Simple. Make my own questions! I get to use a column format I’ve always enjoyed and I get the questions I want. Perfect. It’s like a Republican going on Fox News; it’s impossible to fuck up. So let’s get to it…

First, I wanted to thank you for having the single greatest blog, of any subject, ever. Yeah, you’re grammar is that of a nine year old and you write about three columns a month, but, still, you’re the greatest. To my question: With reports of Manchester United’s debt growing out of control, could ManU be the next Portsmouth?

I’ve tried to wrap my head around Manchester United’s debt problem but the reporting on the issue is so biased it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on. I can’t take the British sports press seriously because they consistently spin stories to sell newspapers (here’s an example). The press knows Manchester United supporters are pissed ticket prices have skyrocketed, the press knows ManU supporters are puzzled why Ferguson hasn’t used the Ronaldo money, the press knows foreign owners aren’t popular and, with last year’s financial crisis, the press knows people are fearful of large institutions failing. The aloof owners from Florida are the perfect target.

That said, ManU is $1.1 billion dollars in debt. Almost all companies are in debt, the question is if it’s manageable. The debt is increasing year-over-year, but it’s not increasing exponentially. The £500 million bond issue seems troubling; it sounds like the Glazers are buying a credit card to pay their other credit card. Still, Alex Ferguson hasn’t shown even the slightest hint that’s he nervous and if things were really bad would have spent £16 million of Antonio Valencia? I don’t even think this would be a story if Manchester United was six points clear of Chelsea.

I like to gamble. Do you have any soccer future bets you would like to share?

As a matter of fact I do! If you’re looking for a big long shot, take a peak at the Europa League odds. FC Twente, who is undefeated in the Eredivisie (15 wins, 3 draws) are 50/1 to win the competition (more on Twente later). It seems way too high. The same goes for Fulham at 66/1 and I like the other English team too, Everton, at 25/1.

In the Champions League, the favorite seems like the right play with Barcelona at 3/1, but AC Milan is tempting at 20/1. I’ll stick with the favorite again in the EPL with Chelsea at -133.

I spent a lot of time trying to convince myself of a long shot for the World Cup but nothing excites me. Italy and Germany are both tempting (especially Italy) at 12/1, but I like the favorites Brazil and Spain at 4.5/1.

Odds are from Sportsbook.com

Ricardo Clark just signed with Eintracht Frankfurt, thoughts?

Eintracht Frankfurt must be desperate.

Unlike his former teammate Stuart Holden, I am not a Clark fan. If Maurice Edu and Jermaine Jones are healthy and fit come May (I’m 98 percent sure they won’t be) I would probably argue you could leave Clark home for the World Cup. It’s not just he can’t pass the ball (and he really can’t pass), but I don’t think he’s a great defender either. He’s athletic but not agile and it gets him into trouble. I’m rooting for him and Eintracht Frankfurt have some injured midfielders so he should get a shot, but I’m not optimistic.

Which three clubs will be relegated from the Premiership?

Portsmouth, Wolves and Burnley.

Are there any U.S. players no one is talking about that could make an impact at the World Cup?

Jose Francisco Torres hasn’t got much publicity lately because he’s been stuck on the bench at Pachuca but because of a suspension Torres should start the next three matches and it will be interesting to see how he does. I think he’s a better than Benny Feilhaber.

If Oguchi Onyewu isn’t ready for the World Cup, which I think is more of a possibility than people realize, it leaves a hole at center defense.  There are a lot of similar center backs (Jimmy Conrad, Clarence Goodson, Zak Whitbread) but I think my favorite is Chad Marshall; he seems like the most consistent and has the highest upside. (Note: I’ve never seen Whitbread play but he does intrigue me — it might just be the name.)

A deep sleeper might be forward Marcus Tracy, who should get his first cap on Saturday. Also, don’t forget about Eddie Johnson and, dare I say, Freddy Adu.

Whatever happened to your “manipulating the World Cup roster” theory?

If you’re not familiar with the theory you can read it here.

I e-mailed some people I thought would know the answer and this is what I got back:

Steve Goff, Washington Post

I can’t give you a definitive answer but I’d imagine if Michael Owen were rostered as a goalie, he would be restricted to playing in goal if he entered a match.

Jen Chang, ESPN SoccerNet Editor

As far as I know you’d have to get technical clearance from FIFA to name a player like Michael Owen as a goalie for your World Cup squad and the reality is that there’s no way they would approve it.
For 100% clarity your best bet is to email FIFA for a definitive ruling but I’d be shocked if they would allow this.

