We are currently witnessing extraordinary scenes across the Middle East as people are rising up to demand an end to decades-old, Western-backed despotic regimes from Tunis to Cairo, and the revolt now shows signs of spreading into Jordan and Yemen as well. These revolts give renewed hope to peoples everywhere who yearn for freedom, democracy and economic justice.
There are no doubt a range of factors involved, but a proximal stimulus would appear to be simple economics. As people's living circumstances become more desperate, then they can be moved to take more forceful steps to try and change the status-quo. What might appear to be a desperate act to one with some food on his table becomes a necessary act for one whose children are starving. As an example, it appears that in Egypt a significant percentage of the population routinely subsists on something like the equivalent of $2 a day. Given such precarious economic circumstances a sudden increase in food prices, as has been occurring across much of the world, can be devastating. More succinctly, poverty and repression cannot be tolerated indefinitely.
As usual, the depiction of events unfolding in Egypt have been greatly distorted by the filter of the US media. Indeed, by far the best coverage I've seen on the Middle East rebellions so far has been that of Al Jazeera (I'm speaking specifically of the English language edition, since I can't comment on the Arabic version). While Al Jazeera English is apparently widely available in Canada and Western Europe it presently has little distribution on US cable networks. Somehow this doesn't seem surprising given the US media's increasing concentration in fewer and larger multinational corporations, and their general subservience to US government interests. For first rate coverage, then also check out the reporting from Sharif Abdel Kouddous at Democracy Now! who is on the ground in Egypt with an eye-witness and first-hand perspective on events.
As we watch these events unfold and see their refraction through the prism of US media outlets we can begin to see cracks in a number of longstanding myths on which US economic dominance and control in the Middle East and beyond is founded. One of my favorites is the notion of "regional stability." We hear this term endlessly from US media pundits. As in the following illustrative example: US Media Hack #1, "The US can't afford to lose the support of a pro-Western, stable Egyptian government," or, US Media Hack #2, "the toppling of Mubarak would just sow regional instability." So lets look a bit more closely at what this notion of stability actual implies.
Here's how the game works;
1) when a regional government is supportive of US government interests, that is, behaves as a good client and generally "knows how to follow orders," then, by definition, such a regime is "stable."
2) It is virtually irrelevant whether the government in question is democratic, autocratic, monarchical, tyrannical, plutocratic, oligarchic, theocratic, or any suitable combination thereof, by axiom 1) it is still a "stable" government. And just so that "stable" doesn't appear to be too overused, one can also substitute "moderate."
Note that by US government interests above I mean those of the economic elites--largely corporate interests and their patrons--within the US that for the most part influence and control the US foreign policy agenda. Also bear in mind that these interests are not necessarily the same as, and often are directly opposed to, those of the vast majority of the American people.
Now, what is the actual nature of many of these "stable" US client regimes? Well, it would take a book to cover all of them, but looking at the most recent "dominoes" to teeter in the Middle East should be sufficient. You would be hard-pressed to find any serious commentator arguing that either Tunisia or Egypt be considered as democratic states. Rather, these regimes were/are best described as autocratic, repressive oligarchies, in which a small ruling elite has enriched themselves through corruption at the expense of the vast majority of their citizens. They also routinely employed violent suppression of any and all political opposition, often with the use of arrest, torture, or worse. In reality, the societal and political conditions created and fostered by these "stable" regimes could not be more unstable! That is unless you consider vast income inequality with epidemic poverty and violent political repression to be stable economic and political models.
And of course the corollary rules apply. Any regime unwilling to play ball by our rules is "unstable," or if they really attempt to conduct their affairs with independence from Washington, and, heaven forbid, outside of the Capitalist model, then they may even be "radical." Again, the nature of the regime itself is irrelevant, what only matters is their stance towards US interests, if they are willing to put US interests above those of their own people, then of course, they are a "stable" regime. An example of a "radical" regime in this context was the democratically elected, but left-leaning government of Chile under Salvador Allende. Allende was overthrown and murdered in a US-backed coup that installed decades of "stable," vicious autocratic rule under General Augusto Pinochet. You see, a "stable" dictatorial government is always preferable to a "radical" democracy. Chile under Allende could not be tolerated mostly because it might represent the "threat of a good example," and worse yet, right in America's own backyard. That is, a nation that develops outside the Western-dominated model, with development actually serving the interests of its population and not those of international capital.
Another crucial myth that must be continually reinforced is the notion that the US is the bastion and guarantor of true democracy throughout the world. This is axiomatic among news talking-heads and the punditocracy in mainstream US media. While there is abundant evidence to the contrary, it is all completely irrelevant. Just consider the case of Egypt's Mubarak, supported through 30 years of one-party (indeed one-man), iron-fisted rule by multiple US administrations. You see, when government officials understand that this myth is virtually unassailable, then they can get away with the kind of bare-faced lies like those spouted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued in a recent CNN interview, "We are on the side" of the Egyptian people, "as we have been for more than 30 years." The Egyptian people know better Ms. Clinton.
But you can understand that in such circumstances US officials have to be careful, they don't want to be seen as completely on the record in their support for a dictator whom a million Egyptians are out in the streets to try and remove. And on the other hand, if they still see a fair chance for the survival of their client, Mubarak in this case, well, then they don't want to openly call for him to depart to quickly. This is where obfuscation becomes a real asset, and there are few better at it than US State Department Officials. Consider this gem from Clinton herself, in response to a question about the US's stance on Mubarak, "This is a complex, very difficult situation," said Clinton, "We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back..." Backing forward? Backing back? Well, I'm glad that cleared everything up. One has to show some grudging admiration for someone who could so torture the English language, but that has been the nature of much of US commentary so far, obfuscation.
We can also learn a great deal by comparing the US response to the present rebellion in Egypt to that which occurred last year following elections in Iran. Now, according to our rules of the game, Iran is clearly not a "stable" regime. On the contrary, Iran is a "radical" regime that sows "instability" in the Middle East. In the summer of 2009 when large numbers of Iranian citizens protested the outcome of elections in their country, then US officials were more than vociferous in their support for the democratic rights of the protesters in Iran. But now, when faced with similar conditions in Egypt, and the apparent demise of one of its own lynch-pin clients in the Middle East, US officials can only talk out of both sides of their mouths and call for "restraint," and other such neutral platitudes. While Iran's theocratic government is objectionable on many levels we have to keep in mind that it had its roots sown in the overthrow of another "radical" democratically elected regime, that of Mohammed Mosadegh, deposed in yet another US-orchestrated coup, that installed the dictatorial rule of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi. I guess you can say what goes around comes around.
