The two-for one: Sounders Match 5 & 6, 2-2 @ Dallas and 2-0 @ Toronto

So, I decided after Thursday night to write up one report for the Sounders 72-hour whirlwind tour of the continent, with an eye towards finding a common theme to tie the road trip together and establish the fact that they were well on their way to the Supporters Shield.  I had made the reasonable request that the boys pick up 4 points over the two matches, knowing that this would not only assuage much of the Supporters imminent fears of Sounders mediocrity, but also knowing that 4 points was indeed quite likely, given the less-than stellar nature of their two opponents' starts to the MLS season.  

What we were left with is perhaps something far more disturbing than potential mediocrity: that at this point in the still admittedly young season, this team has a serious issue with grasping hold of what is theirs for the taking.  It is one thing to be mediocre, which is to say you lack the ability as a team to rise to the occasion; it is quite another to have that ability, and simply fail to do so.  The Sounders have certainly been guilty of the latter for too often so far this year.

But first, lets realize what role tremendous bad fortune plays in all this.  Much has been made of the dubious penalty call in the 93rd against Dallas which gifted the home team the draw.  Let me just say that 99 times out of 100 the call is not made.  It is easy for the Supporters to make too much out of such horrendous luck -- as demonstrated by the internets being lit up with Sounder complaints of MLS officiating -- but the fact remains that outside of weeknight,  co-rec soccer, Yeisely's desperate dive will rarely bring a whistle, and subsequent point to the spot, at any level of soccer.  We all know that players are often instructed to seek contact from defenders and try to draw fouls, and it will remain a part of the game forever, as I see it, controversial and sometimes ugly, for sure, but a part of the game nonetheless.  In fact, much of the controversy surrounding the alleged embellishment and whining of Fredy and Freddie stems from the fact that they are not only instructed to do so, it seems to naturally be a part of their games.

But to the match itself.  It was the opinion of many that the Sounders didn't particularly play well enough to "deserve" the win in the immediate aftermath of the match, a sentiment that hardly eased the anger over the 2 points lost.  It turns out that, upon further review, perceptions of quality of play for 94 minutes simply don't matter when it comes to results (as was ably demonstrated in Toronto). As we saw in SLC, even though the Sounders were certainly guilty of insipid play for much of the match, particularly the first half, they were still very much in a position to take 3 points on the road, and it can be argued in both cases it represents a disappointing failure that they didn't to do so.

Unlike SLC, in Dallas the home team rarely seemed to be able to rise above the insipidness themselves.  Lost in all the controversy of the ending is the fact that a miscommunication between Hurtado and Keller gifted Dallas their first goal.  While the penalty awarded after Keller headbutted Cunningham's knee was not without doubt, it can be fairly said the call was an order of magnitude more justified than the one in the 93rd minute.

It was Steve Davies who pointed out on his blog (dailysoccerfix .com) that the Sounders weren't getting the credit they deserved for taking the starch out of an opponent who's nature it is to recklessly attack.  As dreary as the first half may very well have been, thanks to another moment of brilliance from Steve Zakuani to even things up, it was drawn 1-1 at half-time and the Sounders did enough to win in the second.  Another moment of brilliance from Zakuani led to an excellent opportunity for Levesque who's failure to finish chances this season once again reared its ugly head.  Montero had a brilliant opportunity one-on-one with the Dallas 'keeper but his attempted chip was pathetic, at best, and when he redeemed himself with his superb free kick to take the lead it could be said the Sounders should have had the match out of reach, leading at least 3-1 if not 4-1.

This lack of finishing and reliance on the individual to come through provides the segue into one of the more demoralizing matches in the still-short history of the MLS Sounders on Sunday against Toronto.