Jeff Carlisle, ESPN contributor and Centerlinesoccer.com senior writer

I don’t know the answer to this, but I forwarded your question on to FIFA’s media department. They are usually pretty good about getting back to me on things, so I’ll let you know what I find out.

As expected, it doesn’t look like my theory is allowed, but if and when I get a reply from Jeff I’ll let you know. Stay tuned…

Last week, you slammed the MLS SuperDraft pretty hard. Would you have handled it differently if you could write the column over again? Did it bother you the column upset MLS fans? Don’t you have better things to do than teasing a league you don’t even watch?

No. No. No.

Any interesting soccer story lines you don’t think are getting enough attention?

There’s two. First in Holland, Steve McClaren has completely reinvigorated his career at FC Twente. As I stated earlier, the club is undefeated and tied with PSV atop the Eredivisie. Let’s say FC Twente hold on and Harry Redknapp’s tax problems continues to nag him and he leaves Tottenham in the summer. Would McClaren be the favorite to be the manager at Tottenham? If not at Spurs, McClaren will soon get some invitations to come back to England.

Second, anyone been paying attention to the Portuguese Liga?

The league started in 1934 and only twice has the league been won by a club not named Benfica, Porto and Sporting CP (Belenenses in 1946 and Boavista in 2001). But halfway through the season Braga is leading the league and has only conceded six goals in 16 matches. Not only has Braga never won the league, its never even finished in the top three!

(Note: It was reported in the British press that Stuart Holden was about to sign with Braga. Not true. Another example of the British press simply making something up.)

(Note No. 2: You can watch Eredivisie and Portuguese Liga matches on ESPN360.com.)

Charlie Davies is recovering from a shattered leg; Oguchi Onyewu is trying to rush back from a patellar tendon rapture (his knee is fucked up); Jermaine Jones might never recover from his broken leg; Jozy Altidore can’t score a goal in the English Premier League; Carlos Bocanegra is stuck on the Stade Rennes’ bench; DaMarcus Beasley started playing well for the first time in years and then tore his hamstring.

Now it’s looking likely Dempsey is going to get as much playing time at the World Cup as I am. After the World Cup draw U.S. fans (including me) were oozing with optimism, but with Robbie Rodgers probably making the team Algeria and Slovenia suddenly seem like much tougher foes. But are things really that bad? Let’s take a look…

The losing Dempsey isn’t that bad argument

There probably isn’t a more frustrating player for U.S. fans than the rapper from East Texas. When Dempsey is good for the U.S. he’s fantastic and when he’s bad he’s horrendously terrible. It’s worth remembering just how wretched he was early last summer. After being non-existent against Costa Rica and Honduras he continued his poor play against Italy and Brazil in the Confederations Cup. The Brazil match was especially hard to watch, this is what I wrote after the 3-0 loss:

AMC Clint Dempsey — Dropping Beasley from the national team is easy, dropping Dempsey would be a little harder. Dempsey is younger and playing well at the club level (probably better than any other American in Europe) but, lately, there’s something seriously wrong with Dempsey when he plays for the national team. It was embarrassing to watch him against Brazil. Every time he got the ball in the second half he would do a pointless step-over or juke move and I took it as him saying, “Look world, my teammates suck but I got some game.” On the last play of the match, the U.S. had a free kick from 40 yards out and Dempsey practically pushed Donovan aside so he can take a shot on goal (which he missed badly). I’m sure he’s tired after a long season, but it’s no excuse to act like an asshole. I think Bob Bradley’s biggest challenge right now is handling the Dempsey sitsuation. I don’t know if dropping him is the answer, but if he is going to continue to play (and act) like he did Thursday something has to be done. Grade: F

It looks crazy in retrospect, but for a moment last summer dropping Dempsey from the national team seemed like the responsible thing to do. Dempsey continued his poor play against Egypt until heading home the goal that clinched the Americans spot in the semifinals. If he didn’t score a “No More Dempsey” Internet campaign would have started. But he did score…and then he scored again against Spain…and then he scored again against Brazil…and everyone remembered, “Oh yeah, he scores goals, we don’t have too many of those guys.”

World Cup qualifying started up again in August and Dempsey was poor against Mexico and was below average for the rest of qualifying. Dempsey is one of the most skilled players on the team but it never looks like he’s giving 100 percent and when he doesn’t score a goal you leave the match thinking he didn’t do anything (because most of the time he didn’t). He should be nicknamed Dimitar Dempsey.

So without Dempsey the U.S. will miss those moments when he does something spectacular, but won’t miss those long periods when he brings absolutely nothing. That’s the “Losing Dempsey isn’t that bad” argument in a nutshell.

