Last night, Seattle beat Chicago in the Open Cup Final, 2-0. With this win, Seattle claimed their 3rd straight Open Cup, and qualified for the CONCACAF Champions League, beginning summer 2012. The Open Cup is one of 5 ways for an MLS team to qualify for the Champions League. The following are all the possible ways to qualify:
MLS Supporters' Shield winner
US Open Cup winner
MLS Cup winner
MLS Cup runner-up
For Canadian teams: The winner of the Canadian Championship (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver)
In the past, RSL has qualified for Champions League by winning the 2009 MLS Cup. This year, it seems that the Galaxy will win the Supporters' Shield, and Seattle has now claimed the Open Cup spot. Should one of the league's teams qualify in more than one spot (say the Galaxy, or Seattle, reach the MLS Cup or even win it, they would occupy more than one spot), there is a determining factor for selecting another team that will take that spot. By the rules, it says, "Should the same team qualify multiple times and/or should a Canadian team occupy one or more of the MLS qualifying places, then the American MLS team(s) with the best regular season records not otherwise qualified will be entered.".
Looking ahead at the playoffs, and barring any major collapses, LA will likely be the #1 seed from the West, and then Seattle will be the #2, with RSL coming in at #3. LA will play against the lowest seed that comes from the wild card games, and will be favored to go through to at least the Conference Final. Let's just say there is a very high probability of LA getting to at least that point. In the other matchup of the Western Conference, Seattle and RSL will sure be a great battle, but the winner will then face LA for a chance to get to the MLS Cup. Should RSL win both of those potential matchups, and reach the MLS Cup, they will qualify for the Champions League. However, if they drop either matchup, Seattle or LA, then they will not directly qualify. But, with Seattle and LA already qualified, the MLS Cup final qualifying spot (either the winner or runner up) would then fall to the "American MLS team with the best regular season record not otherwise qualified." In this case, that would be RSL, as we have not only the third best record in the Western Conference, but the third best record overall.
That is why it is important that we finish out these last few games on a high note. Regardless of if we cannot catch LA for the Supporters' Shield, or even Seattle for the #2 seed, our current position is important to qualifying for the Champions League.
And that is why, for one night only, I wanted the Sounders to win a game. And they did. The rest is in our own hands.
IT'S FINALLY HERE!!! After a long summer of boring football, the European season is about to kickoff (and some leagues even kicked off last weekend). The Premier League starts this weekend, and in the next few weeks, Serie A and La Liga will follow. While City will try to take the title away from United, and the regular challengers like Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool attempt to do the same, there will be lots to play for this season in England. On a European front, Barcelona look to continue not only their dominance in Spain, but also their dominance of Europe. They will be yet another team that will try and be the first to win back to back European Cups since Milan won it in 1989 and 1990, and looking to be the first to do it since it changed to the new Champions League format. Here are my predictions for the upcoming season:
Premier League
Champions: Manchester United. They are too strong this season for the rest of England. While they went out and picked up a few key signings this summer (David De Gea, Ashley Young, Phil Jones), most of their rivals stayed with their current squads, when they could have brought in a few big names. United's depth will be very important as they look to claim their 20th top flight title.
Champions League Spots (2nd, 3rd, 4th): Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool. It will be a fight at the end of the season for that 4th spot between Liverpool and Arsenal, but as in many past years, Arsenal will struggle down the stretch and this year will miss out on the Champions League. Liverpool will get back to the Champions League for the first time since the 2008-09 season.
Relegated (18th, 19th, 20th): Blackburn, Norwich City, QPR. Premier League new boys, QPR, will finish last by quite a few points, but Blackburn and Norwich will also fall in the late stages of the league as Swansea, Wigan and Wolves will beat them out for the last few spots in the league.
FA Cup (finalist): Manchester United (Chelsea).
Carling Cup (finalist) : Manchester City (Arsenal)
Champions League (finalist): Manchester United (Real Madrid) - further predictions to come when the group stages are finalized, and knockout matchups are announced later in the year.
