Klinsmann, the BMW and the Bug

My first car, back in my college days, was a 1974 Volkswagon Bug. It had a funky black and gold paint job, a weird anti-theft system where it wouldn't start unless the fan button was pushed in, no radio, a balky clutch, no air conditioning and and a tendency to shake violently at speeds over 50 mph. 

I loved that car. It ran fine on the cheapest gas. I could push the side swivel windows to get a nice breeze on my face on a hot day. I never got a speeding ticket in that car. I would draft behind trucks on the freeway to minimize the shaking. The front space under the hood had plenty of storage. Parts were pretty inexpensive and some simple repairs and oil changes I learned how to do myself. 

My friends loved it because no one felt bad about getting beach sand in my car, a cooler would fit under the back seat, and they could hear/spot my vehicle coming from a considerable distance. They dubbed it MGD.

Mine looked like this, except with a black hood, and not quite as pristine.

Anyway, not all my friends at this time were broke artists. One had just finished medical school and celebrated by purchasing a beautiful BMW. Determined to keep it looking/running perfectly, he opted out of beach and camping trips, bought only the most expensive gas and got it washed and detailed regularly. 

He trusted me to drive it and I got my first speeding ticket in that car, partly because it traveled so smoothly I didn't feel I was going fast at all. 

On the other hand, he couldn't drive my car without getting incredibly frustrated. He'd forget how to start it, couldn't get a good feel for the clutch and would stall often, would panic when the shaking started, and broke the swivel mechanism on the driver's window trying to adjust it. 

But this was all the car's fault, always. "How can you drive such a piece of crap?" was his constant question. 

I'd just shrug. My car worked for me, I knew how to work with it, it got me places and it was mine. 

"Let's go in Andrea's car," my buddy Rachel said when we were planning a road trip up the coast with friends. "If we go in the doctor's BMW, he won't let us eat in the car or pull off the road for anything interesting." 

Anyway, that's my analogy for the USMNT. Clearly, the team is more like my Bug, and my argument has never been that the players are so good that they deserve a better coach than Klinsmann. It's more that because the team isn't that good, they need a better (more versatile, more inspirational, more creative, more tactical) coach. 

Me and the MGD, back in the day. 

Klinsmann is like the BMW-driving doctor, wondering why he can't coach the USA like he did Germany, refusing to adjust his approach and blaming the players every time things don't work, even when he makes a huge mistake (LD, the broken window swivel). 

I used to be pretty generous with my car. If someone needed to borrow the MGD for any reason, my only condition was that they know how to drive a stick shift. But after I fixed the window swivel, I barred the doctor from driving my car ever again. I realized I had to look out for what was mine, and if he wasn't going to be careful with it, I had to draw that line. 

He acted like it was no great loss, of course. Who would want to drive that piece of crap USMNT? 

Sven update

I'm writing my PE column on Mexico and Sven Goran Eriksson, the now under-fire Mexico head coach.

Just had some thoughts I'm writing on here that may or may not make it into the piece.

First, last week I wrote about how Mexico might not qualify but odds are against it happening. Mexico has a plus four and Jamaica a minus three and barring two lopsided routs Mexico could lose and still get through.

Of course, the fact that Mexico has not qualified yet is enough for concern and FMF people have the right to be upset, which is one of the points of my column.

Anyway, here's a possible scenario that could see Jamaica through and Mexico out. If Honduras beats Mexico 3-0 and Jamaica routs Canada 5-0, Jamaica and Honduras go through.

How likely is that? Not very likely, according to history. Mexico has lost a World Cup qualifier by three or more goals at least once, but that was way back in 1973. They've lost by a pair of goals a few times since but not by three or more.

However, Mexico has not fared well in Honduras in their last two trips there. In 2001, Mexico lost 3-1 and in 1996 they lost 2-1. In 1993, though, Mexico won by 4-0 down in Tegucigalpa.

A Honduras victory is possible especially since Honduras was 20 minutes away from achieving as much in Azteca. But I guess it depends mostly on which Mexico team shows up, and that will depend on how Eriksson prepares for the match.