The losing Dempsey is devastating arguement

I would argue Dempsey is the best American field player to ever play in Europe. His competition is Claudio Reyena (his time at Rangers was quite exceptional) and Oguchi Onyewu (his success was in Belgium so it should be taken with a BIG grain of salt). Brian McBride, DaMarcus Beasley and Steve Cherundolo have had long, moderately successful careers in Europe but none come close to the two-year stretch Dempsey had at Fulham before his knee gave out. From scoring to toughness you could say Dempsey is Fulham’s best player and no one would laugh at you (he isn’t the best player, that’s between Schwarzer and Hangeland, but it’s not a ridiculous statement).

Dempsey also brings a unique personality to the U.S. squad. During the World Cup draw in December, Dempsey was lifting weights when everyone else was huddled in front of the television. He simply didn’t give a fuck. Working out was going to make him a better player; watching Charlieze Theron attempting to be funny wasn’t. You got to love that.

He’s also passionate. No player was more devastated after the Confederations Cup loss than Dempsey. He was in full tears after match; he really gave a fuck. You got to love that.

(Note to all magazines in the Untied States: No one has written the definitive Clint Dempsey feature story. What’s wrong with you people? This guy grew up in East Texas playing soccer with Mexican immigrants; was off the U.S.N.T. radar when he went to Furman to play collegiate soccer for three years; quickly took Major League Soccer by storm; is arguably the best American midfielder to ever play in Europe; he’s hyper-competitive; he comes off as being abnormally introverted; he raps. This could be award-winning stuff. Someone needs to write this story. Heck, someone needs to hire me to write this story!)

So to recap, the U.S. is losing the best American midfielder currently playing in Europe and one of the most passionate and competitive players on the team (plus, I didn’t even mention he plays multiple positions). It’s hard to spin that as being anything less than a big loss. But there’s more…

The biggest question Bob Bradley faces right now is where Landon Donovan should play. To me it’s a no brainer; Donovan should play forward next to Jozy Altidore. Bradley isn’t stupid and I think before Dempsey’s injury he argeed and would have used the following formation:

———–Donovan—Altidore——-
Dempsey—Bradley—Edu—Holden

But without Dempsey I think Bradley will be very tempted to keep Donovan in the midfield. Donovan is a solid midfielder and was fantastic there during the Confederations Cup. The problem with Donovan playing outside midfield is the forward position will probably be filled by…awwww, I can’t even type it…Conor Casey:

———–Casey—Altidore———–
Donovan—Bradley—Edu—Holden

Maybe Bradley will switch to a 4-5-1 — if Jermaine Jones ever got healthy — and I would love to watch opposing teams trying to penetrate a Jones/Edu/Bradley central midfield. The problem is Altidore would be alone up front and ask Hull fans how well that works. Bradley could also swap Dempsey with Beasley (which I would do), but it’s hard having any confidence in someone who’s played well for two weeks in the last two years. So with Dempsey hurt it gives Bradley an excuse to start Casey. A Casey for Dempsey swap is the single worse outcome from this injury.

Before Dempsey got hurt, I still thought the U.S. had the second best chance of advancing to the Round of 16, even if Davies, Onyewu and Jones didn’t play. But if you add Dempsey to the list I think Slovenia is the second best team in Group C. Dempsey’s busted knee dropped the U.S. back into a familiar position — underdogs.

So why doesn’t MLS connect with me? First, the product is terrible compared to other leagues. Why would I want to watch the Kansas City Wizard play the Columbus Crew when, every week, I can watch matches from the English Premier League, La Liga, Seire A and Bundesliga? What is MLS’s solution to the product problem? Expansion, of course. Copying the NHL’s over expansion plan might no be a brilliant idea, just throwing it out there.

Second, there are only two compelling\star players (Donovan and Beckham) in the league and they play on the same team. A league needs stars, period. Robbie Findley, the best player on the defending MLS champions, has exactly one cap for the powerhouse U.S. men’s national team. That’s a problem.

Third, the league structure, from top to bottom, sucks. MLS has the most boring regular season of any soccer league in the world. The MLS playoffs are so head-scratching it almost surpasses the BCS as the worst playoff system in American sports (two legs for the conference semifinals, but the conference finals and MLS Cup are single-elimination, huh?). The financial system guarantees a league which all teams have essentially the same talent (hence the eight seed winning the championship), which make an MLS dynasty team nearly impossible.

I could go on and on, and one day instead of just criticizing MLS I’ll give some suggestions. But today isn’t that day. The MLS SUPERDraft was Thursday and I am SO HAPPY I DVR’d IT. The unintentional comedy was off the charts. So I’ll stop delaying, these were my impression of the MLS SUPERDraft (sorry I keep capitalizing SUPER, I’ll stop now).

