Why Jozy shouldn't be the main striker

A rather lively discussion ensued at CounterAttack headquarters yesterday:

After three matches in the World Cup, the US has played excellent on attack, held the ball well in the midfield and have been composed in defense. The MNT deserves to go through to the Second Round and further, to be honest.

One of the most exciting developments has been the progress of Jozy Altidore. He's been a monster, running down the wing, bringing the ball in a linkup from defense to offense, taking shots when possible, drawing fouls that leave defenders more cautious. There's no doubt he's one of the best players on the squad and a genuine star for the future.

BUT.

He is effectively playing as an attacking midfielder. And Jozy is a striker. If you look all the things he’s done well, there is one glaring omission. A striker scores goals and Jozy hasn't. In fact, in all of 2010, he has exactly one goal. That's not an indictment, it's just a statement of fact.

Good strikers need to score because they get into grooves. With that confidence, everything they touch turns to goal. Scoring is just infectious and feeds on itself and right now, the US player in that sort of groove is Clint Dempsey.

The difference between Deuce and Jozy is that Clint has been scoring for Fulham and the US. This doesn't mean Jozy shouldn't be on the pitch, but the CounterAttack would argue that he should switch roles with Deuce. What happens if Jozy moves back a bit, into that attacking midfield role, and Clint slides forward? We think it would create a more lethal strike combination.

Why not come out in a 4-3-1-2? That's with Bradley, Edu and Landon in the midfield, and Altidore just ahead of them. Play Deuce in the #10 role and Gomez as the #11 up front.

This creates a triangle formation with several options. Gomez at the apex, Deuce just off to the left or right, as needed. Jozy, meanwhile, plays right behind them and switches with Deuce; whenever Clint moves one way, Altidore goes the other. That leaves Donovan with a wing man at all times.

Effectively, this is a 4-3-3 but it means that Jozy doesn't need to run so much. If you watch his matches, he tends to lose the ball if he has too much green to run. So let’s limit how much he needs to roam, shorten that distance while still providing options up front for him to pass the ball. Or, to be fair, to take the shot if it's there. Why not, he's nearly scored twice.

Now, with Ghana you need to move quickly and decisively. This formation would provide two genuine goal-scoring threats in Donovan and Dempsey, plus Gomez, who we think still has a lot to offer, and Jozy’s potential to score. Now you have three- and four-pronged attack options from Gomez, Dempsey, Donovan and Altidore.

Meanwhile, Baby Bradley and Edu can hold the ball, a critical need against the Ghanese with their wide-open speed rush. The midfielders can start the attack off counters to feed Lannie, who can either take things up on his own or use Jozy as a wingman. Deuce and Gomez are still up front, denying defenders the luxury of leaving their marks to double-team any US attacker. Oh, by the way, Bradley can score too.

It also means that the US will have at least five or six men defensively protecting against Ghana’s counterattacks and yet not lose anything shifting towards attack. If Ghana attack down the right, Edu and the center-halfs can push the ball out towards Trumbolo. Ol’ Man Dolo has been completely overlooked by many as the true spark as wingback. He has started so many counterattacks with his runs down the wing and has not been beaten badly down his side in defense. So add yet another attacking option without losing anything in defense.

So right now, and only right now, and only based on these three recent matches, Jozy Altidore absolutely belongs on the pitch but as an attacking midfielder or a winger, to provide service to Clint Dempsey and whomever else is lucky enough to be paired with him up front.

Of course, that's a step too far for Bob Bradley. That’s not a criticism, especially as he has gotten more attack-oriented as the tournament has progressed. Bradley deserves enormous credit just for that alone, as it is a monumental shift in US tactics. But dropping Altidore back is too much for Bradley to envision, beyond his comfort zone.

But it could work.


Image via Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty from LA Times

GUEST POST: F-ing Clark

A supporting view of how Bob Bradley cost the US two precious points, from a guest blogger:

One could argue with Bradley about picking Findley. Ultimately he accomplished little in the game; but he didn't hurt the US, either. Bradley clearly wants an analog to Charlie Davies and there are few players of that class. But one Bradley's other choices, of which he really has no excuse is picking Clark to start alongside his son. I warned anyone that would listen that he needed to have someone more defensively sound in the position. I don't honestly know why Bob thinks someone as scatterbrained as Clark is capable of handling the pressure from two of England's three best players.

