The theory has always been that what the USMNT needed was more players to play with Europe’s best. Good, tough and regular competition, adequate professional training, exposure to best practices at the highest level the game has ever known. This would be what would transform the raw material produced by the USA into a genuinely high-level team, capable of regularly competing with the world’s elite. Practice is never that simple.
The friendly against Colombia earlier this month was the first time the USA managed to field a starting XI, all of whom play in the top tier of Europe’s big five leagues (there is a question as to whether France can actually be included in that group or whether Portugal or the Netherlands are more worthy, but we will continue for now as a useful shorthand to denote a high European level). Would this then be the moment of rupture, the moment when the USA would finally become a great global power in men’s football?
There is not sweeten that performance or this result, much improved as Colombia could be the side that failed to qualify for the last World Cup. It was a mesmerizingly bad performance; it’s been a long time since the best teams were dismantled by James Rodríguez or Juan Quintero, who found a bewildering amount of space. But this does not undermine the basic logic: the more actors a country has operating at the highest level, the better its performance is likely to be. The problem – as countless South American and African teams have discovered over the years – is that players accustomed to the best can look at a national coach with a certain amount of disdain. Gregg Berhalter has been the head coach of the USMNT for seven years, in two stints. The U.S. was never able to muster more talent, but under Berhalter they were unable to get a win over a Top 25 team in the FIFA rankings outside of Concacaf.
Before the Colombia debacle, things were looking up for Berhalter. The fight with the The Reyna family appears to be over, to the point where Gio Reyna was named best player of the Concacaf Nations League tournament, while victory in that tournament to some extent assuaged the disappointment of being eliminated in the semi-finals of the Concacaf Gold Cup last year. But the question now, with a home World Cup looming within two years, six years after failing to qualify for a World Cup, is whether the U.S. is better equipped to compete with the world’s best than it was in last time they hosted a 16th World Cup. -Copa América team, in 2016.
Related: As Copa America approaches, pressure mounts on USMNT’s Gregg Berhalter
The format of this year’s World Cup, which starts on Thursday, makes a lot of sense. If you were starting from scratch, you almost certainly wouldn’t have two separate confederations covering the Americas. Conmebol has long struggled to find a viable structure for a tournament that incorporates its 10 members; Inviting six Concacaf teams to create a format with four groups of four is by far the most elegant way to do this. Formalizing this into a regular Americas tournament, with proper qualification, seems sadly unlikely, but it has many benefits, particularly for the US and Mexican TV markets.
Concacaf’s top teams also benefit, exposing them to competition with a higher level of opposition than is possible in the Gold Cup. It’s one thing to have players spread across Europe – 15 of the 26 in Berhalter’s squad are on teams in the top divisions of Europe’s big five leagues; the next step is to have them play together against leading nations. The concern with a 16-team Copa América is how few countries could successfully host it; the US may work financially, but it is not good for Conmebol if the tournament is regularly held outside its borders.
In 2016, the USA beat Costa Rica and Paraguay to top the group despite losing to Colombia, and beat Ecuador in the round of 16 before a 4-0 defeat to Argentina in the semi-final. This time, the draw was relatively kind. Panama are familiar opponents, while Bolivia made a poor start to World Cup qualifying, losing five of six, although their only victory came after a change of coach, with Antônio Carlos Zago replacing Gustavo Costas.
Uruguay is a completely different matter. Marcelo Bielsa worked his familiar magic, forming a new team around the backbone of Ronald Araújo, Federico Valverde and Darwin Núñez, whose energy and determination in the press seem to matter more than their lack of precision in goal. They have already beaten Brazil and Argentina on the way up to second place in World Cup qualifying.
The leader is Argentina, still inspired by Lionel Messi, and continues to be the likely winner of this Copa América, with Brazil in search of direction after Dorival Júnior was belatedly appointed coach. Colombia may have an outside chance of winning a second title. In terms of tournament progression, this is not good news for the USA, with either Brazil or Colombia likely to reach the quarter-finals. However, in terms of measurement standards ahead of the World Cup, this represents a serious test.
-
This is an excerpt from Football with Jonathan Wilson, the US Guardian’s weekly look at the game in Europe and beyond. Subscribe for free here. Do you have any questions for Jônatas? Email footballwithjw@theguardian.com and he’ll get back to you in a future edition
