Not only was Wednesday’s game against Holland an opportunity for Bob Bradley to see how his team performs a side that maintains possession as much as England, but it was also an opportunity for the English press to witness first hand what they thought of the United States team and what threat they will pose to England this summer.
Based on the majority of the reaction, the English media were not impressed. Here are some of their choice quotes:
“[USA] were about as dangerous as a baseball slugger trying to hit home runs with a toothpick,” John Etheridge, The Sun.
“On a night when Fabio Capello may have been seeking consolation, there was some to be found here in the shape of a limited performance by England’s first World Cup opponents, the USA,” Michael Walker, The Daily Mail.
“In 100 years the United States have never scored a competitive goal against the Dutch and looked unlikely to do so here,” Oliver Brown, The Daily Telegraph.
“USA manager Bob Bradley claims several of the Premier League’s foreign managers want his team to beat England in Rustenburg on June 12. On this evidence, they are going to be disappointed,” John Etheridge, The Sun.
“They’re united but America are in no state to hurt Fabio Capello’s England,” The Daily Mail.
“[The United States] looked desperately short of quality in Amsterdam, failing to wrest possession from Holland, and their decision-making was poor,” George Caulkin, The Times.
What do you think? Do you think the UK media reaction was harsh or realistic? Share your opinions in the comments section below.
200+ Channels With Sports & News
- Starting price: $33/mo. for fubo Latino Package
- Watch Premier League, World Cup, Euro 2024 & more
Live & On Demand TV Streaming
- Price: $35/mo. for Sling Blue
- Watch Premier League, World Cup & MLS
Many Sports & ESPN Originals
- Price: $9.99/mo. (or get ESPN+, Hulu & Disney+ for $13.99/mo.)
- Features Bundesliga, LaLiga, Championship, & more
2,000+ soccer games per year
- Price: $4.99/mo
- Features Champions League, Serie A, Europa League & NWSL
175 Premier League Games & PL TV
- Starting price: $4.99/mo. for Peacock Premium
- Watch 175 exclusive EPL games per season
110+ channels, live & on-demand
- Price: $59.95/mo. for Plus Package
- Includes FOX, FS1, ESPN, TUDN & more
27 Comments
Leave a Reply
Leave a Reply
SOCCER TV SCHEDULES APP
 |
 |
STREAMING OFFERS
 Includes: Premier League + 84 Sports Channels | |
| 7-Day Free Trial | |
 Includes: Bundesliga & La Liga | |
| Sign Up |
|
Includes: Champions League & Serie A | |
| 7-Day Free Trial | |
Includes: Premier League | |
| Sign Up |
|
 Includes: USA, NBC, FOX, FS1 + more | |
| Browse Offers |
|
Rich
March 30, 2010 at 3:50 am
Nicolas – true that…hah hah…great league the EPL though. take out lampard, rooney, and gerrard and its all foreign talent.
Raider Rich – De Jong broke Holdens leg and not even a yellow? Wow. The intent wasnt as bad as the result, but wow he went in recklessly.
Bornstein did suck in that game. But I still like him. Hes persistent and annoying to opposition. I loved the goal against Costa Rica to qualify Honduras. You HAVE to admit the Dutch diver was a puss for hamming up Bornsteins hand on his back. The diving dutch knew they were going to have a tough time scoring on the US defense. Garbage goals..both of them. THe Dutch possesion was well earned and impressive though.
Nicolas
March 5, 2010 at 7:44 pm
LOLLLL the English national team never won anything in the last 50 years…
RaiderRich
March 5, 2010 at 6:14 pm
1) Until we win a World Cup, we’re never going to get any positive press abroad or press in general at home outside of the once in 4 years that there’s a World Cup. That’s just reality, folks.
2) The Dutch are still really freaking good. That we held them to 1 run of play goal is a miracle in itself.
3) That said, we need to start winning in Europe and at Azteca. We’re too good to be consistently losing at these road dates like we do.
4) Also, we can’t keep running out the “We don’t have our full squad” card. You do it with the squad you have or you don’t. We as U.S. sports fans expect our NFL, NBA, and MLB teams to play on despite injury, why we don’t carry this over to soccer is beyond me.
5) Bornstein, you suck. You were personally responsible for both goals in this game. You were bad in the Italy and Brazil group stage games in the Confed Cup. Do us all a favor and quit playing for the national team.