News flash: Bob, you tried this two years ago against England and Gerrard ran right by Clark to score a goal in that game, too. Miraculously, there were other Clark gaffes yesterday that did not come back to hurt us. Clark spaced out again later in the match, when it was clear that our midfield was tiring. This should have been Bob's opportunity to give Maurice Edu an opportunity to tighten things up again, or have Torres come in and try win the game.

Of course Bob, you hamstrung yourself by choosing Clark, so you didn't have the choice later on to sub in Torres for Edu or vice versa. Choosing to ignore the problems there really was trusting Fate that the US could survive the latter stages.

There were many reasons to have good cheer, yesterday. Failing to start one of your better midfield players, was not among them. Gooch looked better and better as the match wore on. Boca had some trouble with Lennon and Johnson; but so does everybody and that should be as bad as it gets. Altidore looked quite strong and Donovan was steady. His performance was mature and assured. He looks to be becoming the type of player who can positively influence a match even when he doesn't get the chance to do something spectacular.

Image via AP Photo/Michael Sohn, from AZCentral.com

How Bradley cost the MNT precious points

The MNT rescued a point v England yesterday but here at the CounterAttack, we do not feel lucky. In fact, we are downright furious. England played their best side, took the lead, surrendered the softest goal in World Cup history...and were lucky to have a point. The US, on the other hand, pointedly did not play their best side, and Bob Bradley cost the MNT two points they could have had. Lots of cheerleading from the US media but Ruud Gullit was right that this was a match the US could have won.

Of course Green’s blunder was a gift, allowing Dempsey to score in a second World Cup tournament. You will read that the US were lucky. That is disingenuous by half: blunders are part of the game. Many will disagree but we believe things work out: this makes up for handling no-call in the 2002 quarterfinal match v Germany. That’s just how it goes.

What you won’t read anywhere else is that it was England that were lucky. Not the goal itself; that was skill from Heskey and Gerrard. The problem was that Ricardo Clark was on the pitch and that was a gift from the US to England. Bradley saw fit to put Clark was on the squad and now seems eager to prove that he was right to choose him. We are quite sure Clark is a nice guy. He’s probably many things except an international talent.

Bradley’s personnel choices meant the US were undermanned. The Clark mystery is one but also, why choose Robbie Findley as the other striker? What an enormous waste of a starting spot. For some reason, American soccer is obsessed with speed. It is a running game, yes, but quickness is more important than speed. Findley is fast but what good does that do if he can’t hold on to the ball? What good is it if he is a split-second too slow on decisions, and space is closed before he passes or shoots?

Once upon a time, the MNT had no choices. They were forced to go with players like Findley (see Cobi Jones) or Clark (see Joe-Max Moore) because the pool was shallow. If only Bradley had a player with demonstrated scoring ability in a professional league! You know, someone accustomed to scoring under pressure. We would settle for a player who has suddenly developed into a scoring machine, with the maturity that a nearly a decade of pro sports adds. How about a midfielder who can hold onto the ball and knows how to calm an offense. Hello Gomez! Hello Buddle! Hello Torres!

Going with the ones that brung you only works when those players are the best choices. That was not the case here. Besides being better players, Gomez and Torres both play in Mexico. Both are used to playing a Latin style -- quickness, movement, possession. You know who have a tough time against that? England, who match up well against a physical side. Two guesses which tactics Bradley opted for in yesterday’s match.

You cannot fault Bradley for his loyalty to players, but he is wrong about that. His loyalty should be to the US nation. There is a lack of criticism in the US sporting press, one of the reasons we started CounterAttack, so he gets free reign about that. Bradley was also wrong in his tactics. It would be one thing if we were just arguing a point, being unreasonable. But these were things we precisely said this should not happen, days ago.

The MNT should win their next two matches but hey, the ball is round. No one is saying that the US would definitely have beaten England. We are, however, saying that Bob Bradley’s conservatism cost the US two points that were there for the taking. We can be happy to take away a point yesterday.

Forgive us if we choose not to celebrate.

Image via David Leah from soccer.fanhouse.com

Calling the World Cup, here we come!

