports avidly at the Olympics and discuss them around the water cooler for a while. What’s the big deal? Maybe some of the interest will stick. Maybe it won’t. So what? What difference does it make to those of us who aren’t soccer fans? </p>
<p>“People don’t think the way I think. So silly.”</p>
<p>Four million people in the US commented about yesterday’s game on Facebook. I heard that there have already been over 1 billion Facebook comments throughout the world about the World Cup. TV ratings should be released later today in more detail.</p>
<p>An interesting thing is happening over in Japan. The younger generation has switched allegiance from pro baseball to pro soccer. The young soccer fans feel their sport is hipper and cooler than baseball. Pro soccer players are treated like rock stars. Another factor influencing the switch is the shorter two hour soccer matches compared to three to three and a half hour baseball games. MLB should take note.</p>
<p>One of the most fun things about the World Cup is exactly how international it is. We have friends from other countries, so we’ve been seeing the Cup through their eyes too. We have one urbane English friend who doesn’t have cable TV. He came over to our house to watch the England-Italy game, and revealed his baser side, with all sorts of scurrilous insults for the Italians… which might sound bad, but admit it, didn’t the word “Nazi” cross your mind when you were watching US-Germany? </p>
<p>My husband said, of this English friend, “Fang, he sounded just like you when you’re watching the hockey playoffs.” And it’s true, I have nothing much good to say about the city of Los Angeles when the Sharks are playing the Kings. Wishes for southern California earthquakes may possibly be mentioned.</p>
<p>I think it was exciting, that last game was one for the ages, the goalie put on a performance I don’t believe (and I am glad he was wearing the black uniform, the other one he was wearing looked like Underoos…). I am not particularly a soccer fan, but I think the world cup made the point that soccer can be exciting to watch, to people who don’t regularly watch it. There are downsides, the theatrics of the players was a turn off (sorry, but seeing two 160 pound guys collide and one is writhing on the ground, after seeing rugby players or US football players getting his, is pretty pathetic). That, and the reffing in world cup is both opaque and somewhat questionable, when the extra time is decided by the refs on the field, or they have refs from countries who have interest in the game they are reffing, there are gonna be questions about fairness. </p>
<p>On the other hand, one thing I learned to respect was the amount of energy these guys put out and the athleticism they have, I heard something like the midfielders in a typical game will run 8km or more. </p>
<p>They don’t just only run. They also kick and fall down.</p>
<p>The Germany team looks so healthy. Their body is very slim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is a bit higher than that. At the WC, it is probably around 7 to 8 miles. </p>
<p><a href=“http://tribesports.com/blog/the-average-distance-run-in-different-sports”>http://tribesports.com/blog/the-average-distance-run-in-different-sports</a></p>
<p>Knowing the FIFA, we should have plenty of statistics to digest shortly. On that front, it is amazing how deeply statsticians look. I just saw a report from The Economist tracking the exact minutes that goals at every WC was scored. Minute by minute. <a href=“http://www.economist.com/node/21603828”>http://www.economist.com/node/21603828</a> </p>
<p>We already see the graphics about shots on goals with distance, speed, etc. Name it! </p>
<p>In fact, despite its huge coverage, I do not think the NFL comes close to that kind of tracking – except by the scientists at ESPN who analyze specific athletes. </p>
<p>The purists of the game might not like the dissecting, but it is nonentheless fabulous to see the information with such clarity and detail. </p>
<p>“didn’t the word “Nazi” cross your mind when you were watching US-Germany?”</p>
<p>Not that I am conscious of, but my husband kept shouting "Appeasment be damned! " (you have to be a “Dodgeball” fan. 8-| .)</p>
<p>NVM. 