(Note: Yes, this is kind of ripping off Bill Simmons’ NBA Draft diaries, but no one reads this anyway.)

MLS SuperDraft — I have to admit, until today I thought it was just the MLS Draft. I had no idea it was called the MLS SuperDraft (A wikipedia search tells me its been the SuperDraft since 2000). Which got me thinking, how was the decision made to add the word “super” to the draft. I have no idea, but this is how I imagine it went down:

It’s 1999 and MLS is struggling. The marketing department is under pressure to come up with something. Somewhere in the league offices a marketing assistant goes into the marketing director’s office.

Marketing Assistant: You know how we’re trying to figure out a way to make our draft more compelling?

Marketing Director: Yeah, you got an idea.

MA: Well, yeah. I’ve been thinking about it and I think I have an idea that will distinguish our draft from all other professional leagues.

MD raises his eyebrows and stops reading a article about the pending Y2K disaster.

MD: I’m listening.

MA: There was a time when the NFL was a struggling league and not getting much attention, but then they made a decision that changed the direction of the league with one little name change…

MD is intrigued for the first time in months.

MA cont.: ….they renamed their championship game the Super Bowl.

MD: So you think we should rename the MLS Cup, the MLS Super Bowl. You know what, that’s not a…

MA: No, no, no. I thought about that, but I think people might think we’re just copying the NFL and start making fun of us.

MD: Good point. We get made fun of enough.

MA: I know. So, instead, I’m thinking we’ll call our draft the MLS Super Draft.

MD ponders what he just heard. He first looks in the corner of the room and then look deep into the eyes of his young marketing assistant and says…

MD: You know what, I’ve been doing this a long time. I’ve heard a lot of really stupid ideas in my career. But, without a doubt, this is NOT ONE OF THOSE TIMES! That is the most brilliant idea I’ve ever heard! We’re ripping off the NFL, but since were using the word super in out draft and not in our championship game, NOBODY WILL EVER KNOW!

MA is a little taken aback, thinking it wasn’t really a good idea, but he rolls with it…

MA: I guess it is a good idea, huh. I was also thinking we should have super draft be one word instead of two. You know, just to be different.

MD: YES!!! ONE WORD!!! FUCKING BRILLIANT!!! Wow, two minutes ago I thought this league was going nowhere but now I think the sky is the limit. SUPERDRAFT! This is going to be bigger than the NFL Draft by 2010, mark my words.

The Pennsylvania Convention Center — When your draft is held at the Pennsylvania Convention Center your league is without question on the way up. Here’s a little free advice to MLS. Have every draft in Las Vegas. Even things that suck are better in Vegas.

Danny Mwanga — Congrats, Danny. I wish you the best of luck. But I don’t think you’re going to need it. Just look at the No. 1 picks in SuperDraft history:

2000 — Steve Shak (Current team: Charlotte Eagles. Bobby Convey went 12th)
2001 — Chris Carrieri (Current team: Richmond Kickers. Brian Ching went 16th.)
2002 — Chris Gbandi (An average, injury-prone MLS defender before moving to a second division team in Norway. Shalrie Joseph went 14th.)
2003— Alecko Eskandarian (An MLS journeyman. Rob Friend, a regular for Monchengladbach in Germany, went 35th.)
2004 — Freddy Adu (Playing in Greece. Michael Bradley went 36th.)
2005 — Nikolas Besagno (Current team: Tacoma Tide.)
2006 — Marvell Wynne (An athletic defender that isn’t very good at defending. Jozy Alitdore went 17th.)
2007 — Maurice Edu (Best No. 1 pick in SuperDraft history. Robbie Findley dropped to 16th.)
2008 — Chance Myers (Kansas City defender that I know nothing about.)
2009 — Steve Zakuani (The forward took MLS by storm with four goals in 29 matches.)

So, as you can see Danny, MLS GM’s know talent when they see it.

Alexi Lalas — Lalas is the perfect MLS commentator. His first analysis of the draft is that “1 through 8 there’s some good quality” and after that “you just have to hedge your bets.” First of all, looking at MLS SuperDraft history (above) you’re more likely than not to get a bust with the first pick than even an average player, so its a bit ridiculous to think the top eight are “quality.” But, beyond that, do you know what hedging your bets means, Alexi? It means diversifying your bets to make sure you don’t lose too much. So when you say, “you just have to hedge your bets” in later rounds, what the hell are you talking about? Lalas was hired three different times as a GM; do you now understand why it’s hard for me to get into this league?

