The United States of America in the 2014 World Cup: A Primer
Today at 6:00 p.m. EST, the United States Men’s National Team (USMNT) will take the field for the first time in the 2014 World Cup. Here are some things I’ll be paying attention to today and throughout the tournament.
Soccer vs. Football. If you’ve ever discussed the sport with anyone from outside the U.S.—and plenty from within it—you’ve probably come across the assertion that U.S. Americans, in their unique brand of ignorance and desire to be different from the rest of the world, are stupid for calling football “soccer.” This is wrong. It’s okay to call it soccer. In fact, the term might even be of British origin.
Ghana. The USMNT’s first opponent, they’ve eliminated the U.S. squad from the last two World Cups and stand a chance to effectively do so again. A loss in the opening game would devastate the U.S.’s chances of advancing to the knockout round. The African squad might lack a bona fide international star, but the Black Stars have a bevy of fast, powerful, and offensive-minded wingers. If the U.S. comes out in some form of the expected diamond formation, Ghana’s Ayew brothers, along with position-mate Christian Atsu, could be especially dangerous on the flanks.
Collective Nouns. For a number of hypothetical reasons, World Cups make for a fascinating case study of subject-verb agreements following collective nouns. Listen to the commentary and you’re likely to hear a few subject-verb combinations you aren’t used to in the U.S.A. In any other sport, in any other context, American commentators utilize formal agreement:
i.e. Italy has defended deftly today.
British English occasionally opts for notional agreement to imply a shift in meaning—the collective operates as an assemblage of individual pieces, rather than a unified whole. Perhaps because they appreciate this nuance, but more likely because of the prevailing American complex that all intelligent soccer discourse must be accompanied by a British way of speaking, or even because of the presumed influence of their generally superior British peers, American commentators will often turn to notional agreement:
i.e. Italy have defended deftly today.
Hidden somewhere in all of this might be a dissertation topic on grammatical manifestations of differences between North American and British conceptions of collective units.
Formation. Coach Jurgen Klinsmann has talked a lot about introducing an American style of play to U.S. soccer. For him, this means veering away from the counter-attack and toward a more creative, tone-setting style of play.
“Americans are proactive,” he said to Cameron Adabi of The New Yorker. “You want to be world leaders in everything you do. So, on the field, you shouldn’t just sit back and wait.”
This has led some to presume that the USMNT will showcase a diamond formation in the midfield, with a player on each flank and two in the middle, one (likely Kyle Beckerman) dropped back defensively to allow the other (definitely Michael Bradley) to come forward in the attack. Facing Jamaica in their last match before the World Cup, the U.S. showed variations of three different formations, each more telling than the other depending on whom you talk to. Brian Cook of MGoBlog, which features a nice summary of the three formations, has resorted to labeling the conglomeration a slightly inverted 4-3-3 (four defenders, three midfielders, and three forwards).
The USMNT put on perhaps the best performances of the Klinsmann era against Nigeria, with previously drought-stricken striker Jozy Altidore netting two goals en route to a 2-1 victory. The only catch? The USMNT wasn’t quite the proactive picture of Americana that Klinsmann wants them to be. Both Altidore goals came out of the counter-attack and the U.S. controlled the ball only 47 percent of the game. For the U.S. to be at their best in Brazil, does Klinsmann have to shelve his vision of 11 tactically aggressive Uncle Sams ingeniously boot-strapping their way to freedom? Would he?
German. Three U.S. coaches, including Klinsmann are native German speakers. Five players of the 23-man are German-Americans who speak English as a second language. Disappointingly but perhaps unsurprisingly, this fact has been bemoaned by a number of Americans. Expect it to account for a number of storylines as the U.S. nears a June 26 matchup with Die Mannschaft. Auf geht’s!
Cultural Optimism and Diversity of Opinion. Klinsmann sided with the numbers and against a vocal, if not delusional, portion of his fanbase when he called it “unrealistic” for the U.S. to talk about winning the World Cup. Goldman Sachs gave the USMNT a 41 percent chance to advance from group play and just a .5 percent chance to win the World Cup. Those odds weren’t enough to dissuade the at least 14 percent of Americans who believe the U.S. will win the 2014 World Cup, according to a recent New York Times survey. The survey elicited a hopeful yet diverse set of results from Americans. Of the four countries whose citizens predicted their own squad to win it all, the U.S. is the least probable. American answers, however, reflected decidedly more plurality than those of any other participating. Also of note: the U.S. was the only nation to list itself as the team it is most rooting against.
Staring down a familiar foe. Unsure of grammatical structures, tactics, even its own chances. This is the position from which the United States approach(es) the 2014 World Cup. There’s no telling what position to expect from the USMNT in 27 days, on July 13, when two countries meet in the final. I hope it takes that long to find out.
Andrew Knot (’11) lives and writes in Cologne, Germany.
3 Comments
Submit a Comment
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
We are World-Cup crazy in our family. The big boys are finally old enough to yell (intelligently) at the television.
I am *so* nervous about this game.
Good article!! Now we gotta deal with an ego bruised Portugal hungry for a win.