Is it possible Eriksson doesn't survive the year? Yeah, sure but I think Mexico would have crash out of qualifying for that to happen. To me, Mexico will probably get a draw down in Honduras and qualify for the Hexagonal. If that happens, the pressure will remain on high - could we call that an orange threat level? - for the winter and until the Hex begins.

Merging viewpoint

Earlier this week I talked about how combining CONCACAF and CONMEBOL would make sense but it's all but a pipe dream.

A reader though picked up on the idea and formulated his own concept of a new football region and how it would look like. It gets my stamp of approval.

From reader Brian:

Combine North and South America into a single football federation
(Federacion Americana de Futbol or Confederacion Americana de Futbol)
and run the World Cup qualifying, the federation cup (Copa America),
and the champions league similar to UEFA.

CONCACAF = 40 National Teams

CONMEBOL = 10 National Teams

FAF or CAF or CONAMBOL = 50 National Teams

I. Americas Football Fedration Qualification for World Cup
A. Preliminary Qualifying Round
Minnows (Bottom 30 teams in Region) play home and away to get to next round
30 teams reduced to 15
15 teams from Preliminary Round join the Top 20 teams in region

B. Final Qualifying round
35 teams
8 Spots (4.5 from CONMEBOL; 3.5 from CONCACAF)
5 groups of 7
5 winners and #1 second place team automatically advance
other #2's (4) have playoffs for last two spots

II. Copa PanAmerica
(held every four years, the summer between the World Cup and European
Championship, i.e. either 2011 or 2013)
A. Preliminary Round
Minnows play home and away
15 Winners join top 20 in region

B. Final Round Qualifying
35 teams
5 groups of 7
top 3 in each group qualify for finals, plus host (16)

C. Finals (Proceeds like European Championship)
4 groups of 4
top 2 in each group advance to knockout round

D. Seeded Groups for each qualification (using FIFA rankings for
inaugural qualifications)
Pot 1: Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, Uruguay
Pot 2: USA, Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela
Pot 3: Honduras, Peru, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Canada
Pot 4: Cuba, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Panama, Guatemala
Pots 5-7: Winners of Play In Round

OR

E. Seeded Groups using FIFA rankins for CONMEBOL and CONCACAF
rankings for CONCACAF
Pot 1: Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, Uruguay
Pot 2: USA, Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela
Pot 3: Honduras, Peru, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Panama
Pot 4: Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti, Guatemala
Pots 5-7: Winners of Play In Round

I like the second seedings better.

III. League Champions Cup
Combine Copa Libertadores and CONCACAF Champions League into a single
championship and run similar to UEFA Champions' League

IV. Align MLS schedule with the Clausura tournaments south of the border.

I think this forces US soccer to either sink or swim. But the real
question is who objects more the CONCACAF associations (not sure if
the minnows of the big 3 would have the most to lose) or the CONMEBOL
associations.

Anti-climactic

So the United States, Mexico and Costa Rica are all on nine points after three qualifiers apiece. Each nation is pretty much through to the Hexagonal, though I haven't done the math. Maybe they are in for sure, don't know.

And while it's a great accomplishment for each nation to be 3-0 at this point, it's not exactly surprising. It's actually kind of expected that each team is where they are.

Which brings me to my question: is this semifinal round really necessary for the Big Three?

There are arguments for both sides of the question.

On the one hand, you don't want to give any team free passes. Let the Big Three mix it up with the rest and let them go through qualifying like any other CONCACAF nation. You don't necessarily want to make it any easier for the big dogs' already, they've gotten themselves to the point where they are the regional powers. At some point, Mexico should be at the same level as Canada regardless of past accomplishments, right?

Then again, we all know what's going to happen. The Big Three will cruise in this round and easily get into the Hex. There was some intrigue in 2000 with Costa Rica and Guatemala fighting out for the last Hex spot but that is ancient history as the previous cycle showed. All this round does is show the disparity between the region's upper crust and the supposed second tier. If Honduras, Trinidad & Tobago and some others are supposed to be the second tier, this region is in sad shape.