After four years, with 90 minutes to kick off, the CounterAttack thought it appropriate to call the teams going on to the championship match on July 11. Here’s how we see it:

GROUP A
1A: Mexico - young, motivated, quick and with a chip on their collective shoulder. No one is expecting them to get through. They will, in style.
2A: France - although we are not impressed with them, they go through. MEX will expose their shortcomings.

GROUP B
1B: Argentina - Messi. Tevez. Milito. Higuain. Aguero. Samuel. Heinze. ‘Nuff said.
2B: South Korea - athletic, fit, and Nigeria’s chances went out with Mikel’s injury. Oh, and Ji-Sung Park.

GROUP C
1C: USA - it all depends on the lineup but if the US beats England as we expect, they win the group.
2C: England - overhyped though they may be, the only real question in the group stages is whether they win the group. We think they won’t.

GROUP D


1D: Germany - class of the group, and although not as fearsome as past Nationalmannschaft, it’s still Germany.
2D: Serbia - mostly because Essien’s injury means Ghana’s slim chances just went out the door (cf. Nigeria).

GROUP E
1E: Holland - an embarrassment of talent, and Van Persie is effectively just starting his season. Those fresh legs for the tournament mean goals galore for Oranje.
2E: Denmark - because we don’t think Cameroon can get it done.

GROUP F
1F: Italy - like Germany, they are not as fearsome as past Azzuri squads but they still have class. A soft path means they go further than they deserve.
2F: Paraguay - only because Slovakia are not there yet and New Zealand...well….

GROUP G
1G: Brazil - there have been better Brazil sides but this one is good enough to win the Group of Death and go far.
2G: Portutgal - it could be Cote d’Ivoire but Drogba’s injury will affect him enough to allow Ronaldo-led Portugal to go through.

GROUP H
1H: Spain - en fuego, the best team in the world for the past two years wins its group easily.
2H: Chile - because we don’t believe Switzerland are strong enough.

SECOND ROUND
1A v 2B (MEX v SKR): MEX - too fast, too skilled, too motivated for the South Koreans.

2A v 1B (FRA v ARG): ARG - the Argies overwhelm a French side that doesn't have enough firepower.

1C v 2D (USA v SER): USA - the win v England starts a steamroller for the MNT.

2C v 1D (ENG v GER): GER - because it’s Germany.

1E v 2F (HOL v PAR): HOL - smashing through Group E, HOL continues its march.

2E v 1F (DEN v ITA): ITA - like GER, because it’s Italy.

1G v 2H (BRZ v CHI): BRZ - the favorites all go through the Second Round.

1H v 2G (POR v SPA): Spain run riot over a frustrated Portugal side.

QUARTERFINALS
HOL v BRZ: an instant classic, a match for the ages, back and forth but Van Persie, Robben, Sneijder, Van der Vaart, Elia, van Bommel and Co are too much for Brazil.

MEX v USA: the Concacaf derby will depend on which side is the healthiest; otherwise it’s too close to call, so we will buck history and say USA, probably on kicks.

ARG v GER: so difficult to pick against the Argentines but it is Germany and it is the World Cup.

ITA v SPA: for once in the World Cup, La Furia Roja live up to the name while Italy prepare to find younger players for 2014.

SEMIFINALS
USA v GER: the magic run ends here for the MNT, although the US is owed a lucky bounce after Fring’s handling the ball out of goal in 2002.

HOL v SPA: a second instant classic, but Holland’s defence is just that much better than Spain’s.

CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH
HOL v GER: reprising the 1974 final and the 1988 Euro semifinal. The Best Team To Never Win finally does. That it's against Germany makes it sweeter for Oranje.

Now, let the Games BEGIN!!!

Image via Skysports.com

Things that might happen at World Cup 2010

Wide-open games. The last several World Cups have seen a steady decrease in goals scored, from 2.7 goals per game in 1994 to 2.3 at Germany 06. That should change this time for a few reasons. Squads like Holland and Spain have a rich vein of goal scorers throughout their lineups; the African qualifiers are all led by athletic, goal-oriented attacks (the possible loss of Drogba by Cote D’Ivoire aside) that could lead to a goal glut; teams like USA and Australia have matured and have attacking midfielders who have honed their skills in Europe. Packing the box may not work so well this time around.