Piotr Nowak — If I was starting an MLS expansion franchise I would definitely want Piotr Nowak. This was the 2008 Olympics coach that started an over-the-hill Brian McBride over Jozy Altidore; used one of his three over-23 players on Michael Parkhurst and left Charlie Davies on the bench until the final 10 minutes of the last group game. Talk about a coach who recognizes talent.

Ike Opara highlights — So this is the two-time ACC Player of the Year and his highlight package features him slipping in the box and missing a header. Really ESPN production team, like, really, you couldn’t spend 20 minutes to try and find some legit highlights, really?

Don Garber — Teal Burnbury is the fourth overall pick and after Garber says his name, he goes on to say:

“What a great story this is folks. This is the first father and son signing in MLS. Teal’s father Alex played for the Kansas City Wizards and now his son Teal is playing for the same team. Great story, guys.”

Don, it’s not a great story. If Teal Burnbury couldn’t make it to the draft because he went to Haiti to dig through the rubble THAT would be a great story. This is just an interesting tidbit. What this shows is Garber has no confidence in ESPN to do any research whatsoever. Sadly, he’s right.

MLS Lockout — Alan Hopkins interviews Garber and Garber doesn’t say much of anything about the pending lockout. I’m rooting for a lockout so Donovan can finish the season with Everton. This doesn’t make me a bad person, right?

Blair Gavin — Wins the award for best name of the draft.

John Harkes — Rob Stone and Lalas had a quick argument about The Beatles (don’t ask) and Harkes chimes in, “How much longer is this show with you guys?” He was trying to be funny, but you know when your buddy makes a joke but it’s a little too true, that’s what this was. After he said it, Stone and Lalas have an awkard silence before going right back to The Beatles discussion. FANTASTIC TELEVISION.

The Columbus Crew have called a five minute timeout — Of all the ways to make your draft unique, MLS chose to give teams timeouts. Here’s an idea, give teams more than four minutes to pick a player. Oh, wait, that means Harkes and Lalas would have to give more “analysis”. Forget what I just wrote, I love the timeouts and, yes, that was the quickest 180 in history.

The End — Looks like the first round went longer than expected so my DVR didn’t tape everything, darn. Maybe next year ESPN will give the SuperDraft a five hour block so millions of die hard MLS fans can watch all four rounds. Then again, maybe they won’t.

I’m 75 percent sure this idea (which I will get to, I promise) won’t work because of some rule I’m not familiar with. But, if there isn’t a rule, and you can do this, then all 32 World Cup head coaches should take advantage of it.

It’s really simple. In a couple months, teams that qualified for the World Cup will name their 23-man rosters. Of those 23 players, three have to be goalies*(read note at the bottom). So here’s the idea: For the three mandatory goalie spots, coaches should name two “real” goalies and one field player, but just call the field player a goalie.

For example, pretend you’re England coach Fabio Capello. It’s May 15th and you’re filling out your 23-man roster. You want to bring Michael Owen to South Africa, but you don’t have a spot for him. Your three goalies are David James, Scott Carson and Joe Hart. Wouldn’t you rather have Owen on the squad than Joe Hart? So…make Owen your third “goalie.”

Of course, Owen won’t play goalie, he’ll play striker like he always does, but why not just call him a goalie? I’ve literally spent hours looking for the official 2010 World Cup squad rules on the Internet and haven’t found it (if someone knows where it is, please tell), but I’ve never heard of there being a litmus test for goalkeepers. I did look over FIFA’s Laws of the Game and there are no rules restricting goalies from becoming field players or field players from becoming goalies. But, like I wrote a couple paragraphs ago, it’s hard for me to imagine there isn’t some rule restricting this because someone else would have already taken advantage of the loophole.

Some would argue even if you could manipulate the goalie roster spots you shouldn’t, because it’s too risky to only have two goalkeepers. It’s a bad argument. Can anyone think of a World Cup, European Championships, African Cup of Nations, Gold Cup, Confederations Cup or any national team tournament when a team had to use their third goalie because of injuries or suspensions to the other two? I don’t have an encyclopedia knowledge of the sport, so maybe it has happened once or twice, but it’s highly unlikely. The risk of losing both goalies is significantly outweighed by the benefits of having an extra field player. I dare someone to debate me on this .

I don’t want to get too deep into the ramifications of manipulating the goalie roster spots until I know if it can be done or not. So I turn it over to you, soccer blog reader. Can someone find the actual World Cup squad rules in writing? Are there clear guidelines on who is and who is not considered a goalie? If there isn’t, why hasn’t anyone taken advantage of it?