I don't know, though. I'm not sure what else can be done to change this system. It's a lot to ask the Big Three to play 18 qualifiers over an 18-month span when the outcome isn't hardly ever in doubt for them. Many of us dream about some sort of merger with South America but I don't think that is realistic, though the prospect of some real high-intensity qualifiers makes my mouth water. Can you imagine the US going down to Quito needing a result to get into the World Cup? Talk about drama, more drama than the US going into piss-poor Cuba and playing on some crappy field with crappy lighting and getting a boring three points.

Maybe CONMEBOL might be up for that, though. They get 4 spots right now guaranteed with a chance of a fifth. That fifth spot would be against a CONCACAF nation so there are 8 total spots from the Western Hemisphere. If CONMEBOL had a shot of getting six teams in, maybe that would be some incentive for nations like Chile and Colombia to push for a merger since it'd be easier for them to face the US or Costa Rica needing a spot in the World Cup than Brazil or Argentina.

Okay, well, I'm totally daydreaming now. Yes, it'd be fantastic. No, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

In reality, the US, Mexico and Costa Rica will be in the Hex next year with Honduras, El Salvador and Trinidad/Guatemala. The US will win all five home games, lose in Mexico City and San Jose, win in San Salvador and Port-of-Spain/Guatemala City and draw in San Pedro Sula and many will feel that the US has a grand shot of reaching the WC quarters again because qualifying was a breeze when in actuality qualifying will give many a false sense of security for qualifying in such a brisk manner does little to prepare the team for real competition. Mexico in Azteca is real competition; Guatemala in Guatemala City is not.

Column tales

I haven't heard from the player (who shall remain nameless unless he chimes in) so I'm back to writing my CONCACAF column. I did some more research on the United States' road "struggles."

The answer is below but before you click on the link to read the entire post, can you guess when the last time the US lost a road World Cup qualifier to a nation other than Mexico or Costa Rica?

Canada, in 1980. During that span, they beat Trinidad twice and El Salvador on the road and even threw in a 1-1 draw in Costa Rica. And those were the dark ages of US soccer.

Now, I don't expect the US to win by three goals on the road. In fact, this is more reflective of how poor CONCACAF is, not necessarily how strong the US is. You want tough road qualifiers? Go to South America. You want winnable games in a difficult environment? Then CONCACAF is for you.

Debunking a myth

There is an adage in CONCACAF that seems to be prevalent, one that American coaches and players alike say all the time.

"It's tough to play away in CONCACAF."

I've found startling new evidence that may help enlighten us all on just how tough it is to play away in CONCACAF.

Now, if you are talking about physically going down to a CONCACAF nation and playing a game of soccer, that may well be tough. There can be some hectic travel involved, you might play on a bad field and the fans hate the US and all that stuff. Fine. But in terms of pulling out results, it's NOT tough to play away in CONCACAF.

For the lesser teams I suppose it is. I didn't check to see how El Salvador and Honduras had done in their respective road games over the last decade. But for the US, Mexico and to a certain extent Costa Rica, aka the Big Three of CONCACAF, it's not tough to play away in CONCACAF.

To begin with, I did not count games the US played at Mexico and Costa Rica, games Mexico played at the US and Costa Rica and games Costa Rica played at the US and Mexico. Because that's part of the new redefined theorem which we'll get to later.

So anyway, save for games away to each other, the US, Mexico and Costa Rica are a collective 17-7-12 on the road in World Cup qualifying in the qualification for the 2002 and 2006 World Cups. So out of 36 games, the US, Mexico and Costa Rica lost a combined seven.

Now - here's the kicker - guess how many of those losses were from the United States? Take a second, think back, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2005...

Zero.

Astounding. Really astounding. Not one loss came from the Americans. Don't believe me? Look for yourself:

2001
T 1-1 Guatemala
W 4-0 Barbados
W 2-1 Honduras
T 0-0 Jamaica
T 0-0 Trinidad

2005
W 3-2 Grenada
T 1-1 Jamaica
T 1-1 Panama
W 2-0 El Salvador
W 2-1 Trinidad
W 3-0 Panama
T 0-0 Guatemala

Count 'em up and you get a combined road record of 6-0-6 for the US in away games, Mexico and Costa Rica notwithstanding.