African teams to crash out early. Every tournament, pundits claim that this is the year an African nation will advance deep into the World Cup and win it all. That won’t happen in 2010 because while attacking is fun, defense wins tournaments. Even with an expected rise in goals scored, the better attacking sides also have good defenders. Cote D’Ivoire are strong, especially if Drogba plays, but they are also in the Group of Death. They have to get past Brazil and Portugal, something that will be interesting to watch.

The rise of Concacaf. One of the traditional minnows of the World Cup are actually better than advertised. Tournament success has as much to do with the road to the championship as talent. Both the US and Mexico have winnable draws and could win their respective groups (settle down, England). One quarterfinal draw could feature a Concacaf derby, US v MEX in a North American grudge match. Miss that match at your own peril.

Later-round excitement. There are quite some tantalizing matchups potentially awaiting after the first round, which only has Brazil v Portugal on tap. Starting in the Second Round, we may see Portugal v Spain, England v Germany and France v Argentina. The Quarterfinals could see Holland-Brazil, Argentina-Germany, England-Argentina or Mexico-USA. There is every likelihood that the championship match will be a reprise of 1974, with Holland facing arch-nemesis Germany. Dare to dream.

Say no to the samba beat. Brazil are always favorites but we don’t think they will get past Holland in the quarterfinals. If that match takes place, it could be an instant all-time classic. In fact, while we would definitely be surprised, it would not shock the CounterAttack if Brazil fail to get out of their group. You heard it here first….

Better referee decisions. We just think that after so much focus on referees, they are due for a good tournament. We fully expect referees to get into better positions, get the offside calls right, call the matches tighter, look for flagrant or violent fouls, and not tolerate dissent. We also see more judicious use of cautions and send offs.

Injuries to play a role. This could be the biggest factor in which teams advance. Already, players like Michael Essien, Didier Drogba, Michael Ballack, Arjen Robben, Rio Ferdinand will miss all or part of the tournament. That makes squad depth a significant factor and many squads just don’t have the depth beyond their starters. However, while that may change how the groups play out, we still expect the favorites to get through. This will, however, affect the later round matchups more significantly.

Let the Games begin!

Let the smack talk begin, US-ENG style

Following up on assessing England’s frailties, the CounterAttack came across an article from London. The Times of London claimed the US exposed their weaknesses against Australia. While the article is not wrong, it also missed the point as badly as Robbie Findley going on goal.

We would expect that Carlos Bocanegra would slide into the other center-half position alongside Gooch Onyewu. The two have worked in tandem for the US until Carlos was recently converted to the left wingback role. While the US would miss his attacking forays, they make up for it with a more solid defensive center.

That means Jonathan Spector, a steady if unspectacular back, takes the right side while Steve Cherundolo shifts over to the left. Spector is accustomed to English attacks, playing at West Ham as he does. The US backline may not be as mobile as it could be with a healthy Gooch. It has, however, worked together as unit for some time now and, in fact, does work well.

The US tactic is to bend, allowing teams to enter up to 30 yards from goal, and then quickly break on a counterattack. Can it stop Rooney? Perhaps not but then, few can. But Rooney is prone to overreaching, leaving himself isolated, with few options. It could happen, if the US shuts down passing lanes as it has done with great success recently. That requires some other Englander to step up and do the business, as they say. Can they?

The American midfield is a lot stronger than the English might give it credit. It works well as a unit and they play off each other with effectiveness. No one at the level of Stevie G or Frank Lampard, of course, but Donovan was an instant hit with Everton and Dempsey is a key player at Fulham. Unglamorous clubs all…but all in England.

So yes, the Times is correct that they aren’t at Manchester or Chelski. On the other hand, US players (don’t forget Altidore) at least have a good idea of how English players like to defend. They can prepare mentally for what they will see because quite a few – including goalkeeper Tim Howard – do it every week in the Premier League.

We already discussed England’s weaknesses. The idea is that Rooney might beat you, just make sure no one else does. But factor in an intangible: while neither side has to win this first group match, a loss is more damaging to England than the Americans. After all, the English did not look good v Japan, and little (literally) Mexico gave the English fits. The US is a better team than the first and matches up well against the latter.

There is also the Unknown factor. This is where the US actually has an edge. The Times correctly points out that Heskey, Crouch, Lennon, Defoe, Joe Cole, et al could rise to the occasion. The CounterAttack, well, counters that all are players that are known to the US. Their playing styles are well known to both Howard and Hahnemann, the backup keeper. That doesn’t mean the English Unknowns can be overcome, it’s just that they present no surprises.

