BBC World Cup Focus on Group E

[aila]

I just watched the most recent edition of BBC's World Cup Focus (Football Focus), and they had a little bit on group E. The were basically bringing up the issue of whether the current scandal will effect Italy (they didn't seem to have a firm concensus on that), and also prospects for the group in general. Suprisingly (to me), they really seemed to play up the chances of the USA. One of them also said he thought the Czech Republic was about "18 months past their sell by date." Although they did say it was the hardest group to predict. Generally, though they didn't explicitly say it, I got the impression that they expected Italy and the US to be advancing. Being a US fan, I'd love this to be the case, although I think it will be very tough (then again I thought it was unlikely the team would win a game in 2002, and look what happened). Anyway, I was just a little suprised by this because I'm accustomed to european press being pretty negative about the US team. But they were actually quite the opposite. Of course only the results matter. I guess we'll all have a better idea on June 12th (can't wait!)...

[Awesom-O]

It's frightening to me how important the first game is for our team. If we can beat the Czechs, we can surely be Ghana and maybe, just maybe draw Italy, but losing to Italy wouldnt necessarily mean not advancing.

[BED-STYPUNDIT]

I just watched the most recent edition of BBC's World Cup Focus (Football Focus), and they had a little bit on group E. The were basically bringing up the issue of whether the current scandal will effect Italy (they didn't seem to have a firm concensus on that), and also prospects for the group in general. Suprisingly (to me), they really seemed to play up the chances of the USA. One of them also said he thought the Czech Republic was about "18 months past their sell by date." Although they did say it was the hardest group to predict. Generally, though they didn't explicitly say it, I got the impression that they expected Italy and the US to be advancing. Being a US fan, I'd love this to be the case, although I think it will be very tough (then again I thought it was unlikely the team would win a game in 2002, and look what happened). Anyway, I was just a little suprised by this because I'm accustomed to european press being pretty negative about the US team. But they were actually quite the opposite. Of course only the results matter. I guess we'll all have a better idea on June 12th (can't wait!)...

The BBC is one of the few European press places that really understand how dangerous the United States are. Always logical, always rational.

[grandinquisitor28]

The BBC is one of the few European press places that really understand how dangerous the United States are. Always logical, always rational.

I recall the BBC saying, "Unlikely to make an impression," pre-draw. The BBC was also full of merde in their '02 preview if I recall correctly misstating most of our starters and all sorts of other stuff. The BBC press is pretty unreliable in my view, at best. If I recall correctly, they even ripped us on BBC radio pre-quarterfinal with Germany essentially suggesting we were a team that was hideous to watch, and would get rolled now that we were playing a real team in Germany. BBC sucks, just like the vast majority of the Euro press when it comes to evaluating the US.

[Raulduke]

It's frightening to me how important the first game is for our team. If we can beat the Czechs, we can surely be Ghana and maybe, just maybe draw Italy, but losing to Italy wouldnt necessarily mean not advancing.

How we perform in game one will most likely make the difference between the US advancing or possibly exiting after the group stage without earning a point. I worry about the following nightmare scenario.

We lose to the Czechs in game one. Are forced to play wide open against the Italians striving for a result and get hammered something to the tune of 3-0. We then go into the final game against Ghana with no chance for advancement and no confidence. Ghana goes into game 3 still happy to be there with no chance to advance but will still be pumped for the game because winning a game in the WC will mean a great deal to them. For the US, just winning a game doesn't mean much, we want to make it to the knockout stage. With advancement no longer a possibility we limp out with a 1-0 loss to the Blackstars.

[sabretarheel]

That scenario is obviously possible, though horrifying. I won't claim to be a soccer tactician or a particularly good strategist, but it wouldn't surprise me if Arena played his hand a bit unconventionally. From what I've seen, many teams come out rather conservatively the first game, open it up the second, and then play whatever style they need to acquire what the third game demands of them point-wise. I have a feeling that Arena will flip flop the attacking/conservative mindset for the first two games, meaning we'll come out a bit more open against the Czechs, and bunker considerably more against the Italians. I would imagine, given recent form and matchups, that Arena probably views our first game as a much greater opportunity to steal three points than our matchup against the Italians, who seem to be in fine form. With any luck, we'll steal a win off the Czechs and a draw from Italy, and control our own destiny heading into our matchup with Ghana.