Already this cycle, we've got the US adding two wins to that collective total and bringing their own total up to 8-0-6 in qualifiers since 2000.

So when we hear how fantastic it is for the US to have pulled out 1-0 wins in Guatemala and Cuba and how all these other nations would struggle to even get to the Hex if they had to deal with the conditions the US has to deal with... well, forgive me for laughing.

So you might say 'Why don't you include away games to each other?' Well, save for Mexico at Costa Rica, the Big Three struggles at the Big Three. Costa Rica beat Mexico in 2001 in Azteca and Mexico returned the favor in Costa Rica in 2005 but aside from that the Big Three usually loses away to the other Big Three teams. Neither Mexico nor Costa Rica can touch the US here in qualifying and same is true in reverse when the US plays away to Mexico and Costa Rica.

But nobody needs worry about that. Mexico, the US and Costa Rica will lock up spots 1-2-3 in the Hex next year; who can pull out a result against the other two nations away will determine the positioning.

Thus, the new theorem which will replace the old myth is this:

Unless you are the Big Three playing at the Big Three, away games in CONCACAF are not tough.

Oooh, that's a bit wordy. Perhaps someone can offer a shorter condensed version.

The more things change...

Remember 2005 and the CONCACAF hexagonal? That seems like ancient history in many ways as players and coaches and uniforms and seemingly everything has changed.

Yet, 2009 is promising to look a lot like 2005.

Consider Saturday's results:
Group 1: The US won and sits on six points atop the group. Trinidad tied and is second on four points.

Group 2: Mexico won and sits on six points. Honduras also won and is in second with three points.

Group 3: Costa Rica won and sits on six points. El Salvador won and is in second with three points.

Yawn.

If results hold, the final six will look like this:

United States
Trinidad & Tobago
Mexico
Honduras
Costa Rica
El Salvador

In 2005, the final six were:

United States
Trinidad & Tobago
Mexico
Guatemala
Costa Rica
Panama

So with all the evolution and progress and development and moving forward and all that, we get Honduras and El Salvador in place of Guatemala and Panama. Not exactly a big surprise there, and not much difference there. Two Central American teams in place of two Central American teams. Of course, Honduras and Guatemala are quite different, but in general terms they are similar. Both teams can be dangerous but can also be fragile. For that matter, El Salvador and Panama are alike. Not much will be expected from them, and if El Salvador can finish in fifth place next year, that alone will be a surprise.

It just seems that no matter how things play out in CONCACAF, the same teams are on top. Which begs the question, why even bother with the semifinal round? Why force teams like Mexico and the US and Costa Rica to play 18 games, really to play eight extra games when we all know they will all reach the Hex anyway?

All quiet on the Southern front

If you're wondering how the Mexican league played out this weekend, wonder no more. The league was not in action, as many other leagues around the world were on Saturday.

The Mexican league ran things as they should run on international fixture dates and gave way for the national team.

Saturday, unfortunately, was status quo in MLS.

I got to the press box early to watch US-Cuba. At the same time as that game, Columbus-New England and New York-Chicago were going on. I felt bad for the fans who had to choose between club and country, especially season ticket holders. On the one hand, you want to go support your club. But at the same time, the US national team only plays meaningful games every now and then. After all, Saturday's game in Cuba was one of eight that really matter this year. And for season ticket holders, Saturday's home games were one of 15 games they paid money for.

And there's MLS, putting fans in a position to choose between club and country.

When I saw the Galaxy-Real Salt Lake lineup, I couldn't help but shake my head. MLS is willing to go forth with such a product, with the Galaxy starting six defenders because they were shorthanded, with Toronto having to sign players to one-day contracts and bring in a scout just to fill out their roster.

Let's be glad that MLS didn't schedule any games on Wednesday to go head-to-head with the national team.