Contemporary football is a systematized game, and rather than go into length describing what this means I will simply refer you to the work of Jonathan Wilson and move on.  Even so, one of the beautiful things about the game is that despite the increased systemization and often conservative tactics we see at the highest levels, in my opinion the soul of football is still alive in the fact that more often than not the result of a match is determined by certain individuals within that system rising up and providing their brilliance, creativity, and work-rate to decide the outcome.  Sometimes, it is the obverse of this which decides the match: often a team will be undone by mistakes and lack of finishing, and it is this side of the coin which best explains the loss to Toronto.

Much has been made of the interesting lineup choices made by Sigi Schmid.  I don't wish to get into it too much but from where I sit the formation was still the usual 4-2-3-1 we see the Sounders in, with Vagenas as a second holder alongside Alonso and Ljungberg in his usual role as the central playmaker (the middle of the band of three attacking mids/withdrawan forwards).  What made it all so interestingwas the use Sturgis, normally seen as a holding midfielder, on the left and Evans, normally the "box-to-box" central midfielder, at the top forward position.  Wahl and Ianni came in as rotational defenders, and while some have complained about their inclusion, I'll gently remind everyone that they both started the Open Cup final last year in D.C., and leave it at that.

Whatever you want to say about the tactics and the lineup Sigi adopted, I think that it actually worked, as the Sounders certainly played well enough to get the result.  The Sounders controlled much of the match and threatened the Toronto goal far more than Toronto threatened ours.  The simple truth is that Ianni, Sturgis, and Evans (twice) simply failed to rise up and take what was theirs.  Of course, we have all grown accustomed to lack of Sounders finishing, so it was punch-the-wall frustrating to see the normally water-tight defense -- tied for best in MLS last season -- contribute to both of Toronto's goals with brutal mistakes which both essentially amounted to assists.

And so, the 4 points I quit reasonably asked for were there for the taking.  We should have had three in Dallas and a draw in Toronto was very reasonable considering how much of that match unfolded.  Those 4 points would have put us at 11 points after 6 matches, which despite L.A.'s blistering start keeps the Sounders right in the thick of things in the battle for top of the table.  Instead, at 2-2-2 the Sounders' start is the very definition of mediocrity, the engineered destiny of all MLS clubs but a situation the club and its supporters ought to be very upset with.

Sounders, Matchday 4, 1-0 over Kansas City.

"Sigi, we have a problem!"

"Qwest: the Goal-less Desert"

"The Failure of the 4-man 'Switcheroo' Attack"

"Now I am just starting to get really pissed off"

These were all possible headlines for this post, then Brad Evans saw something on an otherwise innocuous throw-in, and Michael Fucito, on for all of 8 minutes, saved the Sounders from themselves.  Fucito!

Then Keller literally saved the team with his best play of the year, only necessary because the team seemed to still be celebrating with the 36,000 Faithful who's joyous relief was unlike anything I had experienced at Qwest before.

I wasn't sure how to approach this "match report."  I could drone on about things that others have already talked about, re-live the moment when Fucito salvaged the still-young season, or complain and/or analyze the Sounders' 4-man "Switcheroo" attack that seems to do everything but actually score goals.  

But, I don't have it in me.  I started out the season with the goal of writing up a brief "match-report" for each Sounders game, knowing that I would skip a few and some would be far better than others.  I consider this to be an evolving idea, and as I sit here on a Monday with nothing better to do, having had some time to digest what happened Saturday, and exhausted from a big hike at Mt. Rainier yesterday, this one isn't going to be a "report" as much as a "look ahead."

First, an ever so-brief review.  Four matches, 7 points; 6 points from 3 at home, 1 point from 1 on the road.  Five goals scored, 3 conceded.  You certainly can't win or lose the Supporters Shield yet, but you can make it harder or easier on yourself.  All things considered, things are okay (well, thanks to Fucito!)

Some clear trends seem to have continued from last season, some of them quite bothersome.  We have a big couple of weeks ahead of us, with two away matches this week, then home against the defending Supporters Shield winners, Columbus, then MLS Cup finalists and table-toppers LA Galaxy.  If the Sounders are able to shake off their lingering issues and make a serious run at League silverware, I think we will have a reasonable answer by May 9th.

