order hcg nolvadex nolvadex buy buy nolvadex nolvadex buy order nolvadex buying nolvadex purchase nolvadex order hcg nolvadex buy nolvadex estrogen blocker buy nolvadex online nolvadex 20 mg dose nolvadex without prescription nolvadex 20 mg scored nolvadex guarantee delivery nolvadex no prescription how many mg are nolvadex tabs nolvadex guarantee delivery nolvadex 30 day supply price how many mg are nolvadex tabs nolvadex without prescription buy nolvadex estrogen blocker where to buy nolvadex and clomid research and buy nolvadex online nolvadex proviron no prescription do i need a prescription for nolvadex

Archive for category Hejduk

WHAT? THE U.S. EMERGES OUT OF GROUP OF WORLD CUP CLASS

No Heart? I’m All Heart Mother…

*As the U.S. National Team attempts to qualify for the World Cup in 2010, I will write a series of pieces concentrating on the style, or lack of it, of American soccer. See the other three here and here and here.

Lucky? Yeah. Holy shit, yeah. The U.S. got a waist-high boost from Brazil’s 3-0 thrashing of Italy to advance to the semifinal round of the Confederations Cup. But after the grit and determination it showed on Sunday, the team deserves some apologies, some reconsideration.

Before Sunday, most critics wrote the team off as over-classed and under-talented when compared with any good international team. Maybe this is true. But for me watching the U.S. was more disillusioning than revealing. Following the Brazil game, it looked like the tournament was a lost cause, both in determining a more consistent lineup and in spurring any team or individual confidence. While the U.S. showed that it could frustrate good teams, at least for spells, it looked incapable of producing anything like a functional attack. In one of the more hopeless throes of fandom in recent memory, I just hoped for a few linked passes – a shot on goal.

http://usa.worldcupblog.org/files/2008/10/davies.jpg

After Sunday’s performance against Egypt, we can all take a breath from the thick criticism and humming African air. When it needs to, when it has all eleven players on the field at once, the U.S. can attack. As Paul Gardner said in his pro-attacking reaction to the game: “The straightforward lust for goals is something new for this team, a Bob Bradley team. The usual caution had to be abandoned, and many a risk had to be taken.” Risk produced goals.

In addition to risk, the U.S. showed some of the characteristics that have been most persistent and true to the team’s identity over the years – namely perseverance and energy and grit – all of which the U.S. left behind inexplicably in its first two games. These are some of the principles on which the good ole U.S.A was founded, or so I’ve heard. And in the sports realm they are obvious and unifying. In large part, they represent one reason why I like watching the U.S. play. Usually I know that whichever team the U.S. plays, it will play that opponent hard – maybe too hard – with so much feist and defensive spirit that its opponent won’t have the time or space to work any of its exotic magic. At its best, the U.S. energy creates a different game, one that must be played a faster-than-normal pace, which forces its opponent to raise the magic of its game to a higher level if it is to succeed.

At the very least, this is the legacy of U.S. players like Frankie Hejduk. While he might not be as talented as anyone he lines up against on the wing, he will grind them into the lime of the sidelines with his energy. And in his absence, I hope we can have more talented U.S. defenders play with half his spirit.

Although characteristics like energy and perseverance don’t always win games at the highest level, they don’t lose them either. And as the U.S. proved against Egypt, such characteristics can be as invaluable on attack as on defense. For example, Charlie Davies produced the game’s first goal with more grit than talent. And his effort was emblematic of the U.S. style as a whole. Although it lacked guile, it had a straightforward urgency and speed that necessarily put Egypt under pressure. The other two goals came from purposeful offensive surges. Although hardly flowing or dazzling, they came from clean and efficient attacks that put Egypt at the mercy of American strengths – speed and power.

It was also encouraging to see the personalities of American stars come through their shells in this game. Oguchi Onweyu dominated the air and the box. Landon Donovan attacked with tireless pace and pointed guile. And Michael Bradley put in another performance that worked towards cementing his place in the center of the midfield. A refreshing American talent, he is as gritty as he is technical. The second goal, a quick and precise combination with Donovan that ended with Bradley tucking a sliding pass into the corner of the goal, presented these attributes in one fluid play.

http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/aponline/48537.41South-Africa-Egypt-US-Confed-Cup-Soccer.sff.jpg

Lastly, Clint Dempsey. For all his too-cool-for-school-and-defense attitude, he often appeared the most creative player in white, unlocking Egypt with a few incisive passes in the first half. And after all the criticism Dempsey endured from commentator John Harkes, some of which was deserved but much of which got comically egregious in the second half as Harkes vented biases about individual players instead of watching the game, Dempsey won the game for the U.S.. His snapping header in traffic displayed exactly the leftover determination that Harkes criticized him for lacking. It left Harkes and all the other critics struggling to capture their surprise and the improbability of the result, to revise the harshness of their reactions to the first two games.

The critics, however (including myself) weren’t necessarily wrong. This is only one win. Many questions about players and tactics persist.

But this game served to remind the critics, and the team itself, that grit or passion (or whatever other cliche you want to use) represents the one fundamental trait that the team needs to survive. All the team’s best players have it. Some could use more of it. It can serve as a baseline from which everything good springs.