[Raulduke]

It's hard to say how aggressive BA will be against the Czechs. My personal opinion is we will play a 4-5-1 which is not really an attacking formation. But, given the technical skill of the Czech midfield, an extra midfielder may be required to achieve some balance of possession.

If we get late in the game 0-0, I would then look for BA to attack, subbing into a 4-4-2 formation, adding EJ and looking to score a late goal.

[Fulham South]

4-5-1 can be an attacking formation - just depends on how it is deployed. ManU in reality plays a 4-5-1 , but they have two "attacking midfielders" that are really strikers. 4-5-1 is a very attack minded formation for ManU. if you trot out McBride up top, Reyna at CM, Landon at left att mid, JOB at right att mid, convey or DMB wide left and Dempsey wide right, is this not a very attacking formation?

[TheFraudSquad]

It's hard to say how aggressive BA will be against the Czechs. My personal opinion is we will play a 4-5-1 which is not really an attacking formation. But, given the technical skill of the Czech midfield, an extra midfielder may be required to achieve some balance of possession.

If we get late in the game 0-0, I would then look for BA to attack, subbing into a 4-4-2 formation, adding EJ and looking to score a late goal.

I expect a Portugal replay agaist Czech Republic. BA will go 4 - 5 - 1 and hit on the counter with McBride stranded alone much of the game.

The goal of games 1 & 2...is : Not to lose!
...and get to Ghana with at least 2 points.

Ideally I'd like to see LD, Convey, Eddie, McBride and Beas pushing the backs constantly and keeping the Czech fullbacks at home ...out of the offense entirely...but I doubt we'll see an offensively tilted lineup.

[simonb_nyc]

The BBC is one of the few European press places that really understand how dangerous the United States are. Always logical, always rational.

I know. I watched some of the US WC 2002 games in the UK. Before the US-Mexico game they called Mexico the underdogs! They even thought the US would beat Germany.

[RichardL]

BBC sucks, just like the vast majority of the Euro press when it comes to evaluating the US.
so how great is the US press when it comes to evaluating, say, the Asian teams?

How good is the African or South American press at evaluating the US in comparison? How accurate was the US press, for that matter, when it came to predicting what would happen in 2002? Were the runs of Turkey and South Korea widely expected over there, thanks to the great knowledgeable research you guys did. Or not? I suspect "B".


If some guy on the BBC site thinks the US won't impress, then that's his opinion. If some other guy on football focus thinks otherwise, then that's his. The BBC doesn't have a large collective brain in which it has consensus of opinion on all matters.

and the harsh truth is, the US team is not big news and doesn't attract much attention. The team has no star players and generates very little publicity. People from outside the US are just not going to know a lot about it.

[simonb_nyc]

so how great is the US press when it comes to evaluating, say, the Asian teams?

How good is the African or South American press at evaluating the US in comparison? How accurate was the US press, for that matter, when it came to predicting what would happen in 2002? Were the runs of Turkey and South Korea widely expected over there, thanks to the great knowledgeable research you guys did. Or not? I suspect "B".


If some guy on the BBC site thinks the US won't impress, then that's his opinion. If some other guy on football focus thinks otherwise, then that's his. The BBC doesn't have a large collective brain in which it has consensus of opinion on all matters.

and the harsh truth is, the US team is not big news and doesn't attract much attention. The team has no star players and generates very little publicity. People from outside the US are just not going to know a lot about it.


That's actually not true. I was very impressed with the knowledge that both the BBC and ITV had about the US team in WC 2002. It's not surprising as many US players play in England. However, when they took a look at Mexico they could barely name any players and to add insult to injury, called them SOUTH Americans!

[Nermalthecat]

If we get late in the game 0-0, I would then look for BA to attack, subbing into a 4-4-2 formation, adding EJ and looking to score a late goal.

If we get late in the game 0-0, I would look for BA to be incredibly pleased to be in a position to get a critical point and play the game to end in a draw, meaning we can try to nick a point off of Italy instead of almost certainly having to try to play for a win.

[dsp87260]

Just a couple comments from me.....

If we're thinking of the same show....and I'm pretty sure we are, how many shows called World Cup Focus can there be?.....this show (episode 5 of 6) covered the CONCACAF region (the 4 nations from the region in the WC) and not Group E.

Second, how many people who saw this had a laugh when they introduced Alexi Lalas (host of the episode.......Abede Pele was host of the ep. on Africa, etc.) as "General Manager and Coach:eek: of the LA Galaxy"?

Overall I enjoyed it though.