But let's not look too far ahead.  This next week will be a tough one for the boys, and as always, I have some opinions on lineups.  Given the fact that the Sounders are coming off a short week to play 2 in 4 days in the road, it may be a chance for Sigi to use a little bit of that roster depth.

There are three things we pretty well know about the Sounders lineup:

1) They have no "target man" available at the moment, with Jacqua hurt and Kufo yet to arrive

2) They will not drift too far from the "Sigi's arrow," which is perhaps best described as a 4-2-3-1.  Like it or not, this is Sigi's system.

3) The attacking four interchange constantly (the aforementioned "Switcheroo"), the most "stable" position is Zakuani on the left.

Lacking the ability or impetus to do cool lineup graphics, here is my modest proposal for a Sounders starting XI for this Thursday night at FC Dallas (showing outfield players, Keller in goal, of course!):

_____________FUCITO_____________

ZAKUANI_____LJUNGBERG_____LEVESQUE

____________EVANS____________

____________ALONSO___________

GONZALEZ_________________RILEY

__________HURTADO__IANNI_______

first off the bench (barring injuries or ejections): Vagenas, Noonan, either Estrada or Nyassi

Yep, I'm giving Montero the night off.  I'm not going to want to play Ljungberg the full 90, so I pull him for Noonan; either Estrada or Nyassi will go in for either Fucito or Zakuani to provide spark and energy late, and Vagenas is included here, because while the Supporters may disagree, Sigi is going to want him out there in the late stages of a road match.

Fucito deserves the look up top, and the timing is right, and this match is BEGGING for it, what with the aforementioned 2 matches in 4 days, and 3 in 9 overall.  As for Ianni, well, Marshall is 35 and I want to given him the rest (needing him in Toronto with the "livelier" atmosphere calling for a veteran), and Ianni has showed an ability to create chances on set pieces which is quite useful.

As for Roger, well, I surprised even myself by inserting him in the lineup, and, frankly, I haven't been a fan of his efforts so far this year, but he knows the system, can play up top in the "Switcheroo" attack system, and could even move there nominally if Fucito is subbed out.  We need the Roger we had last September and October, and the way to get that back is to let him play his way into it...

So, looking ahead to Sunday:

___________MONTERO____________

ZAKUANI_____NOONAN_____LJUNGBERG

______________KING_______________

_____________ALONSO__________

GONZALEZ __________________RILEY

________MARSHALL__HURTADO_____

first off the bench (barring injuries or ejections): Levesque, Vagenas, One of the Kids...

Yeah, that's right, Stephen King!  You know, the guy who scored two Open Cup game-winners last year, barely sniffed the pitch in League play, and might just provide some spark in the "Evans" role that could help us to a big road win.  Let's give him a run-out over Vagenas, who is essentially a second holder alongside Alonso...

Except, lets face facts, the Supporters and the Coaches fundamentally disagree on Vagenas.  Talk to Steve Claire at Prost Amerika about it, please don't complain to me.  In an atmosphere like BMO (or whatever the hell the pitch in Toronto is called) Sigi is gonna want "Pass-Back Pete" in the starting XI (which is why I have him in as a sub, and Evans left out)... If you ask me, I will rage all day and all night that Stephen King needs a chance in central midfield, except I don't think it'll necessarily happen this match, it'll probably be Vagenas... lets just get on with it...

Marshall comes back from his night off, and on the whole I can see no reason to mess with the back 4.  I don't bother listing defenders as possible substitutes because generally the only way one will come off is due to injury or an ejection-induced lineup shuffle (thus my disclaimer)  As for Noonan, he is listed as one of the three subs last week and a starter this week mainly by default (this is a different topic for a different day).  "One of the Kids" (Fucito, Nyassi, Estrada) is highly unlikely to start, quite frankly, even Thursday, despite my insistence that Fucito does for that match.  