Maybe all good teams need such a baseline. But somehow effort seems more crucial to the U.S., maybe because we have little else to rely on. It’s sewn into the fabric of American sports lore. It’s “Miracle” and “Rocky.” It’s a lot of elbow-grease, or maybe knee-grease in soccer’s case, and it’s lung-bursting sprints after the ball. Of course we crave flare and fluidity, more touch and guile, but as long as we have effort we know that other teams will still fear and respect us. And this is crucial to forging any sort of meaningful identity.

As Micheal Bradley said after the game:

“All the f—— experts in America, everybody who thinks they know about soccer, they can all look at the score tonight and let’s see what they have to say now. Nobody has any respect for what we do, for what goes on on the inside, so let them all talk now.” ◊

http://www.dailypress.com/media/photo/2009-02/45026981.jpg

, , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

STYLE ON THE ROAD

Part Two of a Series on Style in American Soccer

*As the U.S. National Team attempts to qualify for the World Cup in 2010, I will write a series of pieces concentrating on the style, or lack of it, of American soccer.

I watched the U.S.A vs. El Salvador qualifying match at a trucker bar seventy miles North of Los Angeles. Called Rusty’s or Rocky’s, it was the type of place that moved in blissful ignorance of the world around it. A family and a few burly men watched a Monster Truck Jam, playing on every TV in the place, with the same rapture that they licked barbeque sauce off their fingers.

http://www.midwestmonsters.com/photos/Img_0611.jpg

“Aw man. One wheel! … Aw shit. That guy just won’t flip. Don’t matter.”

All this while one of the best games of the NCAA Elite Eight, Pittsburgh vs. Villanova, was coming down to the wire. No one in there cared. This was comforting in a way. Mainstream sports news had as little bearing as any other news. “Don’t Stop Believing” blared over crunching cars. I asked the bartender to switch one of the TV’s to the soccer game, but not to worry about turning on the sound because one of the two burly guys was carrying a pretty good tune a few octaves below Steve Perry, and I didn’t want to throw him off.

So I watched the game to a familiar Classic Rock soundtrack. The two burly guys took turns picking tunes on the jukebox. The one with longer hair and rougher hands actually made some pretty good selections: A lot of Rolling Stones, Credence, Yes …

Quintanilla buries a stunning goal into the bottom corner.

I hear hurricanes ablowing.
I know the end is coming soon.

El Salvadorian fans bear their teeth and yell through a rocking fence.

The other burly guy, rounder and redder, picked a lot of glam rock and metal: Bowie, Poison, Guns n’ Roses. The soundtrack proved as predictable as any in any bar anywhere in America. But it was still an enjoyable way to watch the game. Instead of listening to Harkes wail on about all the mistakes the U.S. had to correct in the second half, I got Welcome to the Jungle!

It all got me thinking, could the U.S. National Team have a soundtrack, or a sound? Different games create different rhythms, but the instruments and spirit remain the same. I’m pretty sure Bill Simmons has proposed a similar game based on comparisons between sports teams and rock groups.

But by the time the first half ended, I didn’t think the U.S. had earned comparison to any of the bands that had played. Maybe Poison, I thought, for their predictable and straightforward songs. But even Poison has an underrated versatility, dipping into darker ballads and crunching through poppy rockers. And they play with such clear and piercing purpose that I thought the comparison would be doing them a disservice.

The U.S. didn’t play like Poison in the first half. Poison would have scored. The U.S. played scared, disjointed, devoid of ideas. Maybe like a late version of The Police, on the verge of breaking up.

More accurately, the band comparison didn’t work. Not just because I couldn’t describe the U.S. playing style with adjectives that would fit a good band, but mostly because the U.S. failed to impose its will, or its style, on the game at all, until about the 70th minute. At that point they started to possess the ball around the El Salvadorian 18-yard box. They played with more purpose, opening up the wings, and trying to combine their way to more shots on goal.

But for the majority of the game the U.S. were a will-less, punch-less group against one of the lower-rated teams in CONCACAF.

Yes, the U.S. showed their typical grit and determination to get back into the game. And they probably would have won if given ten more minutes. Also, El Salvador should be given credit for playing with so much determination, for surprising the American players with their speed and guile after so much talk about how they didn’t stand a chance.

Why does the U.S. so often fail to impose its will on weaker teams, especially away?

Many pundits have blamed Bradley.

Jamie Trecker writes in his blog on FoxSoccer.com: “You cannot blame [Bradley] for not being able to teach top-level tactics — because the guy clearly doesn’t know any. How would you, if the great majority of your time was spent in MLS? No slight on MLS or Bradley, but it’s unreasonable to expect someone to succeed when they don’t have the tools to do so … What the Americans need to progress is not a coach that ‘understands the American player,’ but a coach that understands what a team needs to do to succeed at the international level.”

I guess it would be nice to have an internationally qualified coach. But to blame Bradley for the performance against El Salvador seems short-sited and wrong.

