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

Posts Tagged Clint Dempsey

A BEGINNER’S GUIDE TO U.S. SOCCER FANDOM

To all those who rode their first wave of U.S. soccer fandom into the hot Mexican dust, welcome! Brush that dirt off your coat. Hang it up. Stay awhile. And chin up for god sakes. It’s not that bad. I’m here to help you through it. There are just a few things you should know so you don’t make rookie blunders like buying an Eddie Johnson jersey or dislexifying Onyewu’s name.

1. As you see, we get to trade hands-behind-our-back gut punches with Mexico. It’s only fair, except we take punches in Mexico with both hands behind our back, and they take punches with only one hand behind theirs. Therefore you should always complain that they hit us with dirtier and louder and more painful shots. Because they do.

The image “http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YTYSOFaGjQM/SZOyBBVaI5I/AAAAAAAABQQ/EyoUIsVfdyI/s400/US+Soccer+Fan.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

2. No matter how easy it seems to qualify for the World Cup, remain skeptical when asked about the U.S.’s prospects of doing so. Play up underrated third world competition: “I dunno, I mean teams without stable governments just have more to play for, you know.” We don’t want too many other continental confederations catching onto the fact that qualification in CONCACAF is structured like those End-of-Camp-Prizes where even the kid who threw a flaming poop pie at another cabin gets an award for his attitude. As much as the U.S. would benefit from a more difficult road to qualification, imagine qualifying once every twelve years, like Ireland or Romania do. Screw that!

3. Whenever we lose or tie you should question Bob Bradley’s lineup decisions. This goes for being a fan of any soccer team, but especially a Bob Bradley team. To do this, simply pick a few players who aren’t Donovan, Dempsey, Onyewu, or Howard, and then ask why Bradley played them. Try it for the Mexico loss. “Man, I don’t understand why he started Clark or DeMerrit or _____ . They’re ok, but they’re just not international quality.”

4. Brian Ching starts because he’s a good “target man”. He’s kind of like an NBA player that sets a really good screen, plays solid defense, and maybe can throw an accurate entry pass. Fundamentals are very very important, especially when trying to compete at the international level. Got it?

5. One way to look like you know what you’re talking about is to say, win or lose, that the U.S. would be better off if it hired a renowned international coach.

6. Also, when watching games with friends, you should say at least once a game that U.S. soccer needs to change its development structure “from the ground up.” You don’t need to provide any details about how to accomplish this. The only evidence you need is that the U.S. never wins any big games and hasn’t produced its own Pele yet. People will be in awe of your deep knowledge of the system’s flaws.

http://www.soccerpro.com/images/soccerwave.jpg

7. Oh, and if you really want to be a true national team fan, you should make sure that you know all the players on the U.S. team but nobody on any other CONCACAF team that we play. Except it’s OK to know that Blanco guy, and that tricky Gio-something-or-other on Mexico, our arch-rivals. But you’re not allowed to know or praise anyone else because then you might look too sympathetic. Refer to these players by number or racial epithet. Anytime a player on some third world team appears one of the best players on the field then it’s obviously a result of the U.S. playing so shitty by comparison. It’s way easier to criticize the U.S. players’ performances than learn and praise new names.

8. You should probably buy a “Soccer Wave” for your kids. These are really handy, because they like totally launch the ball back to you! If you can’t afford one of these revelations then you should settle for those precisely angled nets that bounce the ball back to you in the air. Just don’t let your kids pass the ball against a wall! It’s like, “where do we live? Rio?”

9. Never watch any MLS games. You will mysteriously get dumber about soccer.◊

, , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

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

THE U.S. NATIONAL TEAM: THE ‘MAGIC ELEVEN BALL’

How do you rate a team that hasn’t really played so far? Bob Bradley is probably dealing with this himself after two hopeless games against Italy and Brazil. Touted as a tournament that would provide answers to persistent lineup questions for the U.S., the Confederations Cup has provided more of the opposite: questions – some about tactics and most about individuals. I imagine that for Bob Bradley, who hasn’t impressed with his decisions, watching the Confederations Cup has been as unrevealing and unhelpful as shaking a magic eight ball.

Does DeMarcus Beasley deserve another chance after one of worst performances of his career? Looks doubtful.

Will I give him another one if he promises to do better? Outlook good.

Does Sacha Kljestan deserve another chance after a completely ineffective first half and a rash challenge early in the second that saw him sent off and once again put added pressure on the U.S. to defend when that was the last thing the team needed? Maybe.

Ricardo Clarke? Maybe.

Jermaine Jones? No.

Jermaine Jones? Yes.

Why didn’t I play Jose Francisco Torres? Yes. Definitely.

Did Jonathan Bornstein play well enough to cement a place at left back, at least for a few more games? Concentrate, and try again.

Has Clint Dempsey really been bad enough to lose a starting position? My sources say no.

Do other players resent me for playing my son without question? Doubtful.

Is that why they’re not trying anymore? Or is it because they don’t respect me? Or believe in me? We went over this Bob. You can only ask yes or no questions so that I can give you a meaningless answer.

Is Jozy Altidore really the 19-year-old phenom that can solve our striker problems? Nice one. Try again.

Has the U.S been bad enough on the attack to warrant giving other young Americans like Freddy Adu and Robbie Rogers and even Stewart Holden a chance? Bubbles fizzing around. Indicator stuck.

Bradley stares in shock and confusion, pretending like he doesn’t want to break the thing against a wall, like he he’s seen this before, like he knows what the answers and he’s not afraid.

Alright, enough, before I get sick. What does this U.S. team look like when it plays well? Aside from solid spells against Mexico in the first qualifying leg, I have no freakin idea.

, , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Listed on Soccer Blogs