Op-Ed \ Andrew Rogers

U.S. men should be satisfield with their World Cup.

SUNBURY ON THAMES, England (Tuesday, June 27, 2006) -- The United States men left the World Cup in Germany with many ifs, buts and maybes. However, in the cold light of day, they cannot have any complaints about their first-round exit from the greatest show on earth.

There has been much conjecture over the team's hype, expectations and shortcomings, but in the wider scheme of the game and the nation's soccer history, the U.S. can be satisfied with its efforts.

The U.S., though ranked fifth in the world and a final eight contender in 2002, found itself in a group with three possible quarterfinalists. On top of this , the Americans went into the tournament without Cory Gibbs, Frankie Hejduk and a half-fit John O'Brien.

The expectation of a roster that consists of hardworking professionals at middle-ranking Europeans clubs and products of Major League Soccer, the U.S.'s 10-year-old professional league, should be that they would be competitive and well-organized. Anything more is a bonus.

It is commendable that the side went into the tournament with respect and expectation -- this in itself must be viewed as progress. Furthermore, a true mark of its development would be to compare the performances against the 1998 team which finished 23nd and last in the Cup..

This tells you the U.S. soccer public should be satisfied the with team's performance. Another aspect of the side's maturity is its defense. The quality of the team in this area is impressive. The Czech Republic, despite its possession, had few chances. Of the four shots they had on target, three went in. It took serious quality to break down the U.S. and, in reality, the Czechs couldn't produce this form in the real pressure games. Against Italy, the U.S. outshot the Azzuri 10-9 and had 54 percent of the possession though reduced to nine men (against Italy's 10) for almost the entirety of the second haf.

Writing about grit and determination makes dramatic copy, but the fact is manager Bruce Arena's side controlled play when in possession and looked comfortable against the Italians, probable semifinalists, despite having only nine men. This is cast iron evidence of a good team.

Against the talented Ghana, the U.S. played on equal terms. On another day, it could have all been very different, but that is the very nature of football at any level at any time from under-9 girls in Wisconsin to Arsenal vs. Barcelona in the Champions League final.

There has been much talk about the American lack of creative flair and incisiveness. If the States were Argentina, England or Italy, et. al, it would be fair to find fault in this respect. However, the top sides have all lacked cutting edge at times and, in some cases, even with top level strikers -- France in 2002, for example.

Creative geniuses are rare commodities among the world's elite. Players such as Wayne Rooney and Francisco Totti are at best cyclical products of fanatical football cultures.

American soccer does not have the pick of the athletes and is generally practiced in structured environments. These types of players are potentially decades away. That's just the way it is. There is no point in getting down about the system -- with time, and as the sports grows, world-class attacking talent will develop.

Another criticism that should be met with indifference is the squad's failure to advance from the group stages. England and the Netherlands were not even at the big show in 1994 and 2002, respectively. The next step on the disappointment ladder is, having convinced yourself your team is worthy of the trophy, to fail abjectly.

At the next level, one might have a talented side that does not perform before one reaches the point of no return in soccer addiction. The team is then robbed by lesser lights, dodgy\corrupt refereeing and\or world governing body FIFA's version of Russian roulette -- the dreaded, heart-wrenching penalty shootout.

The U.S. men and soccer public have all of this to come. Spain and Portugal have never raised the World Cup and England has only won it once. So in the U.S.'s short soccer history professionally and as a potential contender, it has done well. Any notions of sweeping all before it in the world's game is decades away.

The World Cup is an excellent conduit to draw the wider public into the sport. The World Cup has been getting higher TV ratings than the National Hockey League, leaving only the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball to go. However, even as a soccer purist, I would like the National Football League to remain sacrosanct. Go, Chiefs!

Elsewhere, England with the inclusion of Michael Carrick (something I advocated in this column three months ago) looks promising, while nearly all of the quarterfinalists are capable of winning the tournament. A Germany-vs.-Brazil final still seems likely, but it really is that close this time around.

Andrew Rogers, a regular contributor to the United Kingdom's League Paper and Non League Paper, lives in Sunbury on Thames in England. Formerly the director of communications for the Long Island (N.Y.) Rough Riders, he is a UEFA 'B" license coach and plays semi-professionally with Spelthorne FC.

Do you have a comment on this story or something to say about soccer in general? Send us a letter.