At present, the Mubarak government appears to be digging in its heals, and may not go without trying to first exact a terrible price from the Egyptian people. Let's hope that doesn't happen, and that the Egyptian people can attain a democratic future.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Fare-Thee-Well Titanic
Here's a video showing some of my guitar playing. The tune is an arrangement by Stefan Grossman, called "Fare Thee Well Titanic." It's played in the key of C. The video was shot with a small Canon elph, and the audio could be better, but you can still hear the tune reasonably well, I think.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Shoot the Messenger, but Never, Ever, Examine Our Own Conduct
Wikileaks, the whistle-blowing website that has now in the past few months released two immense troves of once-secret US military and State Department documents, is now literally under attack from all quarters. The long knives are out as government officials of every stripe--and nationality--try to convince American citizens or anyone who will listen that Wikileaks and it's Editor in Chief Julian Assange are evil incarnate. The Wikileaks website itself has been dropped from several domestic internet providers, most recently from Amazon, seemingly due in part to pressure and threats from government officials, including that stalwart of First Amendment protections, Senator Joe Lieberman. It is also apparently under some form of cyber attacks, most likely denial of service attacks, to force it down or paralyze its servers.
The threat that Wikileaks poses to the powerful State and Corporate actors who have become accustomed to absolute impunity can be gauged by the almost hysterical nature of their response. Note, there is no threat in the sense of any real physical danger, rather, the threat is that their privileged positions and actions might actually face some measure of accountability. That is Wikileaks' unpardonable sin, to dare challenge the notion that the powerful can do whatever they like whenever they like with total impunity. Just for daring that, anyone with a modicum of belief in real democracy should support Wikileaks efforts to shine some light on the inner workings of empire. Robert Scheer's eloquent defense of democracy and Wikileaks pretty much sums it up.
Not surprisingly, a couple of the more hyperbolic attacks on Wikileaks have come from the "mental ward" of the Republican Party. No less than Sarah Palin and Representative Peter King--he a seemingly perpetual embarrassment to my birth state of New York--have argued, rather pathetically, that Wikileaks be labeled a foreign terrorist group by the US government. Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has distinguished himself by calling for the execution, on grounds of treason, of the alleged leaker Private First Class Bradley Manning, and Palin also suggested that Assange be "hunted down." And to demonstrate that such wackiness is not confined solely to American critics of Wikileaks, former aide to current Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Tim Flanagan, has publicly called for the assassination of Julian Assange, saying, "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. You know, there’s no good coming of this." And not to be outdone, Bob Beckel, a Democratic commentator on Fox News has also publicly called for the "illegal shooting" of Assange because of his treasonous and traitorous leaking, and his having, "...broken every law of the United States..." Perhaps someone should tell Beckel that Assange is in fact a citizen of Australia. And--you'll be relieved to know--Beckel is an opponent of the death penalty, and that of course all the guests appearing with him on Fox News were in complete agreement regarding the illegal shooting. Yes, unfair and unbalanced.
Of course the irony is rich indeed when you consider that these same folks arguing that Wikileaks has "blood on its hands," would more or less by content if Assange were "whacked" in some kind of mob hit. So much for consistent thinking, but OK, these folks rarely get accused of thinking anyway.
The bulk of American media has also been more than happy to whip up animosity against Wikileaks, and as usual has almost completely missed the real story, the actual content of the leaked cables. Mainstream outlets have been more than happy to perpetuate and amplify the "shoot the messenger" statements coming out of government officials. They appear much happier to sensationalize the alleged sexual misconduct charges apparently leveled against Assange than explore, for example, the aftermath of US military strikes in Yemen one year ago which the leaked cables indicate resulted in the deaths of many civilians, including 21 innocent children. Yes, US citizens have a right to know when their government is engaged in operations that are killing children! That's horrific enough, but it gets worse, because even with the knowledge that children were killed US diplomats still conspired to have Yemeni officials take the blame by publicly stating it was their missiles and not ours. There are really only two simple reasons why US government officials would behave so; first, so that the policy cannot be challenged by the people in whose name it is being carried out, and second, so that those decision makers ultimately responsible for initiating and carrying out the policy can do so with complete immunity from prosecution, because, while I am not a legal expert, I'm rather certain that the indiscriminate killing of civilians (and children) is indeed a war crime. Again, the real blood is on whose hands?
The leaks, and the government's response to them starkly reveal a crucial aspect of the entire secrecy regime that Wikileaks threatens. Those whose neighborhoods are demolished by US missile or drone attacks know they are being attacked, and generally by whom. The secrecy is not to try and convince them that we are innocent, no, it is aimed directly at us, the citizens from whom the government ostensibly derives its consent to govern. When citizens have no way of knowing what their government is doing, then true consent cannot be granted, and democracy ceases to exist. If enough citizens knew the details of such conduct then they might be outraged enough to demonstrate and petition the government to change its policies, as is their right under the Constitution and in a functioning democracy. As usual, Noam Chomsky rather eloquently makes this point, that the leaked cables demonstrate first and foremost the real distaste for democracy exhibited by our political elites.
Another constant refrain from officialdom and the media echo chamber is that the leaks pose a "grave threat" to US "national security." This charge is also rather revealing. Indeed, the term "national security" has become so debased and trivialized that's its use is now almost totally propagandistic. Any request or attempt to have those in power face some measure of accountability is instantly reversed with the cries of National Security. Even after officials going as high up as Defense Secretary Robert Gates have essentially admitted that no harm or serious threats resulted from the leaked documents, the charge continues to be leveled, and you would be hard pressed to find any mainstream journalists challenging such previously debunked comments. Glenn Greenwald explains precisely how the game works.
Of course the truth is that it is US policy, resulting in the indiscriminate killing of many civilians, that is actually harmful to US security. Such a policy does not eliminate the threat of terrorism, rather, as a number of studies have shown, it has increased the threats from terrorists, as it simply further alienates the populations under attack, enabling terrorist groups to more easily recruit among them. But if US citizens have no idea how US policy is playing out in countries subjected to drone or missile strikes, then how can the policies be confronted and challenged? It appears clear that foreign policy elites have little inclination to reverse course without significant public pressure. Just look at ten years of US policy in Afghanistan, one is reminded of the lyrics from a famous Pete Seeger song, "waste deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on."
So, rather than representing some kind of threat, it appears much more likely that the Wikileaked documents actually could make us all safer if they eventually lead to more openness and transparency in government. But that is unlikely to come easily, as at this very moment, Attorney General Eric Holder is desperately in search of a crime with which to charge Julian Assange. Irony is in abundant supply indeed as no doubt extensive resources will be spent in investigating Assange and trying to find any trumped-up charge that will stick, but meanwhile we have war criminals and torturers freely walking in our midst, and plenty of binding international and domestic legal treaties with which to charge and try them with, but not a finger is lifted, as we have to look forward, that is, away from our own misdeeds, and never backward at them and ourselves.