The contrast is the US: how do you play a Gomez or a Buddle? What about a Jose Torres, do you know what he can do? Gomez and Torres both play in the hypercompetitive Mexican league, and play well. Truth be told, even the MNT is not 100% sure of what they bring because they literally are unknowns on the international stage.

Most of all, the ball is round. Anything can happen. But while the MNT would be disappointed with a loss, they would likely bounce back in their next two games, probably wins both. How do we know? Because they’ve done it before, recently.

For all the hype surrounding England, despite their fantastic qualifying record, the English have much more to lose than the Yanks and that could be a bridge too far for them on Saturday. One thing is sure: it should be a fun match.

Fingers crossed for that, at least….

MNT marches on, getting ready for ENG

Some positives came through after yesterday’s final tune-up match v Australia:

The midfield seem to get more solid with each outing. This is an increasing trend since WCQs. The unit is tidy and and seems to be hitting its collective stride at the right time. On the attacking end, they offer options, hold onto the ball against pressing defenders, and distribute as and when; all have been historical concern. In defense, the MF work well to disrupt attacks, continuing a formula they discovered v Spain in the Confed Cup semifinal. These days, they seem to spring counterattacks much quicker…and with more accuracy.

The squad knows each other very well. Team chemistry is overrated but players that actually like each other tend to fight harder for one another. These guys seem to really enjoy playing as a squad. This can be a critical edge – a player having a rough patch can be buoyed by his team mates, restoring confidence. There also very much seems to be an us-against-them mentality at work in the US locker room. As Sir Alex Ferguson would say, a tough mental edge can often be more important than physical fitness.

Scoring is suddenly a feature. Let’s take that in context – we’re not saying the US has the next coming of Pele, or even Paolo Rossi. But with Gomez and Buddle clearly in form, Jozy Altidore no longer needs to think he must carry the scoring load. Less pressure might help him. Add proven midfield scorers Dempsey and Donovan into the mix, and the US suddenly seem a threat up front.

Of course, a few negatives have also emerged:

Jay DeMerit cannot start at center-half. He’s looked shaky throughout the warm-up friendlies, unsure of himself and not mobile enough to defend properly. Yesterday, he committed three fouls within 24 minutes. But his replacement would likely be Goodson, which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Hopefully Gooch Onyewu is ready and fit for ENG, paired with Chuckie BlackMouth from his inspiring role as left wingback to the center again. Cherundolo on the left and Spector on the right could minimize a lot of damage. It’s all moot, though, if Gooch isn’t ready to be effective.

Robbie Findley and Rico Clark should not get meaningful minutes. Findley wasted two golden scoring opportunities. Goals are at a premium at the World Cup, so Findley condemned himself to the bench with those. Contrast with Hercules Gomez: forced a save and created a corner within two minutes of entering as a sub, and then scored the third US goal. THAT’S how it’s done. Rico is a slightly different issue: he just doesn’t offer enough to leave Torres (our preference) or Edu on the bench. A borderline inclusion to begin with – the CounterAttack thought Robbie Rogers should have been on the Final 23 at Clark’s expense – Rico has done nothing in these friendlies to show otherwise.

Coach Bradley’s conservatism could be a problem. Torres and Michael Bradley would be an excellent pair. There is very little chance, however, of Bob Bradley doing that. Baby Bradley and Torres seem to play the same role – holding MF – so Bradley won’t want to “waste” a spot. But Baby Bradley is more attack-minded, while Torres prefers to be a field general. They could start together no problem. Similarly, Torres and Buddle should start v ENG, with Altidore coming off the bench. Again, Coach Bradley is too dogmatic to even consider either.

Overall, the problems are about lack of depth on the MNT than anything that has to happen on the pitch. That’s ok – few squads have a solid starting lineup throughout, much less depth on the bench (just ask Fabio Capello). Remember: a US “B” side just played the Czechs to a standstill (final score aside) and then beat the Turks. Just five years ago, the MNT A side would have had a tough time against either.

Perhaps the most encouraging sign, however, is that no one seems to take the US seriously. Yes, some MNT supporters are a bit over the top but few others have caught on. The truth is, this is a very talented side. No top-tier superstar, but few are as solid top to bottom. It’s strong enough to go far with a little luck, and the US is due more than its share of breaks this time around. For once, the ball might bounce for the MNT.