I want Levesque on in the second half up top, revisiting his "closer" striker role from late last year.  Despite 2 in 4 and 3 in 9, Alonso doesn't leave the pitch except for act of Congress (and even that i'd be tempted to ignore).  Montero comes back in after a chance to sit and do some thinking.  I will be prepared to Sub off Ljungberg for the 2nd straight match if need be -- its still April, he's 33 and the season runs through November!

So, there you go, just one guy's opinion.  I think we have learned some important lessons in the 4 matches so far, and it just strikes me as the time to try some new lineup changes.  I don't feel like I'm proposing anything revolutionary, or even necessarily solving any problems.  But it can't hurt to try, and maybe, just maybe, we'll get another "Fucito" moment or two and pull out a couple of huge road wins!

Sounders Matchday 2, 0-1 loss to RBNY.

I don't really want to talk about it.

We're all pretty pissed off.  I've even defended the validity of the astonishing 12 Sounders corner kicks as "helping tell the story of the match."  

BTW, RBNY had 4 corners, and managed to scored on one of them...

Going back through the last 10 Sounders' matches at Qwest, including friendlies (Chelsae and Barca last year, Portsc*m this preseason) and the playoff match, the Sounders have scored a total of 4 goals in from of the Faithful, those coming in the course of just two matches, leaving a stunning 8 home shutouts in 10.  Throwing out matches that don't count, its still 5 of 7, which is pretty lousy...

We all already know that, and we're all pretty irritated about it.  

So I don't really want to talk about it.

In searching for meaning, I picked up "Inverting the Pyramid" and started reading the final chapter, titled "The Turning World".  There, just a few paragraphs in, I found the Answer, in the form of a quote from Marcelo Bielsa, Argentina's National Team coach from '98-'04:

"Totally mechanized teams are useless, because they get lost when they lose their script.  But I don't like either ones that live only on the inspiration of their soloists, because when God doesn't turn them on, they are left totally at the mercy of their opponents."

The context of this quote comes in the context of a discussion of a rise of the "new style" of playmakers, best exemplified by the French team that won Euro 2000.  France lined up three attacking midfielders-- among them the brilliant-beyond-words Zinedine Zidane -- behind a very unconventional "center forward" lone striker in Thierry Henry.  This is the 4-2-3-1, the formation which in many cases the 4-4-2 has evolved into and which better explains the Sounders lineup better than most others.

They are what they Italians call trequartistas, in Argentina they are the enganche.  They are the players who operate between the midfield and the attack, and they are nothing new to football.  Both Pele and Maradona operated as "free forwards" who would roam back when necessary.  Going all the way back to the 2-3-5 and W-M formations these were the "inside forwards,"  whose job it was to play deeper than the other forwards and be the "smart ones."

As football became more and more systematized and "mechanized," it is these modern-day playmakers who shoulder much of the burden of creating scoring chances.  Lionel Messi is one who operates on the wing -- his off-foot wing, as so many now do -- and play an "outside-in" style, in which the classic booming cross is largely a "last-resort" maneuver mainly left to overlapping fullbacks.  

The Sounders have at least 2, sometimes 3, and often even 4, as we have seen lately with Jacqua out of the lineup.  Ljungberg enjoyed many successful years at Arsenal playing just such a role, Zakuani has been converted into one on the nominal left, and Montero, while more a true striker than the other two, is by nature the type of forward who will roam back, somewhat counter-intuitively he will actually "press forward" by dropping back, looking for the ball.

Levesque has been given a run-out as the nominal right-sided playmaker, and experiment I sense will have ended as of the 55th-minute last night.  His role seems tied to being the "off the bench closer-striker" and occasional spot starter.  Roger contributed very little last night (something I really don't like saying given his iconic status in the Supporter culture) and his replacement, new signing Pat Noonan, provided an immediate improvement.