And perhaps justifiably the State Department itself easily wins the irony grand prize with this announcement concerning World Press Freedom day 2011! Enjoy.
The threat that Wikileaks poses to the powerful State and Corporate actors who have become accustomed to absolute impunity can be gauged by the almost hysterical nature of their response. Note, there is no threat in the sense of any real physical danger, rather, the threat is that their privileged positions and actions might actually face some measure of accountability. That is Wikileaks' unpardonable sin, to dare challenge the notion that the powerful can do whatever they like whenever they like with total impunity. Just for daring that, anyone with a modicum of belief in real democracy should support Wikileaks efforts to shine some light on the inner workings of empire. Robert Scheer's eloquent defense of democracy and Wikileaks pretty much sums it up.
Not surprisingly, a couple of the more hyperbolic attacks on Wikileaks have come from the "mental ward" of the Republican Party. No less than Sarah Palin and Representative Peter King--he a seemingly perpetual embarrassment to my birth state of New York--have argued, rather pathetically, that Wikileaks be labeled a foreign terrorist group by the US government. Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has distinguished himself by calling for the execution, on grounds of treason, of the alleged leaker Private First Class Bradley Manning, and Palin also suggested that Assange be "hunted down." And to demonstrate that such wackiness is not confined solely to American critics of Wikileaks, former aide to current Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Tim Flanagan, has publicly called for the assassination of Julian Assange, saying, "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. You know, there’s no good coming of this." And not to be outdone, Bob Beckel, a Democratic commentator on Fox News has also publicly called for the "illegal shooting" of Assange because of his treasonous and traitorous leaking, and his having, "...broken every law of the United States..." Perhaps someone should tell Beckel that Assange is in fact a citizen of Australia. And--you'll be relieved to know--Beckel is an opponent of the death penalty, and that of course all the guests appearing with him on Fox News were in complete agreement regarding the illegal shooting. Yes, unfair and unbalanced.
Of course the irony is rich indeed when you consider that these same folks arguing that Wikileaks has "blood on its hands," would more or less by content if Assange were "whacked" in some kind of mob hit. So much for consistent thinking, but OK, these folks rarely get accused of thinking anyway.
The bulk of American media has also been more than happy to whip up animosity against Wikileaks, and as usual has almost completely missed the real story, the actual content of the leaked cables. Mainstream outlets have been more than happy to perpetuate and amplify the "shoot the messenger" statements coming out of government officials. They appear much happier to sensationalize the alleged sexual misconduct charges apparently leveled against Assange than explore, for example, the aftermath of US military strikes in Yemen one year ago which the leaked cables indicate resulted in the deaths of many civilians, including 21 innocent children. Yes, US citizens have a right to know when their government is engaged in operations that are killing children! That's horrific enough, but it gets worse, because even with the knowledge that children were killed US diplomats still conspired to have Yemeni officials take the blame by publicly stating it was their missiles and not ours. There are really only two simple reasons why US government officials would behave so; first, so that the policy cannot be challenged by the people in whose name it is being carried out, and second, so that those decision makers ultimately responsible for initiating and carrying out the policy can do so with complete immunity from prosecution, because, while I am not a legal expert, I'm rather certain that the indiscriminate killing of civilians (and children) is indeed a war crime. Again, the real blood is on whose hands?
The leaks, and the government's response to them starkly reveal a crucial aspect of the entire secrecy regime that Wikileaks threatens. Those whose neighborhoods are demolished by US missile or drone attacks know they are being attacked, and generally by whom. The secrecy is not to try and convince them that we are innocent, no, it is aimed directly at us, the citizens from whom the government ostensibly derives its consent to govern. When citizens have no way of knowing what their government is doing, then true consent cannot be granted, and democracy ceases to exist. If enough citizens knew the details of such conduct then they might be outraged enough to demonstrate and petition the government to change its policies, as is their right under the Constitution and in a functioning democracy. As usual, Noam Chomsky rather eloquently makes this point, that the leaked cables demonstrate first and foremost the real distaste for democracy exhibited by our political elites.
Another constant refrain from officialdom and the media echo chamber is that the leaks pose a "grave threat" to US "national security." This charge is also rather revealing. Indeed, the term "national security" has become so debased and trivialized that's its use is now almost totally propagandistic. Any request or attempt to have those in power face some measure of accountability is instantly reversed with the cries of National Security. Even after officials going as high up as Defense Secretary Robert Gates have essentially admitted that no harm or serious threats resulted from the leaked documents, the charge continues to be leveled, and you would be hard pressed to find any mainstream journalists challenging such previously debunked comments. Glenn Greenwald explains precisely how the game works.
Of course the truth is that it is US policy, resulting in the indiscriminate killing of many civilians, that is actually harmful to US security. Such a policy does not eliminate the threat of terrorism, rather, as a number of studies have shown, it has increased the threats from terrorists, as it simply further alienates the populations under attack, enabling terrorist groups to more easily recruit among them. But if US citizens have no idea how US policy is playing out in countries subjected to drone or missile strikes, then how can the policies be confronted and challenged? It appears clear that foreign policy elites have little inclination to reverse course without significant public pressure. Just look at ten years of US policy in Afghanistan, one is reminded of the lyrics from a famous Pete Seeger song, "waste deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on."
So, rather than representing some kind of threat, it appears much more likely that the Wikileaked documents actually could make us all safer if they eventually lead to more openness and transparency in government. But that is unlikely to come easily, as at this very moment, Attorney General Eric Holder is desperately in search of a crime with which to charge Julian Assange. Irony is in abundant supply indeed as no doubt extensive resources will be spent in investigating Assange and trying to find any trumped-up charge that will stick, but meanwhile we have war criminals and torturers freely walking in our midst, and plenty of binding international and domestic legal treaties with which to charge and try them with, but not a finger is lifted, as we have to look forward, that is, away from our own misdeeds, and never backward at them and ourselves.
And perhaps justifiably the State Department itself easily wins the irony grand prize with this announcement concerning World Press Freedom day 2011! Enjoy.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Mother of All Political Fails
We are now 3 days away from yet another demonstration of the demise of American democracy. A destructive and disastrous plutocratic status quo is virtually cemented in place, as Frank Rich eloquently puts it, "... the only choice is between the party of big business and the party of business as usual." Americans may still have the right to vote, but what really is there to vote for? Both major parties are at the beck and call of monied, corporate interests, and the voice of ordinary folks, who have steadily seen their living standards lowered and threatened, is drowned in an ocean of corporate "money-is-speech" cash. Is it then any wonder that millions feel powerless and helpless, and will simply sit out this supposed demonstration of the greatness of American democracy. And as Ralph Nader accurately describes, we are well down the road to corporate serfdom, but appear poised to send back to legislative power the very right wingers and corporate cronies that are largely responsible for this state of affairs, and indeed, desire just such an outcome.