Note: I’m not even 100 percent sure it’s mandatory a team must name three goalies to the squad. I’ve heard and read commentators talk about it but I’ve never actually seen the rule. Could it be possible coaches name three goalies to the squad just because they think they should? I sure hope not.

A few weeks ago, on one of my endless surfing sessions of The Vault, I came across an intriguing feature story on an emerging young American soccer player in Germany named Landon Donovan. Published April 17, 2000, the article looks at a homesick teenage boy trying to find his way on the soccer field and in life. One of the most telling quotes in the story was Donovan saying, “What happens if I drink a beer and become an alcoholic? What if I try something else and I like it? I’m not here to make friends. I’m here to play soccer.” Shockingly, Donovan didn’t last much longer in Germany.

We all know what happened next: Donovan was loaned to the San Jose Earthquakes where he won two Major League Soccer titles; he was a key member of the United States team that advanced to the quarterfinals of the 2002 World Cup; he returned to Leverkusen in 2005 and left after seven matches; he came back to MLS, this time with the Los Angeles Galaxy, where he won another MLS Cup; he was nothing special at the 2006 World Cup; David Beckham became his teammate but his team struggled; he went on loan to Bayern Munich and didn’t score a goal; he led the U.S. to the finals of the Confederation Cup; he won the MLS MVP (for the first time, surprisingly).

Throw in the fact Donovan has scored more international goals than any other American and it’s safe to say the 5-foot-8 forward is the best American to ever kick a soccer ball. But for all the success in MLS and for the U.S. national team Donovan has failed not once, or twice but three times in Europe. Now, Donovan will get opportunity No. 4.

If reports are to be believed, Donovan is on the cusp of going on loan to Everton. On paper, it’s the perfect destination. A slightly above-average English Premier League club that has its share of injuries and could use a little attacking help. Donovan should, at the very least, be an impact substitute and could conceivably be the Toffee’s best attacking option.

I’m optimistic about Donovan’s fourth stint in Europe because he’s developed as a player and as a person in the last year. At the Confederations Cup, he proved his nickname Ladycakes was no longer appropriate. He was the hardest working American, running tirelessly in all five matches and for the first time was the leader of the national team. His skill matched his work ethic; his counter-attack goal in the Brazil match was world-class and against Spain he showed he could defend effectively for long stretches. After the tournament, Donovan came back to MLS and dominated, finishing the season with 15 goals, was named MVP and led the Galaxy to the final.

Off the field, Donovan’s life also changed. He separated from his wife, actress Bianca Kajilich, earlier this year and it gave him the chance to focus more on himself. This is what he told USA Today in October:

“There is a realistic part of me that can do whatever I want to do right now…Which, when you have an obligation like a wife — and with us, dogs — you have to think about someone else, not just yourself. But now I can concentrate on doing what I want to do. And that’s what I need to figure out.”

From all available evidence, Donovan chose to concentrate on his profession.

There are reasons to be pessimistic about the move. Few players jump right into the EPL and are successful; Donovan could be overmatched physically; the only league he’s ever done anything in is MLS. But Donovan is no longer that naive kid that was featured in Sports Illustrated almost 10 years ago. He’s 27 and he knows if he can’t showcase his skills overseas this time he might spend the rest of his career playing clubs like the Kansas City Wizards instead of clubs like Manchester United. That should be motivation enough.

After the U.S. was drawn in Group C with England, if I could have handpicked a country from Pot 3 and Pot 4 I would have selected Algeria and Slovenia (if you don’t believe me, I worte it yesterday). For the U.S. to actually draw both those teams there was a 1/64 (1.5 percent) chance. It was the exact same odds a poker player has of hitting a runner-runner straight in Texas Holdem. In other words, the U.S. (and England too for that matter) hit the jackpot.

I’m not an expert on Algeria and Slovenia (to say the least) but I know this: neither team was dominate in qualifying; neither team has a player better than Landon Donovan; only Slovenia has been to a World Cup recently (Slovenia lost all three games in 2002; Algeria hasn’t even qualified for the African Cup of Nations since 2002); neither team is coached by a world-class manager; neither team has a player currently playing in the UEFA Champions League (neither does the U.S.); neither team is ranked in the top 25 in the latest FIFA rankings (Algeria 28th, Slovenia 33rd).

It’s fair to say the U.S. is the second best team in its group; a statement I thought would be almost impossible to make before the draw was held. Still, U.S. fans need to keep their optimism tempered.

The U.S. might be the favorite to finish second, but I’m not sure its a better than a 50 percent favorite. Think of it this way, the U.S. is up against Algeria AND Slovenia for the second spot. Is it more likely one of those countries finishes above the U.S., or is more likely the U.S. will finish above both Algeria and Slovenia. At the very least, it’s a close call.