Bring on the Three Lions!

Note to US national team: forget Rooney

The match v ENG looms on June 12th for the US and all supporters of the Men’s National Team are on tenterhooks. It’s the sort of match that in some ways is meaningless but yet could mean oh so much. An hour ago, England coach Capello released his final roster, with few surprises. It’s a fine squad, with some illustrious names but eminently beatable.

Since the WC draws were made, the CounterAttack and a Dutch friend have been mystified how anyone can rate England as one of the favorites to actually win the World Cup. The Three Lions should advance from Group C, yes (along with the US), and they should even advance to the quarterfinals. But the key word is “should” because the reality is that they could lose to the US and they could lose to Slovenia, who after all beat a Russian team that are only out of the tournament because they self-destructed.

For all the acclaim and hoopla surrounding England, the reality is that they have exactly three players that truly scare anyone. Wayne Rooney moved onto a higher plateau this past season and probably would have won the Golden Boot in the Premier League but for being injured most of the last month of the season. Rooney, however, is a workhorse and goal-scorer who is unable to take over a match on his own. He is not Messi or Torres or even Henry, strikers who can take over the match and make it their own. Rooney can be shut out and get frustrated – and the longer he is shut out, the more frustrated he gets. We follow Manchester United; we know this about Wazza quite well.

Steven Gerrard, despite having a sub-par season, is a class player. We would fully expect the real Stevie G to show up in Rustenberg on the 12th to create havoc. Now he is a player that can take over a match. But will he?

The only other English player who should scare anyone is…Frank Lampard. Ironically, he is a given on the squad but is rarely mentioned as a tipping point. The CounterAttack will propose that Fat Frank (we never understood this – he isn’t) is precisely that game breaker. His ability to create goals from distance and to force GKs into action is not to be taken lightly. The ball, as they say, is round and anything can happen. Lampard plays to that axiom better than any other Englander. He is impossible to shut down because he just pops up when you’re not paying attention to him. Easily overlooked, until he blasts a shot from 30 yards on the wing.

And that’s it. Sure, you can talk all you want about Aaron Lennon (a player the CounterAttack rates very highly, btw), Jermaine Defoe or the (non-brothers) Coles. Whatevs, we are unimpressed. Yes, perhaps they step up. Perhaps. They haven’t done so yet, so the question really is, when?

The England defense is quite suspect – nothing speaks louder than the fact that international retiree Jamie Carragher was called back into service. He and Rio have suddenly and shockingly lost a full step on the ball in a very short time. The CounterAttack has always considered John Terry to be overrated. Better, perhaps, than most American defenders, but still overrated. Let’s not even talk GKs….

The way to beat England is actually quite simple: isolate Rooney. Don’t lose sight of him, of course, but make sure his shots and passing options are limited. In other words, force England’s other players to rise to the occasion. Easier said than done but can be done.

Because that’s where the questions begin: Can Stevie G come back to form? Can Lampard be more than a threat and actually score? Can Terry link between defense and attack without leaving holes? Will the ENG second striker (probably Heskey) step up to the challenge? Will Defoe or some winger become the new hero? Will Glenn Johnson offer more on offense than he surrenders on defense? Can Barry continue where he left off with City?

Look, let’s be quite clear: any and all of these could very well happen. But will it? We just don’t believe it will, at least not enough to get past the second round.

The Japan match on Sunday was not a uniquely sub-par performance from England. The score line flattered to deceive, what with two JPN own goals. There was no “oomph” from anyone in a Three Lions shirt, not even with a few roster spots still at stake. Instead there was a rather tepid performance. It’s not just this match – little Mexico gave England fits, again with a score line that flattered.

Absolutely 100% the final score is more important than how you play in the World Cup. The CounterAttack fully expects that England will try play better when it really counts, because that's the problem: playing well is not something you just switch on.

We expect ENG to get out of the group but we would not be shocked if they didn’t get past the second round. They could beat Serbia (but then again not) but Germany? So it all depends on beating the US, setting the tone and winning the group.

And that all comes down to the MNT forgetting about Rooney. Just make sure the other Englanders don’t beat you.

Image via Getty Images, from ESPN Soccernet