It is not hyperbole to argue that more meaningful electoral choices were available to "voters" in the Soviet Union, who might have had at least a choice between communist party hack #1 and hack #2. On Tuesday we will find that we mostly have a choice between corporate hack #1 and corporate hack #2. This is not the democracy envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, who had this to say about corporations and democray, “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Consider how we arrived at this point. A new President was elected with a solid mandate to end, that is, to change, the widely reviled political status quo represented largely by the corrupt, inept and immoral governance personified by the administration of George W. Bush. To large measure the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leadership have utterly failed to live up to its promises to bring about the "change we need" that they so heavily campaigned upon. While many other factors have contributed to bringing us to this point, that is the primary reason it appears likely that the Republican party will see dramatic gains in the mid-term elections. An absolute failure of leadership from Obama and his party.
After mocking and ignoring a key bulwark of his own political base for much of his first term, Obama and his allies then had the brilliant idea to blame them, the so-called "professional left," for their own cowardice and failings. Contrary to the ravings of right wingers, the one group with essentially no power in the present circumstances is the so-called left. So, naturally, they make an easy scapegoat. It's not too surprising when the right trots out this supposed bogey man at every opportunity, but for Obama and his allies to do so really underscores the cowardice of these folks, and further highlights just how beholden they are to the same corporate interests that control the Republicans. The man who was supposed to represent the audacity of hope has only shown the audacity to govern like his supposed adversaries and attack his own supporters. A more self destructive political calculation can scarcely be imagined.
So, it seems that our vote on Tuesday will be another rear-guard action. An effort merely to keep the worst of the worst out of office. Another triumph of the doctrine of the lesser of two evils. We need to break out of this suffocating status quo. Time is running out.
It is not hyperbole to argue that more meaningful electoral choices were available to "voters" in the Soviet Union, who might have had at least a choice between communist party hack #1 and hack #2. On Tuesday we will find that we mostly have a choice between corporate hack #1 and corporate hack #2. This is not the democracy envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, who had this to say about corporations and democray, “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Consider how we arrived at this point. A new President was elected with a solid mandate to end, that is, to change, the widely reviled political status quo represented largely by the corrupt, inept and immoral governance personified by the administration of George W. Bush. To large measure the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leadership have utterly failed to live up to its promises to bring about the "change we need" that they so heavily campaigned upon. While many other factors have contributed to bringing us to this point, that is the primary reason it appears likely that the Republican party will see dramatic gains in the mid-term elections. An absolute failure of leadership from Obama and his party.
After mocking and ignoring a key bulwark of his own political base for much of his first term, Obama and his allies then had the brilliant idea to blame them, the so-called "professional left," for their own cowardice and failings. Contrary to the ravings of right wingers, the one group with essentially no power in the present circumstances is the so-called left. So, naturally, they make an easy scapegoat. It's not too surprising when the right trots out this supposed bogey man at every opportunity, but for Obama and his allies to do so really underscores the cowardice of these folks, and further highlights just how beholden they are to the same corporate interests that control the Republicans. The man who was supposed to represent the audacity of hope has only shown the audacity to govern like his supposed adversaries and attack his own supporters. A more self destructive political calculation can scarcely be imagined.
So, it seems that our vote on Tuesday will be another rear-guard action. An effort merely to keep the worst of the worst out of office. Another triumph of the doctrine of the lesser of two evils. We need to break out of this suffocating status quo. Time is running out.
Friday, July 2, 2010
More World Cup Drama
Well, the first day of World Cup quarterfinal matches did not lack for drama. The Netherlands (Hup Holland!!) turned around a 1-0 first half deficit to defeat tournament favorites Brazil 2-1. In the 2nd match Uruguay somehow managed to wriggle free from the clutches of the grim reaper to survive a penalty shoot-out against Africa's last hope, Ghana. In my opinion this is something that they were able to do only because of a serious flaw or loop-hole in the Laws of the Game, as I will discuss in a moment.
The first match highlighted another serious problem with today's game, and that quite frankly is simply the rampant foul play and cynicism of many, if not most, of the games supposedly greatest players. While much attention is focused on the quality of the referee and his decisions, and rightly should be, the spotlight needs to also be shined on the behavior of the players themselves. Much much more should be expected of them than some of the shocking displays that have been on evidence at this World Cup. Indeed, I should say that FIFA's "My Game is Fair Play" campaign appears long since dead and buried.
Many matches are now really composed of two separate games. There is the football match proper, trying to pass the ball and ultimately score goals, or defend and prevent them. The other game, which often seems to occupy more of the players time, concern and mental and physical faculties, is, for lack of a better phrase, how to best con the referee, or otherwise gain some unfair advantage with him. The theatrics, faking, whining, complaining, and otherwise carrying on like a spoiled 5 year old, has reached epic proportions, and was much in evidence from both sides in the Netherlands - Brazil match. You would be hard pressed to find such behavior in any youth recreational leagues in the United States, for example, or I suspect much of the rest of the world. But on football's grandest stage we are forced to suffer this idiocy?
A key aspect of soccer education in the US, at least with which I am familiar, is that referee's are to be respected, and one let's the referee call the game, and thus one can concentrate on one's own game, just playing, and not worrying about every little foul decision. Again, FIFA is in the outer limits when compared to other major sports organizations and leagues. In no other professional sport that I am familiar with is the constant talking back to and attempted "conning" of officials tolerated or left unpunished. In some cases the referees are not blameless, they need to be aware that many times players are going to the ground on their own accord, in such cases, they need to just wave play on, yell at the offenders, "get up, play." If players thus learn that diving gains no advantage, and indeed, may put a team at a numerical disadvantage, then the prevalence of this behavior would decrease. In cases of players persistently trying to cheat, remonstrate or berate referees, then they should be booked, with warning that continued behavior will elicit a red card. Coaches also bear significant responsibility. There was nothing more sickening than the sight of Dunga on the Brazil touchline whining, gesticulating, and arguing at nearly every foul decision or lack there-of. Really, do grow up.