The 12 corners DO tell a story.  The Sounders controlled possession, created more chances, almost continuously hounded the Red Bull penalty area, and nonetheless came up empty.  I fact, Red Bulls really ought to have won 2-0, as a brilliant counterattack resulted in the most sunning miss of the night late in the match.

We can all sit around and blame whatever/whoever we want.  Riley was far from effective in his return, in general there were far too many miscues on passes and set pieces for most Sounders fans to tolerate, and yet the majority of the match was spent with the Sounders in possession, on the attack, so Something went right... right?!

We have seen far to often over the last 7 League matches at Qwest where the Playmakers have simply been left to the mercy of the opponents... and I'm not sure what the answer is.  Wait for Jacqua to return -- whenever that may be -- even though he didn't necessarily prove to be the true "target man" last season to begin with?  Wait until July when Blaise comes to town?

I don't know, and I don't really want to talk about it...

Sounders, Matchday 1, 2-0 over Philly "analysis"

You can't spell "analysis" without "anal," which is good because my first in a [planned] series of semi-literate diatribes after Sounders matches will involve a lot of talking out of my ass.

First of all, and this is probably to the benefit of the tone of this piece, I have only watched the first half of the ESPN broadcast, and that was last night, I was tired and making some late-night snacks to eat, and couldn't really pay close attention.  But being poorly informed has never stopped anyone from sharing their opinions before, so why should it now?!

First and most obviously, the Sounders scored early, which more often than not is a good thing in soccer.  Continuing the early-season trend from last year, in which they scored within the first 15 minutes of each of their first three matches and stomped out of the gate to a 3-0-0 start, certainly bodes well.  I thought both goals were beautiful in quite different ways.

The first perfectly demonstrated the idea of the "build-up" in soccer, and was a display of what players who are confident with the ball at their feet can accomplish.  It is no mistake that the buildup involved the three Sounders who are most adept at dribbling with the ball in an attacking manner.  Ljungberg collect the ball on the left, dribbled across the middle, distributed to Zakuani, who then dealt to Montero.  What happened next is critical, because while some are tempted to call the play a "give and go" it really wasn't, in the sense that Montero held on to the ball, managing to keep the defender at bay with the threat of his dribbling ability just long enough to allow Zakuani to make an overlapping run.  Zakuani used his impressive pace to create space -- something he did with aplomb last night and reminded the Supporters of what a special talent he may very well be.  What he did next is something I think we all hope to see a lot of in the coming years out of Stevey Z, who has clearly demonstrated the potential to become the type of sublime attacking midfield playmaker that has become a talismanic presence on football clubs around the world.  He "turned the corner" and sent in an inch-perfect ball to a hard-charging Brad Evans.  Frankly, the set-up was so well executed that Evans had little to do but not mess up the virtual "pass" into the net and then run to the corner flag and celebrate.

I may be making far too much of one goal, in a sport where goals so often are more an element of luck than execution, but I think that this goal is hugely important in that it demonstrates exactly what the Sounders are trying to accomplish as a team, and exactly the goals they are trying to score.

First of all, much has been made by many, including myself, that Ljungberg and Montero don't work as a strike partnership, not because Freddie is a demanding veteran and Montero is a recalcitrant youngster, but because they are the same type of player, essentially.  

The contemporary views on strike partnerships are that you combine a "center forward" or "target man" with a more withdrawn "playmaker" type.  The "target man" will throw his weight around and poach goals, draw fouls, or generally will the ball in, while the playmaker likes the ball at his feet and wants to be a little more "creative" in how he goes about things.  In the idealized Sounders world, Jacqua is to be that "target man" with Montero or Ljungberg in behind as the playmaker.  With Jacqua's injury issues and the constant problem last year of who exactly is manning the right-mid position (as well as the perception among many Supporters that Jacqua simply fails to play as the 6'4" target man he's supposed to be) we saw a lot of Fred[y]die] partnered up top last season, and into this preseason.  The basic idea would be that Montero would be up higher, and Ljungberg would do his thing in behind.