Also, the U.S. has to face England in its first match and though Alexi Lalas and John Harkes will spend the next six month trying to convince you otherwise, the U.S. is heavy underdogs and will probably lose. So all the pressure will be on the U.S. to win two consecutive matches to advance to the second round — not easy.

Lastly, in recent history the U.S. has been the favorite in only two World Cup matches. In the U.S.’s second match of the 1998 World Cup it faced underdog Iran and lost 2-1; in the the U.S.’s final group match of the 2002 World Cup the U.S. met Poland — the Poles lost their first two matches — and the States laid an egg, losing 3-1. Being the favorite can be difficult when you’re always the underdog and it’s fair to say the U.S. will be favored against Algeria and Slovenia. That said, you always prefer to play a team worse than yours (yes, that last sentence completely killed my “being the favorite is bad” argument.)

A lot can happen in the next six months but if the U.S. can get the luck on the field that it got today, the 2010 World Cup will be a memorable one for the Americans.

Notes…

Facing England — There’s literally dozens of different angles to take on the fallout of the U.S. playing England in the first round, but here are a couple that come to mind:

1. Even the most pessimistic U.S. fans will at some point in the next six moths talk themselves into the U.S. getting a result against England. I know I will,  but when I do I’ll try to remember this: A) England’s best striker, Wayne Rooney, has scored 10 goals in the Premiership this season; the U.S.’s best striker, Jozy Altidore, has scored 0 goals in the Premiership this season. B) Fabio Capello coaches England; Bob Bradley coaches the U.S.

2. ESPN is going to promote this match with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind.

3. Sticking with ESPN, the World Wide Leader hired Martin Tyler (whose English and is the best english-speaking soccer play-by-play guy in the world) as it’s lead announcer for the World Cup. So, the U.S.-England match will be broadcasted by an Englishman to an American audience. I guarantee this is going to cause a hurricane of controversy and I hope ESPN stays strong and keeps Tyler for the match. Going from Tyler to J.P. Dellacamera is like going from John Terry to Carlos Bocanegra.

4. How will the American players be treated in England in the next six months? I don’t think home supporters will turn on their own players, but Americans should brace themselves for some abuse when they go on the road.

5. The 1950 match between the two teams will be brought up 9,243,741,802 times.

6. How great would it be if the U.S. won? It would make the Spain victory look miniscule.

The Group of Death — Of course Group G (Brazil, North Korea, Ivory Coast and Portugal) is the group everyone is talking about. I think Brazil is considerably better than the Ivory Coast and Portugal but the fight for second will be interesting. It might come down to who beat North Korea by more goals. (Note: I was so disappointed when I found out North Korea was in the same Pot at the U.S. I so wanted the two countries to meet; that would be something.)

ESPN draw coverage — Wasn’t terrible. There was no chemistry between Bob Levy, Alexi Lalas, Steve McManaman and Efan Ekoku, but they probably just all met each other. Levy is a pro and I’m happy he’s anchoring the coverage.

It’s getting old tearing apart Lalas and Harkes but someone has to speak out. It’s so uncomfortable watching them. It’s like going to an elementary school play and one of the kids can’t remember his or her line, you just feel bad for them. Lalas has always dislike against England, but him acting like this England team is terribly overrated is simply being uninformed. Harkes was even worse. He looked straight into the camera and with as serious a face as he could manage, said, “I think it’s going to be a draw.” You think it’s going to be a draw? One team is full of world-class players with a world-class coach and the other team is the U.S. It’s O.K. to say, “the U.S. has a chance for a draw,” or even, “if the U.S. plays really well, catches England on a bad day and gets a little luck, the U.S. could win,” but saying a draw is the likely outcome is crazy.

The interviews with Jeremy Schapp were solid (who knew Javier Agurie spoke such great English) and the highlight of the three-hour program was Levy’s interview with Tyler. Tyler is so lucid and professional you can’t get enough of him. There’s no way ESPN will make Harkes his color guy, right? Please someone convince me ESPN won’t do that to us.

Charlize Theron — Someone told her to go up there an act naturally, but it didn’t work. All her little comments made the whole draw process awkward. I thought Theron could literally do anything and it would be watchable — I was wrong.

“This is the day we’ve been waiting for. Trying to make predictions before the draw is foolish because no one knows who’s playing who. It’s all about matchups! Depending on the group, the U.S. could be a strong quarterfinal candidate or it might be a candidate to leave South Africa without a point. This is so exciting! Finally we’re going to know what the U.S. chances are at the 2010 World Cup.”

This, ladies and gentleman, is bullshit.