For those that know I am a United fan, you may think these picks are very ambitious. However, I have a good feeling United will be gunning for the competitions more than the Premier League this season. Having not won the FA Cup since 2004, and losing in the Champions League Final last year, United will look to achieve glory. Could the Treble be on again? I think so.
Over the last couple days, since the great US comeback against Brazil, I've been in discussion with a couple friends (@ben_wagner and @prestonvjohnson) about the comparisons between Landon Donovan's game winning goal against Algeria in the 2010 World Cup, and Abby Wambach's equalizing goal against Brazil in the 2011 Women's World Cup.
For those of you who don't remember, I will give a quick synopsis of the Donovan situation. The US needed to win their last group game against Algeria, and they would go through to the knockout stages of the World Cup (and with a little help from England, they could clinch first in the group). The game was 0-0 going into the 90th minute, then this happened:
England then went on to beat Slovenia, which gave us top spot in the group on goals scored. We moved on to the round of 16 to face Ghana, where we were knocked out of the World Cup, when we lost 2-1.
Just two days ago, the US Women's team faced Brazil in the quarterfinals of the Women's World Cup. After taking an early 1-0 lead, the US went down a man, and then later, down a goal. They faced elimination, just as the men faced a year before. The game approached the end of the second period of extra time and then this happened:
Wambach's goal marked an unbelievable comeback by the US side, but sent the game only to penalties. Hope Solo became the hero again as she made a big save on one of the Brazilian spotkicks, allowing the US to finish off Brazil and advance to the semifinals of the tournament.
I think it is impossible to say one goal is more dramatic than the other, because each had it's individual elements. Also, I am partly biased because I was in attendance as Donovan put his goal past the Algerian keeper. I know what happened in that stand after the goal went in, and that was beyond any feeling I've ever experienced for a sporting event in my life (even better than the '99 Final, which I attended as well). However, when you look at the significance of each goal, I feel that Donovan's goal played a bigger part.
1) What did each of those goals give their respective teams?
US Men: Donovan's goal ended the game and locked 1st place in the group, something that the US Men's National Team had never done before in their history.
US Women: Wambach's goal equalized the quarterfinal, and sent the game to penalties, where one Hope Solo save, and 5 nicely taken penalties, sent the US to the semifinals (a place the US has achieved in every single Women's World Cup to date)
2) Without each goal, where would both teams have stood (ST and LT)?
US Men: Eliminated from the tournament in the group stage, after being near locks to make the knockout round, but not favored to do much after that (ST). Bob Bradley had a lot of pressure to do well in this tournament, and he would have likely been fired. Players like Donovan, Bocanegra, Onyewu, Howard, DeMerit would have been questioned and possibly slowly weeded out as "too old" or "not good enough" for the National Team on a big stage (LT).
US Women: Eliminated from the tournament in the quarterfinals, for the first time in World Cup history (ST). But they lost 4 years prior to Brazil, in the semifinals, so it wouldn't have been that big of a shock had Brazil won. The US team has a fairly young team, and I doubt their coach would have got much backlash, seeing the poor officiating that occurred against Brazil. Germany, 2 time defending champions, and hosts, had already been upset, so the US loss wouldn't have even been close to the loss of the Germans (LT).
3) In comparison to historical events, where did these goals put the respective teams? US Men: The US Men have never won a World Cup, and since 1954 (when the tournament expanded to 16 teams) the US hasn't made it past the quarterfinals. On a world stage, the US doesn't match up with many teams, and is consistently ranked somewhere between 10-25. Not that FIFA rankings are the only determining factor, but based on that alone, any knockout round appearance has to be seen as a positive for the US, and this was only the 3rd time in the last 5 World Cups that the US made it past the group stages.