When you combine this with the presence of Zakuani on the left, there can be trouble.  Zakuani led the NCAA in goals at Akron playing as the very type of striker that Fred[y][die] are, and has been converted into a "winger/outside attacking mid" at the MLS level.  The fact you have three similar players -- at least in terms of elemental style -- on the pitch at once isn't necessarily a good thing.  In the "1970 World Cup Brazil" sense, where you throw your 11 best players out and run riot, its F-ing brilliant, but in the contemporary system-driven approach it doesn't always work.

Which is all the reason why the first Sounders goal of 2010 was so brilliant.  The build-up involved these very three players, working together, using their gifts as players to unlock a defense and do what playmakers do, score goals.  Whether it comes off one of their boots or not is, in the larger picture, utterly irrelevant.  

So lets spend a moment talking about the individual who finished the play, one Brad Evans, the player ultimately named "man of the match" last night.  Let's put aside the trials as a sometime right back or midfielder and focus more on his direct role in what is among Supporters one of the more controversial Sounders' lineup issues, which also Involves Peter Vagenas.

As mentioned above, the "best 11" concept of football has been largely replaced by a more -system-driven approach, in which is best to think of a "first team" actually consisting of about 15-17 players who the manager will use situationally, depending on opponent, health, suspension, etc.  It is best when there is "overlap" in this pool of players, a prime example of which is Roger Levesque, who has been utilized at both outside attacking midfielder roles and both striker roles.  Another player Sigi has at his disposal is Vagenas, who is the type of hard-working central midfielder who features on many succesful clubs, including the Galaxy's cup winning club coached by one Sigi Schmid.

The unpopularity of Vagenas seems primarily tied to the fact he is one of the highest-paid players in the team not named Ljungberg or Keller, and the fact that he lacks the frantic style of Alonso, or the verve going forward of Evans.  In fact, it is better to think of Vagenas as a second defensive midfielder when he is in with Alonso instead of Evans, and just like you wouldn't expect your strike partnership to be the same, you shouldn't expect your holding midfield partnership to be the same.

As to why Schmid would run out two holding central midfielders is explained by the fact that the outside midfielders are often both very attacking players, particularly when, as we saw last year, players like Zakuani or Ljungberg man those positions.  Why shackle a player like Zakuani with too much defensive responsibility?  'Tis better to line up two "behind the ball" central midfielders to provide cover.

Of course, when Brad Evans is out there, it all changes.  Evans does not play as a "holding midfielder," in fact he plays as one of a dying breed in the contemporary, systematized brand of football, in which midfields are now almost always split into holding and attacking bands; Evans plays as a "box-to-box" midfielder.

All this, of course, adds to the excellence of the first goal last night.  Ljungberg dribbles, sends to Zakuani, who quickly touches it on to Montero, who holds the ball and the defender off just long enough for Zakuani to use his speed to get into space, receive the pass, turn is body and send it in and Evans, running box-to-box, finishes it off.  This is how the game is beautifully played, and this is how the Sounders want to play it.

The second goal was beauty of a completely different variety, and to understand it you have to understand how badly the Philly defender screwed up.  It is often said that "great goal scorers put themselves into position to score goals" and this is exactly what Fredy did on the play.

We all get frustrated with Montero, even last night he tried is patented "27 stepovers in space and accomplish nothing" maneuver a couple of times.  I said earlier that he is a similar player to Ljungberg and Zakuani but his difference is that he has that touch of "goal poacher" in him, which is to say he is one of those unique players who can realize a chance when many wouldn't dare even try.  If it goes in, as it did last year many times, it lives on Youtube for some time, and if it doesn't, we all grab out heads and wonder what the hell he's thinking.