6) Nigel De Jong, you suck for that challenge on Holden.
7) *Love* the white diagonal stripe on the U.S. shirts on a blue background. The diagonal stripe needs to be brought back as a uni style because it is so uniquely soccer.
Jammer
March 5, 2010 at 12:16 am
Those quotes are pretty accurate. But they also stayed organized and didn’t allow Holland many scoring chances. Findley/EJ were a big problem, only losing the ball and preventing the US from getting momentum. I would say the US played at a level half way between the horrendous Slovakia and Denmark friendlies, and the stellar Confederations Cup games (the later ones). So, they were not that bad. Considering the injuries and personnel, I’m just happy they improved. But the quotes are fair.
albiceleste_10_maradroga
March 4, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Who cares what the friggin’ Brits say? Read Soccernomics. The whole problem with English soccer is that the English media’s arrogance and expectations are totally out of proportion to England’s actual standing in world soccer. The more they talk, the more devastating it’ll be for England when the US, Japan, or Mexico or somebody wipes the floor with them–That day is coming, sooner than they think too.
Rafael
March 4, 2010 at 2:38 pm
This World Cup has the feeling of ’98 and ’06 all over again.
Once the U.S. crashes and burns, maybe the Federation will finally wake up and make the vast changes and complete overhaul that American soccer needs. Gulati might even wish he had fired Bradley when he had the chance.
Tom
March 4, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Izzy, The English media does not support the English team, the media tries to sell papers. They’d rather have scandal than success.
One of Capello’s jobs is to make sure the England players ignore the media and take the U.S. and Algeria seriously. The U.S. is better than the sum of its players.
red
March 4, 2010 at 1:40 pm
the us team played ok.
their weak part is the scorers.
they have to shoot from distance,like altidor did inthe end,
and the goals will come.
Izzy
March 4, 2010 at 1:27 pm
the english media will do everything and anything they can to get a rise out of us and deflate any confidence we have from here until june 12th. the best our boys could do is use all this nonsense from these english journos and use it as motivation. oh imagine how sweet it would be if our american soldiers were to come out with a victory on that day… i can see it now.. 0-0 deadlock, charlie davies comes in as a super sub late in the game… then..scores for the USA in stoppage time! imagine what those journos would be saying then 🙂
ChicagoBlues
March 4, 2010 at 1:21 pm
I think this article from The Times, paints a more accurate picture of the game.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/international/article7048901.ece
ChicagoBlues
March 4, 2010 at 12:43 pm
We didn’t play good at all but if the English Press want to base our squad on last nights performance, fine. The team was playing with about 70 percent of it’s first squad starters. Honestly, for as bad as we played against the Dutch, we could have pulled out a draw at the very least, Bornstein’s penalty was weak and should have never happened in the first place if he was using his head, the deflection off of him was weak as well, but it happens. Yes we got lucky on the no call (handball), yes, we did look sluggish compared to the pace of the Dutch, but all in all there was no truly skilled goals against. That being said, with a healthy squad we can do just fine against the Brits on June 12th, they talk too much and never back it up when it counts. Oh, and I really hope Jermaine Jones can get healthy soon, get some playing time with Schalke and be ready by June, doubtful, but he would increase our chances of victory a lot more.
ELAC
March 4, 2010 at 12:05 pm
We sucked.
I thought the media comments were actually……nice.
Gaelen
March 4, 2010 at 10:38 am
I agree with what has been said previously. The US played okay. The only personnel concern was the left back spot, but that’s nothing new. The attack was disjointed a times was the only negative, but it was better in the second half.
My only complaint was when Beasley came in and they did not switch him to the left and Donovan to the right. In a 4-3-3, the Dutch are isolating their outside backs, but the US attacked so centrally with both wing players cutting inside it was easy for them to defend. Only when Beasley went left and Bedoya on the right did the US finally start causing some problems.
Charles
March 4, 2010 at 10:34 am
The problem with England is they think they are better than their World Cup results.
Not saying they aren’t better than the US, they are….
But they have won once in ’66 with controversy at home, and then finished fourth once. Take away those very nice World Cups, you would probably put Mexico ahead of them.
Because soccer has been so dominated by Brazil, Italy, Germany and Argentina, there has to be a fear there, behind all the whining about being unlucky and Hand of God, that the US will pass them very quickly WHEN it happens.