US Women: The US Women have never been knocked out of the World Cup before the semifinals, and they have won the entire tournament on two previous occasions (1991 and 1999). We all know the dramatics of '99: hosting the tournament for the first time, selling out big stadiums around the country, the Final vs China at the Rose Bowl, and winning in penalties. The US/China game in 1999 got a 13.3 Neilsen Rating, where the US/Brazil game got a 2.6 rating. While the dramatics may have been close to equalizing the 1999 Final, the significance and importance of the US/Brazil game to the American public is nowhere close to the game in 1999.
While many people argue that the goal by Abby Wambach is a bigger goal than the one scored by Landon Donovan, it is nothing new to the US team. They are the #1 ranked team in the world, and were second favorites to win the tournament (behind Germany). They had to face a tougher team like Brazil because of their group stage slip ups, but they were still favored to beat Brazil. Although they made it more difficult on themselves than hoped, they got the expected result. Donovan's goal reached marks for the Men's National Team that had never been achieved before. The historical significance and importance to that team outweighs that of the Wambach goal.
RSL played in the 3rd round of the Open Cup last night against the Wilmington Hammerheads and got a comfortable 2-0 victory to advance to the last 8 in the tournament. This could be the best chance that RSL has to make it back into the Champions League next season, as a team's depth is often tested, and RSL has often showed they are very deep and talented throughout the squad.
While the Open Cup is the longest standing tournament in the United States, I feel there are a few flaws with it's format.
1) All Professional teams should automatically qualify for the tournament. I feel like this is somewhat the equivalent to England's FA Cup, in which any team can qualify, even from the amateur club level. And in this case, 8 teams do qualify from that level. But if they can qualify, why can not every team ahead of them, automatically be in it? I understand that there would be a few more rounds that would need to be added, but if they start it in March or April, they would have plenty of time to include all professional teams (MLS, USL, PDL, NPSL) and add a few amateur teams as well. RSL is fortunate enough to qualify based on the previous year's results, but if I was a player on Chivas, or even Toronto, I'd feel ripped off that these lower division teams qualify but we have no chance to do so because we had a bad season, in MLS.
2) There should be an open draw after each round. The first round should start with all the non-MLS teams and then the 3rd or 4th round start including all MLS teams. While this is somewhat the case, in that MLS teams join in the 3rd round of the tournament, an open draw, like the FA Cup, should occur after each round that doesn't necessarily give the "higher ranked" teams automatic home field advantage. Last night there were 8 games, all of which gave the MLS team the home field advantage. In 7 of the 8 matches, the MLS team won, and the one exception was Columbus, who played down a man for the last 25 minutes of their matchup against Richmond. I feel like the home field advantage was a key factor in those matchups. Also, in the current format, all MLS teams are separated until at least the quarterfinals. An open draw could plot two MLS teams against each other earlier in the tournament, forcing managers to decide whether they play their starters, or they give them rest and gamble with a weakened side in the tournament. This would also create some early excitement in the tournament, whereas right now, it was almost a sure thing that all MLS sides would advance. This would play into some smaller team's favor and you could see a PDL team go to the semifinals or even win the whole thing, but instead they have to get through 4 MLS teams to do so.
3) Lastly, the Final should be played at a neutral site, or at least a predetermined site. Whether it is a scheduled rotation, or the same field every year, I think it is unfair to determine who hosts the tournament based on a "ranking system". Play the game at the Home Depot Center, Red Bull Arena, Pizza Hut Park, or even Rio Tinto Stadium. As long as it is mentioned before, I feel like it is much more fair. Last year, the Sounders defended their title against the Crew, AT HOME. Of course, if you have 35,000 fans screaming for you, it is going to be tough. At least at a neutral ground, both teams have an equal right to buy tickets, and support their team in the Final.
Here's to hoping RSL can put together 3 more strong performances and get 3 more victories on their way to win their first Open Cup.
Red Sox vs Yankees. Duke vs North Carolina. Lakers vs Celtics. BYU vs Utah. There are a long list of rivalries in this country that draw media attention every time occur. Most of them happen at least once a year, and in some cases, like with Red Sox/Yankees, can happen 18 times in one year. However, the US National Team only plays Mexico about once per year, if that, and in my opinion, this rivalry is greater than all others in this country.