Fueling the national team?

Okay, I know league and international team aren't necessarily one in the same. You can have a strong national team but a crappy league, it's possible.

But does the Joe Public-New England score mean the US national team should worry for their match against Trinidad & Tobago on Sept. 10?

I mean, come on, how many of you predicted a lopsided rout in the Joe Public-Revolution match? And if you did, surely you would have figured that it would have been the hosts who would have put away the four goals.

I suppose this result reflects a couple of things. New England has had a busy, busy, busy schedule. By winning SuperLiga and reaching the final four of the US Open Cup, the Revs have played many games this summer. It's natural to expect a dip in form, and the Revs have won just one of five league games since returning to league action after more than a month off.

Also, Joe Public was probably motivated for the match. For Joe Public, the opportunity to participate in the Champions League and carry the Trinidadian flag in the tourney was not something they likely overlooked.

So will this possibly energize the Soca Warriors ahead of next week's game in Chicago? Perhaps. If Trinidad enters the match with the right mentality, they could certainly be a more-than-dangerous foe. I don't know, though. If I'm betting on the game, I'm taking the US and the points... not that any Vegas casino would have the game up for wager or anything...

Still, given what Joe Public did to the Revs, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if Trinidad goes in and does some damage.

Country comes first

Here's my column on MLS and scheduling. Also, thanks to the people who pointed me towards the Galaxy's fourth absence.

The Galaxy are at a disadvantage against RSL based on manpower alone. It would have been a tricky game with their full team. Still, this may be a good team to face with a depleted roster.

Real Salt Lake, after all, has won just once on the road. RSL has scored seven goals and allowed 20 on the road. So if the Galaxy were going to miss all these players, it may as well come at home against one of the worst road teams in the league.

On the move

For those expecting Mexico to play in a tough venue on Saturday, it won't happen.

Well, I take that back. It will happen. Only it won't be tough for them. Mexico-Jamaica has been moved to Estadio Azteca.

Because of the weather conditions in the Caribbean, travel and playing down in Jamaica would have been challenging, it not impossible. Thus, the Jamaicans must now play in Mexico City. A 6-0 drubbing by Mexico over Jamaica in 1997 comes to mind, as does a 4-0 Mexico win in 2001 with Enrique Meza at the helm, no less.

Mexico will now have played all of their home games right at the start as El Tri will play Canada on Sept. 10 in Chiapas.

Taking nine for the team

I'm trying to crank out my PE column tonight so I don't have to worry about it on Monday morning, which is a good thing since I'm going to be out and about most of the day. I'm writing a column on the horrendous scheduling by Major League Soccer and how they're playing right through World Cup qualifying.

John Carver actually got me to thinking about dedicating my column to it. Originally, I was going to write about Chivas-Tauro but forget that, especially after what Carver said on Saturday.

If you missed it, skip below a few posts.

Here's the players who will be absent from Toronto FC this weekend:

TORONTO FC
Greg Sutton and Jim Brennan (Canada)
Amado Guevara (Honduras)
Carlos Ruiz (Guatemala)
Tyrone Marshall (Jamaica)
Carl Robinson (Wales)
Marvell Wynne (US)
Jarrod Smith (New Zealand)
Julius James (Trinidad)

Let's see... that's pretty much their whole team. They'll have Danny Dichio, Tyler Rosenlund, Kevin Harmse... uh, like I said, that's their whole team.

It's an extreme case for sure but the schedule will cripple many teams. The Galaxy will be without three players, Houston will make do without a quartet, Chivas has two absent players, Chicago is sacrificing a trio of players I believe... seemingly every club will be without players. Why exactly is it necessary to play through this schedule? Ridiculous. The league really ought to be ashamed of itself.

Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself... Back to writing...

Mexico struggles

Good news for Mexico: they got the three points. Bad news: they were trailing in the 70th minute.




The match could have different early on, though. Mexico had several chances to score early on but couldn't find the back of the net. Had one of those chances gone in, perhaps the game could have been different. As it stood, though, Mexico trailed Honduras for some 40 minutes in a qualifier at home.