</p>
<p>I’m wondering what the numbers will tell us about the USA’s performance and where we were lacking. Beckerman had a pass completion rate of 90% which was the best on the team. I’d like to know what Bradley’s pct was.</p>
<p>A World Cup viewer is never given inside information on the players and how they are doing. What are some other stats that would be useful for a typical fan to know about? </p>
<p>The problem is that the game is full of intangibles. Statistics are easier to compile and perhaps understand when it comes to baseball (think Moneyball) or basketball and football. In soccer the percentage of passes can be highly misleading as central defenders for instance complete a lot of the small passes to their full backs, and the same applies to a defensive midfielder such as Beckerman. How much sense is there to compare Beckerman and Dempsey in such terms. Harsh as it sounds, if Beckerman is the answer, it shows the depth of the real problem. From his days in the U17 team and Bradenton to today, Beckerman has never been more than a journeyman who played a supporting role. And not very well most of the time. To put it mildly and perhaps cynically, Kyle was no Landon and there were plenty who could have replaced Beckerman. Thinking that he might have been the missing cog in this WC is pure non-sense. and if there is one criticism that Juergen will have to live with was his decision to leave Donovan at home and take a couple of players to Brazil that would never come on the field. When Altidore went down --not a great loss neither-- the USA had zero offensive threat left. Even a slower and less active Donovam would have brought some balance to the team. To keep is simply, except for Dempsey, the Belgian did not have to concern themselves with the other midfielders. And this explains why Beasley turned out the best player on the US side … at ninety five years old! </p>
<p>Where is the team lacking? Dempsey is the only player that can play forward on an international level, and at his age, he needs better players around him. The lack of true forward is also placing more pressure on the lack of a ball controlling midfield. Bradley, despite the bit of strength shown at the end of the game is mostly a runner, and his lack of talent was truly shown in this WC. Much too much was expected from him. Unfairly, perhaps. The United States played well beyond the expectations and much too much has come from the last fifteen desperation minutes against Belgium. The team beat Ghana but extreme luck played a major role. They did better against Portugal, but the Lusitanians lost their head and heart before the game started. The game against Germany was a snoozefest. And against Belgium, the US had a couple of chances, including the amazing one at the end of the regular game. Unfortunatley, those chances came in a game where the USA was none other than a shooting gallery for the Belgians who competed in missing clear chances. Allowing more than 30 chances on goal and having your keeper save 16 clear shots is a sign of utter debility. Only luck and nerves precluded that game to be a runaway game for the Belgians. </p>
<p>The greatest delusion is to think that Bradley’s assessment after the game was correct. He is completely delusional in his thinking that the CURRENT USA can play on the same terms with teams such as Germany or Belgium. The game against Germany meant little to the Germans who needed just a tie. The friendly game between Belgium and the US earlier this year did show the difference when Belgium B team has to take their foot off the gas pedal to avoid an embarrassment to the United States. </p>
<p>The way this WC worked out for the US is mostly a fluke. The team is really not that good. Few of the Americans on the team would make the roster of their secondary countries. Our best weapons remain Howard (easy) Dempsey and … Donovan. And perhaps the German borrowed players.</p>
<p>Now compare this to the players on the Belgian roster who did NOT play. All of them would be starters on the US side. And to make the point even worse, so would at least a dozen players who did not make the final roster of 23. Names such as Nainggolan, Batshuayi, Vossen, or Carrasco might mean nothing in the US, but any two of them would be the best forwards and midfielders on the US team. </p>
<p>I think that this says it all for the current generation. The US pretty much needs to find 9 WC quality players! </p>
<p>Zusi made some good corner kicks early on but in later games he seemed off. I know there are ways to measure how players perform when kicking set pieces. I’m surprised Landon wasn’t kept if only to make free kicks. </p>
<p>Midfielders must be rated based on a number of things besides how many km’s have they run. Tackling, passing, intercepting passes, successful headers, errors made, and so on. </p>
<p>Cameron contributed towards two goals given up in one game. How did our defensemen do defending set pieces, handling breakaways, passing, making errors, etc?</p>
<p>I know of one rating system for players that gives them a rating from 1 to 10. What are those numbers based on? </p>
<p>Check the Castrol index on the fifa.com page. </p>
<p>Altidore can play forward internationally but he hasn’t shown the ability to be “the” man who can land the ball wen marked by two defenders as Dempsey can. My take is they lack offensive talent everywhere but particularly in the midfield and simply aren’t fast enough as a team. They did play well together on the whole. Again not to pick on Bradley or any individual, but when you have the ball that much you need to be an offensive threat. I’m not asking for Lionel Messi. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m more optimistic than this … but I do think it is going to take A LOT longer than everyone thought it would for the US to be a threat to win the world cup. To me the leverage point is the coaches of all those structured little kid teams. We’ve had a ton of organized youth teams for decades … but the volunteer coaches overwhelmingly had not played the game. At least in my town we are getting to the point where most of the volunteers now are people who played when they were kids … and we can see the difference when kids get to the travel/club programs … the skill level of the young kids is light years ahead of where they were even 10 years ago. If the same happens all across the country we will develop and find those special players for our national teams. I’m 55 and I know think I will see the US win the world cup.</p>
<p>xiggi,</p>
<p>I am studying the Castrol Index and hope it helps me put the pieces together. I’ll know a lot more about players and teams by 2018. It’s certainly a sabermetrician’s Holy Grail and motherlode.</p>
<p>On the USA side, Dempsey is rated the 21st best forward in the WC (8.30), Bradley the 33rd best midfielder (8.08), Cameron (!) the 46th best defenseman (8.01), and Howard the 14th best goalkeeper (7.83). The only other USA players who finished in the top half of the Index of 581 players were Jermaine Jones (7.63) and Beckerman (7.04).</p>
<p>It’s surprising to see these low rankings for defenders: Besler (5.66), Gonzalez (6.34), and Beasley (6.49). The Index suggests we have above-average goalkeeping, only average midfielders, below-average defensemen, and I guess average forwards due to Altidore’s injury. How much of a difference would he have made? I can’t see old man Landon Donovan doing much worse than Beasley though.</p>
<p>I believe Donovan would have taken the spot of a forward like Julian Green. </p>
<p>I thought Beasley played pretty well from time to time. He runs the ball up well but for some reason never strikes it with authority. I can think of two instances where if he’d simply hit it harder the US would have probably received a corner. I’d say the defense and defensive midfield played pretty well over all, despite their rankings, with the two big errors by Cameron and Besler. </p>
<p>I’ve watched Howard play for Everton - a rerun against Sunderland (which had Altidore) was on last night. He’s very good. Better than that ranking. </p>