[washingtonismoney]

The US did bounce back. That's due to three factors:

1) playing at home! it's really beneficial.
2) Klinsmann went from being a bad coach to an average one -- basically he put (most) players in their natural position, and didn't screw around a ton. That really empowered the team, and proves that ... sometimes common sense is better than attempts at genius.
3) getting a bit lucky: according to a slightly fancy stat called "expected goals"*, the U.S. wasn't really better than Costa Rica or Paraguay anyway. Which means they got lucky.

Unfortunately, if the U.S. loses today, it'll likely be due to -- in part -- the aftereffects of Klinsmann turbulence. I expect longtime Klinsmann favorite (and notable incompetent) Michael Orozco to start at right back today, which is problematic: Orozco is a mediocre centerback, and is even worse when slotted out wide. Why is he playing there? Klinsmann put together a dumb roster.

The other thing I'm worried about is exhaustion from center midfielder Jermaine Jones -- who Klinsmann oddly allowed to play the vast majority of minutes, despite a 4-0 blowout affording him plenty of opportunity to give a partial rest to the athletic-but-aging player. (I have other gripes but I should be working.)

* (expected goals are pretty straightforward. If you've ever watched soccer you might say, 'oh he should've made/missed that chance.' The stat attempts to formally quantify that -- by estimating, based on historical probability, the chance a player would score on a shot from a given location. In theory, if you add those probabilities together you get a good idea of which team is creating better shots, which correlates better than goals at predicting future performance.)

[washingtonismoney]

The US did bounce back. That's due to three factors:

1) playing at home! it's really beneficial.
2) Klinsmann went from being a bad coach to an average one -- basically he put (most) players in their natural position, and didn't screw around a ton. That really empowered the team, and proves that ... sometimes common sense is better than attempts at genius.
3) getting a bit lucky: according to a slightly fancy stat called "expected goals"*, the U.S. wasn't really better than Costa Rica or Paraguay anyway. Which means they got lucky.

Unfortunately, if the U.S. loses today, it'll likely be due to -- in part -- the aftereffects of Klinsmann turbulence. I expect longtime Klinsmann favorite (and notable incompetent) Michael Orozco to start at right back today, which is problematic: Orozco is a mediocre centerback, and is even worse when slotted out wide. Why is he playing there? Klinsmann put together a dumb roster.

The other thing I'm worried about is exhaustion from center midfielder Jermaine Jones -- who Klinsmann oddly allowed to play the vast majority of minutes, despite a 4-0 blowout affording him plenty of opportunity to give a partial rest to the athletic-but-aging player. (I have other gripes but I should be working.)

* (expected goals are pretty straightforward. If you've ever watched soccer you might say, 'oh he should've made/missed that chance.' The stat attempts to formally quantify that -- by estimating, based on historical probability, the chance a player would score on a shot from a given location. In theory, if you add those probabilities together you get a good idea of which team is creating better shots, which correlates better than goals at predicting future performance.)