Perhaps it was the newness of it all: Sven-Goran Eriksson's first game in charge, the first game for the players in a new system, the first game for at Leandro Augusto.

Mexico won and ultimately that's what matters most. But is this struggle indicative of anything greater than an inability to finish first-half chances? Or does Mexico need not worry too much about qualifying?

US roster for Guatemala

Here it is. Initially, don't see any big surprises. Of the Olympians, Bob Bradley chose to bring four along - Brad Guzan, Maurice Edu, Sacha Kljestan and Michael Bradley.

Also, it's not a surprise but still disappointed to see Brian Ching selected over Kenny Cooper. Knowing Bradley, he'd probably like to get Cooper in a friendly or two before calling him for a qualifier so I suppose that's why I'm not surprised.

Goalkeepers: Brad Guzan (Aston Villa), Tim Howard (Everton)
Defenders: Carlos Bocanegra (Rennes), Steve Cherundolo (Hannover 96), Jay DeMerit (Watford FC), Frankie Hejduk (Columbus), Oguchi Onyewu (Standard de Liege), Heath Pearce (Hansa Rostock)
Midfielders: Michael Bradley (SC Heerenveen), Maurice Edu (Toronto FC), Sacha Kljestan (Chivas USA), Eddie Lewis (Derby County), Pablo Mastroeni (Colorado)
Forwards: Brian Ching (Houston), Landon Donovan (Los Angeles Galaxy), Clint Dempsey (Fulham), Eddie Johnson (Fulham)

More thoughts inside...


Some quick thoughts:
- Frankie Hejduk continues to get called up. I dont have a problem with Hejduk but I know some people don't care much for him. He's still fit, can still contribute and has experience. Fine with me.
- Pablo Mastroeni may have gotten himself back in the good graces of the coaching staff. He struggled with injury a year ago that led to a dip in form but now is playing like the Mastroeni of old. It's good to have an experienced Mastroeni in central midfield but he'll pass the torch along soon enough to guys like Edu.
- Only five midfielders are on the roster; I'm guessing Mastroeni and Eddie Lewis will start as well as young Michael. That leaves a spot for either Sacha Kljestan or Maurice Edu, unless Bradley starts Landon Donovan in midfield and goes with Clint Dempsey and Eddie Johnson up top. Still, I think I'd feel more secure with an extra midfielder instead of six defenders.

Central America or the Caribbean?

In seeing many predictions around the web as to which teams will make up the final six, I've come across some similarities. The three teams most expect to see through to next year's Hexagonal are the US, Mexico and Costa Rica. Canada also is getting a lot of love but is, along with teams from the other two groups, part of a seemingly interchangable group.

It's nearly split between Trinidad and Guatemala while Honduras and Jamaica are also getting picked out of Group B. Haiti seems to be a shaker as well with few if any think Suriname will get through.

It seems, though, that beyond the top three, Central America and the Caribbean will fight for spots head-to-head. With apologies to La Habana, Cuba's already been given up for dead, thus leaving Guatemala and Trinidad & Tobago to fight for one spot. Honduras and Jamaica might have to worry about more than just Mexico as Canada is seemingly strong but they will have to face off against each other as well, while El Salvador and Haiti could determine the second spot in Group C.

It leads me to wonder which is the better region of CONCACAF, Central America or the Caribbean? Central America boasts Costa Rica which has reached the last two World Cups and Guatemala and Honduras can each be strong. However, both Guatemala and Honduras can be prone to horrendous letdowns as well.

Trinidad reached the World Cup last time around and reached the Hex in 2001 before collapsing, but Trinidad beat Honduras in Honduras late in the Hex, a result that helped the US and Mexico. Jamaica doesn't seem as strong as it did in the late 1990s but a trip to The Office could be tricky while Haiti, well, it's not exactly a vacation destination.

So which region is better - Central America or the Caribbean? Would the US and Mexico be better off having teams like Trinidad and Jamaica in the Hex or would Guatemala and Honduras be preferable? Or will Canada make this discussion moot?