The conclusion of today's 2nd match spelled heartbreak for Ghana. They were sent home after losing a penalty shoot-out. However, the situation which ultimately saw Uruguay advance was brought about by a deliberate hand-ball on the goal line that prevented the ball from entering the goal. In my opinion this is a serious deficiency of the Laws of the Game which needs to be rectified. In such circumstances, if the referee judges that the use of the hand deliberately keeps a goal-bound ball from entering the goal, as was clearly the case when Luis Suarez acted as a 2nd goalkeeper, then the referee should have the discretion to directly award the goal, because that would have been the outcome of the play had not the illegal infraction occurred. The offending team in such a situation should never gain an advantage by the commission of a direct red-card offense. The goal should have been awarded, and Uruguay should be out of the World Cup. Instead, the aggrieved team is forced to score again a goal that it has effectively already scored. This is simply unjust. While a penalty kick is clearly a good opportunity to score, this deficiency in the Laws creates an incentive for teams in certain circumstances to violate other Laws of the Game, and that should never be the case. Indeed, in such pressure filled situations, the scoring of a penalty is no certainty, and indeed Gyan unfortunately missed the attempt. But it was a situation he was unfairly placed into, and the Laws should be amended such that similar circumstances do not occur. Nothing evidenced this so clearly than the ugly sight of disgraced, red-carded-cheater Luis Suarez fist-pumping on the sidelines on his way off the pitch after Gyan missed his penalty. While everyone wants to win, this brings the desire to win at any cost to new lows, and the Laws of the Game should never encourage such behavior. In my opinion Suarez should be suspended for the remainder of the tournament, and with any luck Uruguay will be sent packing in the semi-finals by the Netherlands, and good riddance.
The first match highlighted another serious problem with today's game, and that quite frankly is simply the rampant foul play and cynicism of many, if not most, of the games supposedly greatest players. While much attention is focused on the quality of the referee and his decisions, and rightly should be, the spotlight needs to also be shined on the behavior of the players themselves. Much much more should be expected of them than some of the shocking displays that have been on evidence at this World Cup. Indeed, I should say that FIFA's "My Game is Fair Play" campaign appears long since dead and buried.
Many matches are now really composed of two separate games. There is the football match proper, trying to pass the ball and ultimately score goals, or defend and prevent them. The other game, which often seems to occupy more of the players time, concern and mental and physical faculties, is, for lack of a better phrase, how to best con the referee, or otherwise gain some unfair advantage with him. The theatrics, faking, whining, complaining, and otherwise carrying on like a spoiled 5 year old, has reached epic proportions, and was much in evidence from both sides in the Netherlands - Brazil match. You would be hard pressed to find such behavior in any youth recreational leagues in the United States, for example, or I suspect much of the rest of the world. But on football's grandest stage we are forced to suffer this idiocy?
A key aspect of soccer education in the US, at least with which I am familiar, is that referee's are to be respected, and one let's the referee call the game, and thus one can concentrate on one's own game, just playing, and not worrying about every little foul decision. Again, FIFA is in the outer limits when compared to other major sports organizations and leagues. In no other professional sport that I am familiar with is the constant talking back to and attempted "conning" of officials tolerated or left unpunished. In some cases the referees are not blameless, they need to be aware that many times players are going to the ground on their own accord, in such cases, they need to just wave play on, yell at the offenders, "get up, play." If players thus learn that diving gains no advantage, and indeed, may put a team at a numerical disadvantage, then the prevalence of this behavior would decrease. In cases of players persistently trying to cheat, remonstrate or berate referees, then they should be booked, with warning that continued behavior will elicit a red card. Coaches also bear significant responsibility. There was nothing more sickening than the sight of Dunga on the Brazil touchline whining, gesticulating, and arguing at nearly every foul decision or lack there-of. Really, do grow up.
The conclusion of today's 2nd match spelled heartbreak for Ghana. They were sent home after losing a penalty shoot-out. However, the situation which ultimately saw Uruguay advance was brought about by a deliberate hand-ball on the goal line that prevented the ball from entering the goal. In my opinion this is a serious deficiency of the Laws of the Game which needs to be rectified. In such circumstances, if the referee judges that the use of the hand deliberately keeps a goal-bound ball from entering the goal, as was clearly the case when Luis Suarez acted as a 2nd goalkeeper, then the referee should have the discretion to directly award the goal, because that would have been the outcome of the play had not the illegal infraction occurred. The offending team in such a situation should never gain an advantage by the commission of a direct red-card offense. The goal should have been awarded, and Uruguay should be out of the World Cup. Instead, the aggrieved team is forced to score again a goal that it has effectively already scored. This is simply unjust. While a penalty kick is clearly a good opportunity to score, this deficiency in the Laws creates an incentive for teams in certain circumstances to violate other Laws of the Game, and that should never be the case. Indeed, in such pressure filled situations, the scoring of a penalty is no certainty, and indeed Gyan unfortunately missed the attempt. But it was a situation he was unfairly placed into, and the Laws should be amended such that similar circumstances do not occur. Nothing evidenced this so clearly than the ugly sight of disgraced, red-carded-cheater Luis Suarez fist-pumping on the sidelines on his way off the pitch after Gyan missed his penalty. While everyone wants to win, this brings the desire to win at any cost to new lows, and the Laws of the Game should never encourage such behavior. In my opinion Suarez should be suspended for the remainder of the tournament, and with any luck Uruguay will be sent packing in the semi-finals by the Netherlands, and good riddance.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Why FIFA is Currently Football's Worst Enemy
Well, you may be able to tell I'm passionate about soccer from my last post. And since it's World Cup time I've been watching a lot of it lately. How about Germany today, they were awesome. World Cup football, I'll call it football from now on, is often played at breakneck speed by some of the best conditioned athletes in the world. There are 22 players on the pitch, and the game has been largely controlled by a single referee since the game was first played. This is done without the aid of "technology" as FIFA chief Sepp Blatter likes to argue, that is, no coaches with video replay flags to ask for a replay of a disputed call. Not even a simple device to inform the referee and his assistants that the ball is in the goal. But after watching today's World Cup round of 16 matches between Germany and England, and Mexio and Argentina, it must be clear to all but the staunchest sentimentalists, and perhaps even FIFA commisars that this situation must change, and certainly by the time the next World Cup roles around.