I don't know where to start with the history of this matchup. From Landon Donovan urinating on Mexico's training fields, to the US triumph over Mexico in the Round of 16 at the 2002 World Cup, to the many battles at Estadio Azteca, these matches never seem to have a dull moment. The last time we were matched up in the Gold Cup was in the 2009 Final, when Mexico absolutely embarrassed the US, 5-0, in New Jersey. The US team looks to exact revenge this Saturday at the Rose Bowl, and book a place in the 2013 Confederations Cup.
8 days ago, the US were facing elimination before a must-win matchup vs Guadaloupe, while Mexico had trounced the likes of Costa Rica, Cuba and El Salvador by an aggregate score of 14-1. At that point, most people saw Mexico as runaway favorites in this tournament. Since then, the US has run off fairly comfortable victories over Guadaloupe, Jamaica and Panama (all while not conceding a goal) to reach the Final. Mexico, on the other hand, struggled to beat Guatemala (2-1) and Honduras (2-0, in extra time). While Mexico are still likely favorites for Saturday, it is much closer than what was seen just over a week ago.
While there are many things that the US has to do right on Saturday, three factors stand out to me:
1) The US must have a good start and keep Mexico scoreless in the first half - Bob Bradley's teams have been known for giving up early chances in matches, and while Howard has saved them on many occasions, an early goal for Mexico could all but put the US team away. This game will be played at the Rose Bowl, and while it is in the US, I wouldn't be surprised to see at least 75% of the stadium filled with the green and black from Mexico. An early goal would send the crowd into a craze, and it would be hard to fight back against the Mexican team, as well as the majority crowd, to win the game.
2) The US back line needs to play better than they have all tournament - While the likes of Bocanegra, Goodson, Lichaj and Cherundolo have played fairly well the entire tournament, they have yet to come up against a strikeforce like Chicharito, Dos Santos, De Nigris, and Guardado. There will be chances in this game, and the creativity of the front line for Mexico will open up the US defense, but we need to minimize those chances, especially the dangerous ones. Howard needs to direct this back line with a strong voice to eliminate any confusion that the front running Mexican side will create. A few classic Tim Howard saves won't hurt, and likely he will be called upon to make them.
3) The US cannot waste their chances in front of goal - We have seen some high quality misses this tournament from Dempsey, Jones and other US players as well. The Mexico defenders are not as good as their front line, and chances will be made by the US going forward, whether it comes right through the middle, or crosses coming in from the wings. However, we cannot afford any big misses, and have to take our chances. Agudelo will likely start alone up top, with Dempsey and Donovan supporting him, and their combination play will create the chances, and hopefully we have got all of our big misses out of our systems.
I think this game calls for goals with Mexico's lethal strikeforce and a weakened back line for Mexico. While a lot could happen, I think this game will go to extra time at 1-1, and then the US will snatch a winner through Landon Donovan. 2-1 to the Yanks.
This week, many NBA teams are holding their last player workouts for top prospects before next week's NBA Draft. Many people have said that this draft is much "weaker" compared to previous years. The only big names, according to NBA experts, are Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams. After that, it's hard to see any player being much of an immediate impact. However, by far the biggest story of the Draft season has been Collegiate Player of the Year, Jimmer Fredette. While many critics said that Jimmer didn't have what it takes to succeed in the NBA, most thought that he would fall somewhere from late lottery to mid first round.
Over the last couple weeks, Jimmer has made stops in Indiana (15), New York (17), Sacramento (7), and Phoenix (13), and finishing up today with Utah (3 and 12). With lots of hype surrounding each workout, Jimmer is reported to have excelled in each city. His athleticism, defensive capabilities and work ethic were just some of the things that seemed to impress GMs and head coaches along the way. While his draft position will likely be in that 12-17 range, he could go earlier, depending on trades made, who is selected before him and who is still on the board.