MikeInTN
March 4, 2010 at 9:53 am
We didn’t play THAT badly. Clearly our boys were not as skilled but…we could have nicked a draw at the end. The English team are notorious tankers still trying to get back to 1966. Remember…Maradona slicing through the entire team to score a classic goal …or…Ronaldinho totally making David Seaman look foolish with his chip over his head. All teams have bad days. We can and will beat them if we play hard nosed…total commitment football like we did against Spain. It can happen.
James Dunn
March 4, 2010 at 9:06 am
We only have to be better than England on June 12th. Prior to that it doesn’t matter what either team has done. The only two times the USA has faced England in a competition, they have beaten them. Think on that England. (they are thinking about it)
World Cup ’54
U.S. Cup ’93
Seems when there’s a trophy on the line England are chokers. Wait we already knew they are chokers no matter who they play. Deep down England know they are inferior and it will eat away at them as it always does. Anyway past histories won’t count come the 12th of June. 1954 and even 1993 was a long time ago. But so was the friendly at Wembley and so will be this latest round be a memory by and by.
SSReporters
March 4, 2010 at 10:58 am
Except the US won in World Cup ’50. That was the last time we qualified for the World Cup until ’90. The Brits meanwhile had won a World Cup (controversially) and were Maradona’d 20 years later.
LI Matt
March 4, 2010 at 4:56 am
“In 100 years the United States have never scored a competitive goal against the Dutch and looked unlikely to do so here,”
… until they did.
The Gaffer
March 4, 2010 at 7:29 am
A friendly is not considered a competitive game, LI Matt. That was the point of the reporter.
Cheers,
The Gaffer
Kevin_Amold
March 4, 2010 at 9:01 am
So why the statement “and they looked unlikely to do so here?” If they couldn’t score a competetive goal tonight, why bring up the point?
PLus. I’m not even sure we have EVER played Holland “competetively.” I could be wrong though.
Charles
March 4, 2010 at 10:10 am
How many chances are we talking about ?
I like he uses 100 years, like the US has been trying to 100 years running and failing. Probably two games.
dan
March 4, 2010 at 3:27 am
if we do beat england i will laugh.
Michael
March 4, 2010 at 2:21 am
I think you need to update your photo – Jade Goody has been dead for a year now…
You DO realize that with England/Egypt going on at the same time, most of those English writers were either not actually watching the US/Holland game or fourth-string writers assigned to it against their will?
Given that we were playing the third-ranked team in the world (yes, they weren’t playing their full “A” squad but it can be argued we weren’t either, and that red-card-worthy tackle that injured Holden didn’t help matters) it was far from the worst showing.
If we can figure out how to have the US team from the last 10 minutes play that way for an entire game, we may have something.
Kevin_Amold
March 4, 2010 at 2:19 am
It was harsh. I actually left the game upbeat about how we played (generally). I realize others may be more downtrodden, but we performed fairly well, in my opinion. The second goal was really unfortunate, but they still count. And plus, did I miss when the Netherlands became England’s whipping boy, such that a loss to them in Amsterdam is completely unacceptable?
The english reports disappoint me, but they don’t surprise me. At all. I was hoping you might have a take gaffer…
The Gaffer
March 4, 2010 at 7:31 am
Kevin, I have the game on DVR but haven’t had an opportunity to watch the game yet, so until then I won’t be giving a take.
Cheers,
The Gaffer
Jack(from Vegas)
March 4, 2010 at 2:17 am
The biggest thing to take away from this game is that everyone in the group with the US wants Bob Bradley to start Bornstein at LB. I think Damarcus Beasley has played himself into contention for a spot if he can stay fit and get some matches at Rangers. I really don’t care what the “English Press” thinks of our team. I think Fabio Capello will be going over the tape of the Yank’s run in Confederations Cup a lot more than a friendly. To the English press I would like to ask if the US is such an embarrassing team how did they beat Spain? If the English Press’ attitude could rub of on their team then the Yanks could definitely surpise all of England come time for the World Cup.
Kevin_Amold
March 4, 2010 at 2:20 am
Yeah. Bornstein REALLY struggled in the first half. REmember he had been playing center mid with the B team, but it’s still no excuse. Spector out left, Dolo out right is my optimal.