Many will know that in today's first match England's Frank Lampard, one of the few England players to turn in a credible performance for his side, scored a beautifully chipped goal over the German keeper Neuer, off the cross-bar and down over the goal line (by several feet easily). The goal should have tied the match 2-2. The ball quickly bounced out of the goal as a little spin induced by its collision with the bar is wont to do. It would seem that virtually everyone in the stadium knew the ball had crossed the goal line, except for the individuals whose sole authority can adjudicate legitimate goals. Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda and his compatriot linesman working that end of the pitch. Video replays on the "jumbotrons" in the stadium almost instantly confirmed what most everyone already knew, a goal had just been scored. But wait! Larrionda was upfield and can be forgiven perhaps for not seeing the ball in the goal, but his linesman was reasonably well positioned to see it, but also apparently did not see the ball over the line! No goal!! The whole world is watching, the whole world knows a goal has been scored, but only Sepp Blatter and apparently other FIFA neanderthals will tell you that such an outcome is "OK?" If they are allowed to prevail in the arguments that surely must follow, then the very integrity of the beautiful game will be at stake.
Football matches are decided by goals. While Germany arguably played the better match, moving the ball with speed and precision, that is not how football games are decided, by the team that strings together the most passes. Football matches are won by the team that scores the most goals. Goals are not easy to come by in football. When the awarding of goals cannot be properly adjudicated, then you cease to have a football match. It may resemble football, but the game has lost all its integrity. Fans will know that a 2-2 match at half-time is much different from one where a team is trailing 2-1. With a one goal cushion Germany could play a bit more cautiously, looking to spring breaks if England were to lose the ball with many players upfield. This is more or less what happened. Germany scoring two counterattacking goals to finish off the English. While I think England were outplayed, they should not have been in that position. If goals cannot be awarded fairly, then you have a spectacle, not a football match.
I remember thinking to myself after watching some of the first group stage matches at this World Cup, that the officials were doing a good job. However, as the tournament progressed, there has been no shortage of controversial referee decisions. Every referee decision should not be up for review during a match, but goals are different, goals are the very heart of the game, when goals are scored fairly they have to count, or the game becomes a sham, and the sport can be fairly derided as a joke (which it most certainly is not).
I would argue that the nature of modern football has outstripped the ability of a single referee and his aids to fairly and accurately control matches. All other major professional sports have found ways, using electronic assistance if necessary, to assist match officials in preserving the integrity of their sports. FIFA must act to maintain the integrity of international football, and if its present leadership do not, then they have to be removed, it's that simple, and that important.
The sad thing is that you really don't even need "technology" to much more fairly adjudicate the scoring of goals. Two additional match officials, goal line judges if you will, could be positioned behind or alongside the goals, and could determine if the ball crosses the goal line. Precedents abound in other sports, both for adding extra officials at major competitions (baseball's World Series), and hockey's goal judges. Simple technology already exists to tell the referee when a ball has crossed the goal line between the goal posts. The NHL has completely solved this problem in the sport of hockey, and it works almost perfectly. Video cameras are used to review every goal, and the ultimate judges are a group of league officials in a central location in Toronto during all NHL games. Videos are shown to the crowds and on TV, so there would be very little incentive for "cheating." And further, why would league officials mess with the integrity of the very sport they love and that is their livelihood. FIFA referee's already use "technology," being in voice communication with their linesmen and the fourth official. So, it is just preposterous to suggest that football is somehow "pure" and "untainted" by technology. It is ludicrous to suggest that a similar or related technology could not be implemented for full FIFA international matches. The ONLY thing lacking is the will in the FIFA leadership. Once such technology was tried and any kinks worked out, the officials would no doubt be very grateful to have such assistance. Would it be better for a referee to easily be enabled to get it right rather than face years of derision from fans and the media for a blown call? The answer seems obvious to me.
Implementing a simple goal adjudication system before the next World Cup must be a priority for FIFA. If not, then the global Confederations and National football associations need to insist on it. While I'm at it, here are several other things that FIFA should experiment with to maintain the integrity of the sport. There clearly need to be more "eyes on the pitch." A second referee would enable closer control of matches. Again, hockey's NHL has implemented this feature and it clearly works better, once officials learn how to officiate with a partner. There is absolutely no reason why FIFA could not implement a similar solution.
If you hadn't gotten your fill of controversy in today's first match, then you would have been elated when Argentina's opening goal was scored unfairly, with the player cleary in an offside position. The call was completely blown by the Italian linesman working that end of the pitch. The offside rule is one of the more difficult rules to properly enforce, but again, if FIFA were interested in getting decisions correct, then I don't believe it would be difficult to implement a video review system to fairly adjudicate goals where an offsides call may have been a concern. The main argument against this has again been that it will interrupt the "flow" of the game, but again, this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Games are stopped when goals are scored. Usually, the ensuing celebrations can last a minute or more. Goals are also relatively infrequent. It would be easy enough to implement a quick video review. Goals where a player was clearly in an offside position, such as Argentina's opener, would be properly disallowed and play could proceed as it should have, from the point of the infraction, with a free kick. This should not take more than a minute or two. Eventually, such reviews would become routine, and players and fans would wonder why it had to take so long for FIFA to finally wake up and protect the game we all love and it professes to represent.
Many will know that in today's first match England's Frank Lampard, one of the few England players to turn in a credible performance for his side, scored a beautifully chipped goal over the German keeper Neuer, off the cross-bar and down over the goal line (by several feet easily). The goal should have tied the match 2-2. The ball quickly bounced out of the goal as a little spin induced by its collision with the bar is wont to do. It would seem that virtually everyone in the stadium knew the ball had crossed the goal line, except for the individuals whose sole authority can adjudicate legitimate goals. Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda and his compatriot linesman working that end of the pitch. Video replays on the "jumbotrons" in the stadium almost instantly confirmed what most everyone already knew, a goal had just been scored. But wait! Larrionda was upfield and can be forgiven perhaps for not seeing the ball in the goal, but his linesman was reasonably well positioned to see it, but also apparently did not see the ball over the line! No goal!! The whole world is watching, the whole world knows a goal has been scored, but only Sepp Blatter and apparently other FIFA neanderthals will tell you that such an outcome is "OK?" If they are allowed to prevail in the arguments that surely must follow, then the very integrity of the beautiful game will be at stake.
Football matches are decided by goals. While Germany arguably played the better match, moving the ball with speed and precision, that is not how football games are decided, by the team that strings together the most passes. Football matches are won by the team that scores the most goals. Goals are not easy to come by in football. When the awarding of goals cannot be properly adjudicated, then you cease to have a football match. It may resemble football, but the game has lost all its integrity. Fans will know that a 2-2 match at half-time is much different from one where a team is trailing 2-1. With a one goal cushion Germany could play a bit more cautiously, looking to spring breaks if England were to lose the ball with many players upfield. This is more or less what happened. Germany scoring two counterattacking goals to finish off the English. While I think England were outplayed, they should not have been in that position. If goals cannot be awarded fairly, then you have a spectacle, not a football match.