But to that Philly defender.  On the corner kick, Philly lined up defenders on either post, as is common.  The defender on the near post (nearer the corner, the far post from the main camera angle) stepped out when the 'keeper Seitz punched out the ball, as he was supposed to.  The defender on the far post (nearer the main camera) then drifted in behind Seitz, seemingly worried Seitz had committed himself too far out, then meekly drifted towards to other post, apparently caught in a daze of ball-watching.  The fact is, he held Montero onside, an egregious mistake.  You can see from Seitz's reaction to the play he was a little surprised to find one of his defenders playing so deep.  

Ok, so the defender made an atrocious mistake.  I've played defender most of my life, and have always said "goals come from defensive mistakes."  The funny thing is, an extremely well-take goal can still arise from a screw-up at the back, because this is what goal scorers do, convert those chances you help them with.  Seitz's punch out came to Alonso, who somewhat chunked his shot, and it seemed to be skipping harmlessly wide until Montero, held onside by a mesmerized defender, made the kind of athletic play that earns select men millions of dollars in places like England and Spain.  It may be one of the prettiest goals Fredy has scored in Rave Green.

As for the second half, it is probably for the better that no-one remembers much of it.  It was a bit of a night for many of us, as the torrential wind and rain gave the match a certain epic quality, combined with the fact we've all had far too much time on our hands for the last few months, alongside the stress of wondering if the season would actually start.  I can recall a Philly defender essentially rugby tackling Zakauni and receiving a yellow for the effort (that's one I like to call an "orange card") and Keller at one point getting a little uppity with a lackadaisical defense after conceding a corner.  Sigi's wisest decision of the night was getting Ljungberg the hell off the field in the 60th, and it was good to see Nyassi and Fucito get some time with the first team.

Some mentioning is deserved of Philly coach Petr Nowak's temperamental and unfortunate comments after the match, concerning what he saw as diving and whining by Seattle players and his specific calling out of one Mr. Ljungberg for what he saw as excessive whinging.  I've never been much for putting too much stock in emotional post-game outbursts, but Mr. Nowak is just trying to push the same old buttons that football managers have pushed for years. The Facts are that Fred[y][die] were the two most fouled players in MLS last season. the Perception is that Fredy embellishes too much and Freddie whines too much. These arguments will rage as long as people gather together on pitches to kick a ball!  Nowak's other primary complaint seems to be a specious argument about the ratio of overall fouls to cards called on his team.  The fact of the matter is, the Union, like so many teams who come into Qwest, came in with the attitude that they were going to “push the boundaries” of what is acceptable physically and essentially dare the referees to make the calls. Well, the referees made the calls!  A referee is actually a lot like a sports broadcaster, in that in all but the absolute rarest of instances will he genuinely add anything to the match.  Generally, you're hoping that he (or she) will simply not take anything away from hit.  By simply hitting your marks and letting the game tell its own story, you have usually done the job.  

Mr. Nowak's real problem is getting his players to step up to the challenge of playing at an MLS level, something that few of his players outside of Seba le Toux demonstrated last night.  Stahl really ought to be seen as the goat of the match, as both of his bookings came from pointless knees in the back of Sounder attackers well away from the Philly goal, whilst no real challenge was being made for the ball.  Its hard to see his sending off as not perfectly justified, and it essentially killed Philly's realistic chance at a result with the match not quite half over.

So, before I mail this one in, I want to thank all the Supporters at Qwest last night for a job well done, before and during the match, on the way too and inside the stadium.  I particularly want to thank my fellow North End Supporters for executing a 3-section overhead display, which was a significant step up from anything we tried last year, and was made all the more trying by the less-than-cooperative weather conditions; and I promise it is only a taste of what is yet to come from us.  We will have new 2010 scarves for sale (I am told by next Saturday's match against NYRB) and we have those "Drink, Sing, Support" t-shirts for sale for $20 (all proceeds go to tifo production).  We are all looking forward to a great season and a lot of fun afternoons and evenings at Qwest/RBP!