While I don't follow the NBA that closely, I am naturally a Jazz fan. And while I would love Jimmer to be drafted by Utah, his performances are not the biggest factor in the Jazz' decision to draft him with that 12th pick. Most importantly for Jimmer's possible future in Utah, is what the Jazz do with the 3rd pick. While ESPN's Chad Ford still has the Jazz taking former Kentucky PG, Brandon Knight, there has been a lot of talk recently about taking Enes Kanter, the 19 year old, 6'11'' center, from Turkey. If you know anything about the Jazz, it is that we are terrible inside, and that a big man that can rebound and score is something that would come in handy. Whether Kanter is proven enough to take at #3, that is a different discussion but I think it is worth the risk. The Jazz don't necessarily need to use their top pick at PG with Devin Harris still set to be a starter next season.
If the Jazz do pick Knight at 3, there is no chance for Jimmer to be drafted by the Jazz at 12. However, if Kanter is the Jazz' guy, I think Jimmer will be the pick, unless Sacramento takes him over Kemba at 7, or if someone trades up and takes him before the 12th pick. However, if he is still on the table then, the Jazz will take him.
Since Sloan and D-Will left the Jazz last season, the fan base in Utah has thinned out dramatically. I love the way Millsap plays, and Hayward looks to be a future star, but there isn't much that get fans excited right now in Utah, especially since our record was atrocious after Sloan and D-Will left. After all the hype about "Jimmermania" in Provo this year, and really all over Utah, Jimmer would be a perfect way for the Jazz organization to rebuild that excitement for their club. Whether he turns out to be an All-Star or just sits the bench for 5 years is another debate (mostly between BYU and Utah fans). The Jazz need a scorer and I think Jimmer could fill in at both the point as well as the shooting guard position. He will never be as electrifying as he was at the Y, and even he knows that. But he won't be demanded of that at the Jazz. He can be a steady scorer off the bench, and if things go well, could become a regular starter for a team that really only has room to improve. With young players like Hayward, Favors and Evans, as well as more experienced guys like Millsap, Harris and Jefferson, Jimmer could become a solid piece to turn this franchise, that since Jordan knocked down in 1998, has struggled to become a Western Conference powerhouse.
I don't think that Jimmer alone will turn this franchise from a lottery team to a powerhouse in the West, but I do feel like he would fit in nicely with our system. Over time, even if it is 3 or 4 years away, this Jazz team could be making runs to the Finals, like in the late 90's. In a weak draft, there is no reason not to take a chance on a local star that has the ability and desire to become a star on the national stage, in the best league in the world.
The US National Team lost for the first time ever in group play at the Gold Cup when they were defeated by the powerhouse that is Panama, on Saturday night. The 2-1 loss is more than just the result, and I believe it marks the end of the Bob Bradley reign as manager of the National team.
If we look back at the last year, we have had the highs of drawing with England in the World Cup, and that great last minute goal by Donovan against Algeria. However, we have also had the lows of losing to Ghana in the round of 16 at the World Cup, and more recently, getting obliterated by Spain and then this loss to Panama. On the surface, you may just think that we are going through a rough patch but that we will get back to the "greatness" that our team was once in South Africa. But how good were we really in South Africa?
We entered the tournament ranked #14 in the world, with the rest of our group ranked as follows: England (8), Slovenia (25), and Algeria (30). While we started the tournament with a good result against the English side, many will argue that we were lucky to get one point. Next up was Slovenia, which we managed a draw against, having to fight back from a 2-0 first half deficit. While we had a goal disallowed that would have given us the 3 points, a draw was probably a fair result. Last up in the group stages was Algeria, a match that we could have easily lost after giving Algeria a few good looks at goal. Yet, Landon Donovan put us into the knockout stages with his dramatic winner in injury time. We won the group, something that no American side has ever done before. But with the under achieving England side, was this that big of a surprise? No. Had LD10 not scored that goal, not only would we have not won the group, but we wouldn't have advanced. Technically, the top 16 teams should advance in the tournament and we were 11 out of 32. Then came Ghana, the 32nd ranked team in the world, and 24 out of 32 (not to mention they didn't even have their best player, Michael Essien). We were beaten all over the field by Ghana, from the start and didn't have enough to beat them as we lost in overtime. So we left the tournament, much earlier than most Americans had hoped, but to me, I wasn't surprised.