I remember thinking to myself after watching some of the first group stage matches at this World Cup, that the officials were doing a good job. However, as the tournament progressed, there has been no shortage of controversial referee decisions. Every referee decision should not be up for review during a match, but goals are different, goals are the very heart of the game, when goals are scored fairly they have to count, or the game becomes a sham, and the sport can be fairly derided as a joke (which it most certainly is not).
I would argue that the nature of modern football has outstripped the ability of a single referee and his aids to fairly and accurately control matches. All other major professional sports have found ways, using electronic assistance if necessary, to assist match officials in preserving the integrity of their sports. FIFA must act to maintain the integrity of international football, and if its present leadership do not, then they have to be removed, it's that simple, and that important.
The sad thing is that you really don't even need "technology" to much more fairly adjudicate the scoring of goals. Two additional match officials, goal line judges if you will, could be positioned behind or alongside the goals, and could determine if the ball crosses the goal line. Precedents abound in other sports, both for adding extra officials at major competitions (baseball's World Series), and hockey's goal judges. Simple technology already exists to tell the referee when a ball has crossed the goal line between the goal posts. The NHL has completely solved this problem in the sport of hockey, and it works almost perfectly. Video cameras are used to review every goal, and the ultimate judges are a group of league officials in a central location in Toronto during all NHL games. Videos are shown to the crowds and on TV, so there would be very little incentive for "cheating." And further, why would league officials mess with the integrity of the very sport they love and that is their livelihood. FIFA referee's already use "technology," being in voice communication with their linesmen and the fourth official. So, it is just preposterous to suggest that football is somehow "pure" and "untainted" by technology. It is ludicrous to suggest that a similar or related technology could not be implemented for full FIFA international matches. The ONLY thing lacking is the will in the FIFA leadership. Once such technology was tried and any kinks worked out, the officials would no doubt be very grateful to have such assistance. Would it be better for a referee to easily be enabled to get it right rather than face years of derision from fans and the media for a blown call? The answer seems obvious to me.
Implementing a simple goal adjudication system before the next World Cup must be a priority for FIFA. If not, then the global Confederations and National football associations need to insist on it. While I'm at it, here are several other things that FIFA should experiment with to maintain the integrity of the sport. There clearly need to be more "eyes on the pitch." A second referee would enable closer control of matches. Again, hockey's NHL has implemented this feature and it clearly works better, once officials learn how to officiate with a partner. There is absolutely no reason why FIFA could not implement a similar solution.
If you hadn't gotten your fill of controversy in today's first match, then you would have been elated when Argentina's opening goal was scored unfairly, with the player cleary in an offside position. The call was completely blown by the Italian linesman working that end of the pitch. The offside rule is one of the more difficult rules to properly enforce, but again, if FIFA were interested in getting decisions correct, then I don't believe it would be difficult to implement a video review system to fairly adjudicate goals where an offsides call may have been a concern. The main argument against this has again been that it will interrupt the "flow" of the game, but again, this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Games are stopped when goals are scored. Usually, the ensuing celebrations can last a minute or more. Goals are also relatively infrequent. It would be easy enough to implement a quick video review. Goals where a player was clearly in an offside position, such as Argentina's opener, would be properly disallowed and play could proceed as it should have, from the point of the infraction, with a free kick. This should not take more than a minute or two. Eventually, such reviews would become routine, and players and fans would wonder why it had to take so long for FIFA to finally wake up and protect the game we all love and it professes to represent.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
World Cup Heartbreak!
As a lifelong player of the "beautiful game," that's soccer to Americans and football to most of the rest of the world. It's been frustrating to watch the slow embrace of the sport by my country, and often equally frustrating to watch the US National team's slow but steady progression into the top twenty of the FIFA rankings. But this World Cup promised to be the coming out party for the US team, while certainly not Brazil-like in it's talent pool, this US team had, seemingly, most of the tools to make a deep run into the tournament. Sadly, that run ended today with a 2-1, round-of-16 extra-time defeat to Ghana, the African nation that has now dumped the US out of two straight World Cups! Not Ghana! Not again!!
For the first time in its history the US had topped its group in the initial, round-robin stage of the tournament. First, a nail-biting, some might say fortunate 1-1 draw with England, then a gutsy, come from behind 2-2 draw with Slovenia, that arguably should have been a victory due to a goal being disallowed because of a mystery foul. To be concluded by a heart-stopping 1-0 win over Algeria on Landon Donovan's 91st minute goal.
But defensive frailties were exposed in its opening matches, the penchant to concede early goals seemingly impossible to shake. Another weakness evident was the inability of US strikers, like Jozy Altidore, Robbie Findley, and Edson Buddle to maintain composure in front of goal and put away chances. In each of its matches the US team created chances to win games, especially so in its last two group games, but wasteful finishing led to the need for late heroics. Would the team be able to learn from these group match weaknesses and get it right in the knock-out round? Frustratingly, the answer was no.
It is hard to imagine that the US could have played a worse 1st half against Ghana. That this occurred in a World Cup round of 16 match is even more infuriating. The team looked tentative, stretched over the field and not working together to close down the spaces available to Ghana, which looked the much better side. This was easily the worst half played by the US at this World Cup. While coach Bob Bradley can overall be proud of the US effort and progression in this tournament, he still needs to answer some tough questions. 1) Why start Ricardo Clark in mid-field after Maurice Edu had clearly demonstrated his better form in the two prior games. Indeed, why would Bradley tinker with the line-up that had defeated Algeria? Why, oh why?? While Clark can add steel to a mid-field with strong tackling and ball winning, he is not gifted with the dribbling skills of a Robinho, or even the USA's Benny Feilhaber. The game was not 6 minutes old when Clark inexplicably tried to beat his opposite number off the dribble in the middle of the park, at the half-way line. I wouldn't even try such a thing in a recreational match, with the score 3-0 in our favor! Clark was easily dispossessed of the ball, springing a Ghanaian counterattack that ended with a sublime, low, left-footed strike inside Tim Howard's near post by Kevin-Prince Boateng. The same Boateng who ended ersthwhile German captain Michael Ballack's World Cup with a wild tackle in the FA cup final while playing for his English club team Portsmouth. Incredibly, the US found itself down again early, but now in a knockout round match, with no tomorrow for the loser.
Clark remained ineffective for his remaining time on the pitch, and to be fair, so did most of the rest of the US squad. He proceeded to then pick up a booking for a careless, sliding tackle, and basically left Bradley with no choice but to sub him out for Maurice Edu after 30 minutes. While Bradley had made some good tactical moves in prior games, he seems to have gotten his tactics all wrong in the first half, and with everything on the line! Bob Bradley, why now?? Now was clearly not the time to tinker with what was working. To make matters worse he now had only two substitutions left with 60 minutes to play. Poor coaching Mr. Bradley.