I can’t come up with an apt musical comparison for the national team yet, but I do know that playing good soccer works via many of the same principles as making good music. To make good music takes talented musicians playing together, hitting the right notes at the right times. It takes individual creativity, and united purpose.

http://www.jerometwhite.com/images/JohnColtrane.JPG

The coach can share some of the blame for any failure. Maybe he gave misguiding direction. Maybe he chose the wrong personnel. But simply blaming Bradley blinds us to the deeper problems of player talent and development in this country. Both suffer. And both hurt us, immensely.

But both are getting better. The players are out there, in the Los Angeles parks and the Mid-western suburbs. We simply need to find them and nurture their talents the right way.

I dream of the day when we can field a team of players that have personalities as rich and diverse as all our musical talents have. When we have players that spring from our many landscapes as organically as Blues or jazz or folk music did. When we have a Coltrane at right back. When we have a John Fogerty tying down the central defense. A Nas in central midfield controlling the tempo.

Thinking about my dream American musician lineup (Dylan and Stevie Ray Vaughn at outside midfield, B.B. King in net, Biggie and Miles Davis up front), I realize that we need to make it as easy for our soccer players to express themselves as our musicians.

Then we’ll see style. Then we’ll see willpower. Is this possible?

Then Hejduk scores the game-tying goal with a few minutes left to play. Hejduk, maybe the least talented guy on the field, is all willpower. Arms outstretched and pumping in celebration, hair flying, he’s somehow all style too. Some nineties grunge lead singer. Chris Cornell (Soundgarden)? Jerry Cantrell (Alice in Chains)?

, , , ,

1 Comment

FRANKIE AGAIN? I LOVE THE GUY, BUT PLEASE, THERE MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE. ANYONE? WORLD CUP COMING UP, AND NOBODY ELSE IS READY TO STEP IN YET? ARE WE SERIOUS HERE? I KNOW THIS IS A REAL GAME AND NOT CHAMPIONSHIP MANAGER OR SIMULATED SOCCER, BUT…

I don’t want to seem like a toffee-nosed hater who criticizes U.S. soccer from behind a cathode-ray-fortress. But when I feel so strongly about something that seems painfully obvious to me, and about which nobody else complains, I feel a civic duty to raise awareness about the issue.

The issue: Frankie Hejduk might start again at right back for this weekend’s qualifier against El Salvador.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01005/frankie_hejduk_1005482c.jpg

Hejduk, maybe the chillest dude on the National Team, doesn't exactly play with the same style

“What’s the problem?” You might say. “Hejduk is a veteran defender. He’s played in two World Cups. As John Harkes says, ‘He’s one of those great locker room guys.’ He’s one of the best on-the-ball defenders we have. He has the best work rate on the team. He was nails against Mexico.”

All of these things are true. I recognize that Hejduk has played a valuable role as a glue-guy on the National team for years. He still runs his pants off. In a way, he represents the larger evolution of American soccer over the past decade – from a laughing stock on the world scene to one of the stingiest, hardest-working teams in the world. I like the guy. I like his gritty, yet surfer-chic style. I like his tenacious tackling. I was pumped for him when he scored a deserving, championship-sealing goal for the Crew in the MLS Cup by making a tireless run into the box from his own half. I was pumped for his tenacious performance against Mexico a few weeks ago in front of his home Columbus fans.

Hejduk has deserved his National Team starts in the past. He was the best, and right, man for the job. And I think he still has more to give Columbus fans. But how is Hejduk still our No. 1 choice for right back on the National Team? How?

Here’s my completely unbiased scouting report on Frankie. What he does well: Run, tackle. What he doesn’t do well: trap, pass, long balls, dribble, possess the ball, basically any skill that involves a ball at his feet.

Again, he really does seem like a pretty cool dude. I’d like to hang out with him and drink a few beers. Or, as this US Access Video suggests, maybe a latte…or ten.

On this note, Hejduk says he drinks “8-10” cups of coffee a day. I’m not sure if he’s kidding or not. Somehow I don’t think he is. He plays exactly like you would expect a player who just downed eight caffeine shots to play – flying all over the field, jittery, ball springing off his feet to send him diving after it with a slide tackle.

I’m no physiotherapist, but maybe all this coffee consumption does a lot to explain the U.S.’s, or at least Hejduk’s, chronic lack of touch, calmness on the ball, and attacking awareness.

The U.S. has extremely limited options on defense, and no youngster has stood out enough to replace Hejduk. But how long are we going to stick with Frankie? The Gold Cup? 2010? 2014? Where is Spector? How about the ever-versatile Bornstein at right back? Marvell Wynne might have a worse first touch than Frankie, but he is just as fast and tenacious on-the-ball.

Compared to most European and South American teams out there, the U.S. has the luxurious option to take some risks with personnel while still maintaining a high probability of qualifying.

Qualifying in CONCACAF isn’t a cakewalk. I’m just saying, U.S. soccer has had its caffeine injection. We’re awake. We’re trying. We’re serious. Thank you, Frankie.

How about we develop better soccer players now, even if we have to start playing our green horns in big games. Is there a better way?


Hejduk’s goal (2:20) was awesome. Was it also the luckiest goal scored in the MLS last year?

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Listed on Soccer Blogs