El Salvador goes through

Highlights of El Salvador's triumph over Panama on Sunday.

Even dozen

Despite Trinidad's best efforts to collapse, form pretty much held during this most recent round of CONCACAF World Cup qualifying. The U.S. and Mexico each went through rather easily as expected while Honduras, Guatemala and Canada surged to blowout victories as well.

The only "surprises" possibly were Panama losing to El Salvador and Guyana losing to Suriname, but that's like being surprised that the rotten eggs smelled worse than the spoiled milk.

Here's the semifinal qualifying groups as they stand:

Group A
United States
Guatemala
Trinidad & Tobago
Cuba

Group B
Mexico
Jamaica
Honduras
Canada

Group C
Costa Rica
El Salvador
Haiti
Suriname

It looks like the team everyone will take turns beating up in next year's Hex will come from Group C. Costa Rica should get through, and so will either El Salvador, Haiti or Suriname. Probably either El Salvador or Haiti will go through.

Group B is the toughest. Conventional wisdom says Mexico will get through but some suggest that Mexico could struggle. It's hard to imagine Mexico not reaching the Hex, no matter how tough the group seems to be. Mexico is virtually unbeatable at home in qualifying, so short of Mexico dropping a home game El Tri will probably get through.

Yes, the U.S. has some tough opponents. Well, not really actually. Guatemala did not score in two games against the US last time around. Trinidad nearly pulled off a surprise against the US in the opener last time around but the Americans still won. The only intrigue will be when the US goes to Cuba, but that's mostly for political purposes. That story may actually get picked up by the mainstream press, not the mainstream sports press but the mainstream press in general.

Early, early predictions for the Hex...

United States, Guatemala, Mexico, Canada, Costa Rica, Haiti.

Up next, 12-0?

The U.S. destroyed Barbados by an 8-0 score on Sunday. Though it reflects what should happen when a good opponent faces a substantially inferior opponent, it also shows somewhat how far the U.S. has come. It's the largest margin of victory ever for the US, let alone qualifying.

It also got qualifying off to a good start, which is expected nowadays but wasn't always the case.

How did the U.S. fare in their previous first qualifiers?

6/13/04; 3-0 win vs Grenada in Columbus
7/16/00; 1-1 at Guatemala
11/3/96; 2-0 win vs Guatemala at RFK
7/24/88; 0-0 at Jamaica
9/29/84; 0-0 at Netherlands Antilles
10/25/80; 0-0 vs Canada in Ft. Lauderdale
9/24/76; 1-1 at Canada
8/20/72; 2-3 loss at Canada

Yes, there are more qualifiers but I stopped at 72. The bottom four efforts ended in failure while the top four ended with the US reaching the World Cup. Even in 96, there was still some doubts to whether the US could qualify. In 2000 and 2001, the US took a great step forward in qualifying by beating Mexico at home and also taking care of Costa Rica at home and Honduras on the road but had to hang on to ultimately qualify.

This time around, it doesn't seem as difficult. In 2004 and 2005 it didn't seem difficult either, and it wasn't too challenging.

Anyway, just wanted to put Sunday's win in some sort of historical context.

Qualifying cake walk

My take on World Cup qualifying in CONCACAF for The Press-Enterprise.

More from the game

Some match reports from several different outlets on Sunday's 8-0 US win over Barbados:

- Grahame Jones of the LA Times talked to Barbados goalkeeper Alvin Rouse after the match. I think he was the only one who stopped Rouse, who had one great save off an Oguchi Onyewu header but otherwise was helpless to stop the U.S. attack.

- Ivan Orozco of the San Diego Union-Tribune talked to Brian Ching about his first goal, which deflected off a Pablo Mastroeni shot.

- Jeff Carlisle of ESPN has his story followed with player ratings. Two guys got a six, the rest were sevens and eights.

- My story for The Press-Enterprise. Michael Bradley said it was "surreal" the amount of time they had on the ball on Sunday, which probably seemed like hours compared to their opponents in the run-up to the game.