As badly as the US played, Ghana was not exactly peppering the US goal, so with the half-time whistle coming and the US down only 1-0, it was clear that there was still time to find a goal, and indeed, they would have to play better, because it would not be possible to play worse. But this has to be question one for the whole US squad, how could the team put in such a tentative 1st-half effort with so much at stake in a World Cup round-of-16 match?!
It was a tale of 2 halves. As badly as the US played in the first half, they played that much better in the 2nd, but again, as in prior games they made enough chances to arguably win the match, but could not finish them when it counted most. Feilhaber was inserted at half-time and had an instant impact, why he did not start must be known only to Bob Bradley. Feilhaber provides the quality on the ball that the US team so desperately needed in the first half, and he almost equalized not 5 minutes into the 2nd half, denied only be a sliding save from Ghana's keeper Richard Kingson. Donovan, Dempsey and Altidore were starting to find the ball in dangerous positions, and it was no surprise, with Ghana on the back foot, that Dempsey finally won a penalty, that was converted by Landon Donovan to tie the match 1-1. Surely now, the US would ride this momentum to a 2nd goal and a berth in the quarterfinals? Agonizingly, the US could again not finish some good chances as the 2nd half wore on. Altidore in particular, after a powerful run into the box could not find the net, he may have had a fair penalty claim, but with the US already profiting from a spot-kick the referee waved play on. Full-time came with the teams tied 1-1, and it was on to extra-time. Kingson was huge for Ghana in the 2nd half, arguably making several saves that kept Ghana from going down.
Again, the US was undone by inattentive defending shortly after the extra-time kick-off. Central defenders Jay Demerit and Carlos Bocanegra giving way to much space to Ghanaian striker Asamoah Gyan, arguably Ghana's sole threat at this stage of the match, who collected a long ball, and coolly finished with a thumping left-footed volley past a stranded Tim Howard. The US could not find a way back, yet again. Game over. Heartbreak.
For the first time in its history the US had topped its group in the initial, round-robin stage of the tournament. First, a nail-biting, some might say fortunate 1-1 draw with England, then a gutsy, come from behind 2-2 draw with Slovenia, that arguably should have been a victory due to a goal being disallowed because of a mystery foul. To be concluded by a heart-stopping 1-0 win over Algeria on Landon Donovan's 91st minute goal.
But defensive frailties were exposed in its opening matches, the penchant to concede early goals seemingly impossible to shake. Another weakness evident was the inability of US strikers, like Jozy Altidore, Robbie Findley, and Edson Buddle to maintain composure in front of goal and put away chances. In each of its matches the US team created chances to win games, especially so in its last two group games, but wasteful finishing led to the need for late heroics. Would the team be able to learn from these group match weaknesses and get it right in the knock-out round? Frustratingly, the answer was no.
It is hard to imagine that the US could have played a worse 1st half against Ghana. That this occurred in a World Cup round of 16 match is even more infuriating. The team looked tentative, stretched over the field and not working together to close down the spaces available to Ghana, which looked the much better side. This was easily the worst half played by the US at this World Cup. While coach Bob Bradley can overall be proud of the US effort and progression in this tournament, he still needs to answer some tough questions. 1) Why start Ricardo Clark in mid-field after Maurice Edu had clearly demonstrated his better form in the two prior games. Indeed, why would Bradley tinker with the line-up that had defeated Algeria? Why, oh why?? While Clark can add steel to a mid-field with strong tackling and ball winning, he is not gifted with the dribbling skills of a Robinho, or even the USA's Benny Feilhaber. The game was not 6 minutes old when Clark inexplicably tried to beat his opposite number off the dribble in the middle of the park, at the half-way line. I wouldn't even try such a thing in a recreational match, with the score 3-0 in our favor! Clark was easily dispossessed of the ball, springing a Ghanaian counterattack that ended with a sublime, low, left-footed strike inside Tim Howard's near post by Kevin-Prince Boateng. The same Boateng who ended ersthwhile German captain Michael Ballack's World Cup with a wild tackle in the FA cup final while playing for his English club team Portsmouth. Incredibly, the US found itself down again early, but now in a knockout round match, with no tomorrow for the loser.
Clark remained ineffective for his remaining time on the pitch, and to be fair, so did most of the rest of the US squad. He proceeded to then pick up a booking for a careless, sliding tackle, and basically left Bradley with no choice but to sub him out for Maurice Edu after 30 minutes. While Bradley had made some good tactical moves in prior games, he seems to have gotten his tactics all wrong in the first half, and with everything on the line! Bob Bradley, why now?? Now was clearly not the time to tinker with what was working. To make matters worse he now had only two substitutions left with 60 minutes to play. Poor coaching Mr. Bradley.
As badly as the US played, Ghana was not exactly peppering the US goal, so with the half-time whistle coming and the US down only 1-0, it was clear that there was still time to find a goal, and indeed, they would have to play better, because it would not be possible to play worse. But this has to be question one for the whole US squad, how could the team put in such a tentative 1st-half effort with so much at stake in a World Cup round-of-16 match?!
It was a tale of 2 halves. As badly as the US played in the first half, they played that much better in the 2nd, but again, as in prior games they made enough chances to arguably win the match, but could not finish them when it counted most. Feilhaber was inserted at half-time and had an instant impact, why he did not start must be known only to Bob Bradley. Feilhaber provides the quality on the ball that the US team so desperately needed in the first half, and he almost equalized not 5 minutes into the 2nd half, denied only be a sliding save from Ghana's keeper Richard Kingson. Donovan, Dempsey and Altidore were starting to find the ball in dangerous positions, and it was no surprise, with Ghana on the back foot, that Dempsey finally won a penalty, that was converted by Landon Donovan to tie the match 1-1. Surely now, the US would ride this momentum to a 2nd goal and a berth in the quarterfinals? Agonizingly, the US could again not finish some good chances as the 2nd half wore on. Altidore in particular, after a powerful run into the box could not find the net, he may have had a fair penalty claim, but with the US already profiting from a spot-kick the referee waved play on. Full-time came with the teams tied 1-1, and it was on to extra-time. Kingson was huge for Ghana in the 2nd half, arguably making several saves that kept Ghana from going down.
Again, the US was undone by inattentive defending shortly after the extra-time kick-off. Central defenders Jay Demerit and Carlos Bocanegra giving way to much space to Ghanaian striker Asamoah Gyan, arguably Ghana's sole threat at this stage of the match, who collected a long ball, and coolly finished with a thumping left-footed volley past a stranded Tim Howard. The US could not find a way back, yet again. Game over. Heartbreak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)