We were far from great, and I would say we were very average in the tournament. While most Americans will remember the tournament for Donovan's goal, on the bigger scale, we underachieved. And I blame Bradley's tactics for this.
Going forward, I saw a lot of bright spots in the team, and while the games have been mostly friendlies since the World Cup, the US scheduled games against Brazil, Poland, Columbia, South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Spain. Add the two Gold Cup matches against Canada and Panama and their record has been 2-4-4 (our only two wins to come against South Africa and Canada). These games were an opportunity for Bradley to feature the talent in the American pool combined with the natural leaders already in the team. But we have faltered.
Bradley has yet to pick a team, let alone an entire 23 man squad that I have been satisfied with. His use of players that don't have any business being near the national team (Rogers, Kljestan, Wondo) in big Cup games is embarrassing. His exclusion of Bunbury and Davies from the squad altogether is ridiculous. Davies and Bunbury both had started the 2011 MLS season on a high and this was a perfect opportunity for Bradley to give them a shot on the big stage in the Gold Cup. But he passed on them. He also has included Tim Ream and Clarence Goodson straightaway in the starting lineup, while leaving Onyewu and Bornstein on the bench and shifting Bocanegra out to a wide position, where he has clearly been exposed. I don't know why he still plays Dempsey wide in the midfield, when Dempsey has proven himself as a goalscorer up top in the Premier League.
One other thing I find upsetting is the attitude of the team. Why does it often take us going a goal down to realize that the game has started? I read a stat from Sports Illustrated's Grant Wahl this morning which compared Bradley to former boss Bruce Arena, "Win % in ALL official games as USA coach: Bradley .670 Arena .674. % of games USA allowed the 1st goal: Bradley 39% Arena 26%. Win % in official HOME games as USA coach: Bradley .870 Arena .861. % of home games USA allowed the 1st goal: Bradley 30% Arena 8%." People often criticize Arena for the amount of control he demanded as manager of the team. But the last stat is really what stands out to me. In nearly one-third of all our home games, we concede first. That is unacceptable. I credit that to poor lineup choices by Bradley, as well as the attitude that he obviously is not instilling to the team as they take the pitch. Arena didn't make those mistakes.
Going forward, the US need to look somewhere else. While I believe Jason Kreis will be a future manager of the National Team, he still has a little bit of work to do for that position, but I believe if he keeps on the right track, he is in line for the 2018 World Cup. Klinsmann is the name I want right now. Apparently we were all but signed on Klinsmann to take over after the World Cup, but didn't want to give him full control of the team, and youth development. That is a terrible job by the USSF to not give him the job. If no one was paying attention in 2006, Klinsmann took his Germany side to the semifinals as a host country. We also forget that the all controlling Bruce Arena took the Americans to their best ever finish in the World Cup in 2002, taking us to the quarterfinals where we controversially lost 1-0 to the Germans. We need a big name to take over the team and build a new attitude with the boys.
I believe we will recover a bit from this Panama loss to beat Guadalupe and make it to the knockout round of the Gold Cup, but that doesn't solve our long term problems with this team. If we are to win the Gold Cup, we will have to go through Mexico, who right now, look like one of the most powerful teams in the world. At this rate, I'd rather go out before we had to face them and get embarrassed like did 2 years ago. And on a bigger stage, if we want to challenge for the 2014 World Cup, we have a long way to go, and why not make the changes now so that we can have time to adjust before World Cup qualifying begins.
But I'll always stick by my country, through thick and thin. Don't tread on me.