Yesterday I talked about "Reversionism," the purist and or fundamentalist social/political approach to current American problems, which calls for a return to "simpler times" and while certainly evocative, fails as an ernest methodology for solving problems.  

Today I want to explore this a little more, and discuss a growing trend in populism today, which can essentially be boiled down to wrapping oneself in patriotism, and using nostalgia to evoke emotions of American Exceptionalism.  

I need to start by defining some terminology, and first and foremost is understanding nostalgia.  The word itself is derived from ancient Greek, nostos meaning "a return home" and algos meaning "pain, suffering."  and the contemporary definition is "a longing for home or familiar surroundings; homesickness" or "a bittersweet yearning for things of the past."

Nostalgia was described as a medical condition, and the term was coined in the 17th century  to describe the homesickness of Swiss mercenaries in lowland areas, pining for the mountain homes.  It was later used as a pathological term to diagnose soldiers, even up through the 2nd World War.

To truly understand nostalgia, however, you have to understand its ties to Romanticism, by which I mean the 18th century artistic and intellectual movement.  It doesn't hurt that the movement influenced American writers in the early 19th century, the era of Manifest destiny and the shaping of modern America.

Manifest destiny survives today, in the feeling of the importance of spreading American ideology, which smoothly segues us into the idea of American Exceptionalism.  

The word "exceptional" itself does not necessarily imply "greatness,"  a more prosaic view of the word reveals it to mean only "rare instance, unusual."  However, it can also mean "unusually excellent, superior," and it is in this more romantic notion that we can come to understand what American Exceptionalism is really all about.  The idea that the United States occupies a special niche in the world is as fundamental an idea to American patriotism as there is, although it is a crucial element in the ceaseless battle between those that veer towards jingoism and those attempting to offer a more sober analysis.

It is of course the most commonly demonstrated reversionist tactic to swing to the jingoistic end of things, and in terms of domestic policy to evoke Romantic Nationalism in a form of circular logic as proof of how we have become "lost" as a nation.  The radio and TV personality Glenn Beck has garnered a significant following by extolling these virtues and claiming that progressivism and social/political evolution have corrupted the country too far away from what the Founding Fathers ever intended.

On the surface, these arguments are compelling, particularly on an emotional level, but one need not dig too deep into the logic to reveal the fatal flaws in this philosophy.  Most clearly, Constitutional scholars have long argued that the U.S. Constitution was intentionally left short and open-ended so as to allow laws and interpretation to evolve and change as need be.  The other obvious argument is that evolution is a natural process in any entity, organism, or organization, and that which has stopped evolving has begun dying.  

Let's put aside for the moment the definitions and just concentrate on what history means, in an abstract sense.  We have all heard the phrase "those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it," and this seems particularly apt here.  The reversionist view of history is to take a snapshot, and evoke the proud emotions of a time when great men with great ideas got together to found a great nation.  That's all well and good, but history is a continuum, and when you isolate a snapshot it is far to easy to lose context.  In the continuum of history things change; this seems like pretty remedial logic here, but this simple element apparently gets overlooked quite a bit.  As things have changed and evolved, so has the nation.  I mean, for crying out loud, people, the original Constitution allowed for slavery!

Have we drifted away from the essential principles laid down by the Founding Fathers?  Perhaps, but this argument isn't resolved by looking through the rosy lenses of nostalgia.  American Exceptionalism as an idea, is just that.  It will not or should not serve as a justification for the People not allowing the Government to solve current issues.  There is no fucking way that any man in history, even the wisest and most influential, could possibly foresee the practical issues 220 years in the future.  To sit around and offer up starry-eyed longing for romantic ideals is not a workable solution for very many problems, save the possibility of organizing a 4th of July parade.

 If you really think America is a golly-gee shucks swell kind of place, than that means you must be involved in looking forward to keep it that way.  Banking on dubious historical perspectives gets us nowhere.