The World Cup draw is exciting, but unless something really strange happens we already know the U.S. will either be the third or fourth best team in their group. If someone just broke into your house while reading this, put a gun to your head, and said, “Will the U.S. get out of their group at the 2010 World Cup? If you’re right you live, if you’re wrong you die.” You could say, without even knowing the groups, the U.S. won’t advance to the Round of 16 and feel somewhat confident you’ll live.

Why? For one, the U.S. has been decimated by injuries. Charlie Davies won’t play and Oguchi Onyewu, Maurice Edu and Jermaine Jones remain question marks. Onyewu is the critical player. With Onyewu, the U.S. is a respectable national team that can pull off an upset; without Onyewu the U.S. is one of the bottom six teams at the World Cup.

The second reason is the draw has too many land mines. The U.S. could hit the jackpot and get South Africa but the U.S. could still be placed with teams like Portugal and Ghana. If that scenario happened (which would be fantastic) the U.S. would still be the third best team in the group. I’m not a mathematician, but it’s quite unlikely even the biggest U.S. homer will consider the U.S. the second best team in its group after Friday’s draw.

(Note to commentators: Unless the U.S. is clearly the worse team in the group, do not say the U.S. is in a “Group of Death.” True, if the U.S. is stuck with Brazil, Denmark and Uruguay, the U.S. is in a terrible group but it’s only a “Group of Death” if all four teams are worried about advancing. There’s a 70 percent chance Alexi Lalas will call the U.S.’s group the “Group of Death.”)

That’s the bad news; time to make this column more optimistic. Just because the U.S. will probably be facing a terribly difficult situation, doesn’t mean we can’t root for an easy path to the Second Round. So when you’re at work Friday trying to watch the draw without your boss noticing, this is what you should root for:

1. South Africa! South Africa! South Africa! — There’s a 12.5 percent chance the U.S. could draw the host country and it would be a huge break. The eight teams in Pot 1 are made up of the top seven ranked teams in the world and South Africa — ranked 85th. The South Africans looked mediocre at best at the Confederations Cup last summer and it’s hard to imagine it being in the World Cup if it weren’t the host. That said, a host country has never missed the Second Round and if the U.S. played South Africa in the opening match of the tournament, South Africa would most likely be the favorite. Still, we want South Africa!

2. No Ivory Coast! Yes Algeria! — Most likely the team placed in the U.S.’s group from Pot 3 will get a, “Well, that’s not too bad” response. Ivory Coast is the exception. Could you imagine Carlos Bocanegra marking Didier Drogba? It would be such a massacre the United Nations would have to get involved. Not just Drogba, but the Ivory Coast has a solid squad throughout its roster (there’s a reason why a lot of people are picking them as their sleeper). The best case scenario is Algeria, which is coming off an impressive victory over Egypt but has more holes in its roster than the U.S.

The other six teams are a toss up to me. I’ve watched most of them play a couple times (Chile impresses me) but I think the U.S. could easily hold its own against any of them. Cameroon (which I haven’t seen play) might be the weakest of the bunch, but I wouldn’t be jumping for joy to play against Samuel Eto’o. 

3. No France, Portugal or Denmark — Pot 4 will determine if the U.S. is in a hard group or a borderline impossible group. France might be struggling, but they still have as much talent as anyone in the tournament. Portugal has the second best player in the world and has a lot of pace and talent throughout the team. Some people might think getting Denmark might not be the worse thing in the world, but the Danes were fantastic in qualifying and dismantled a weak U.S. team a couple weeks ago. The best case scenario for the U.S. in Pot 4 is getting one of the four S’s: Slovakia, Serbia, Slovenia (which would be best) or Switzerland (which would be second best). Greece is nothing to fear either.

If two of the three above break the U.S.’s way, it will be in a decent shape. The U.S. probably won’t win the South Africa lottery and it probably won’t get stuck with the Ivory Coast, so it comes down to Pot 4 and missing France, Portugal and Denmark.

Anyway, what’s important for the U.S. right now is getting healthy (and staying healthy), having at least one out of no where player emerge (the 2010 Charlie Davies) and building confidence going into next summer.

Bill Simmons interviewed Landon Donovan on his podcast about two weeks ago and an interesting question was raised in the final minute.

If U.S. soccer wanted to play all or most of its matches in one city, like most countries around the world, what city should be America’s “home” city?

It’s a good “that would be cool but it will never happen” question. But who cares, let’s answer it anyway.

First, we need to establish some criteria for the ideal city.

1. Size — This might sound like a given, but it’s important not to overlook. The city — or to be more exact, the metropolitan area — must be somewhat large. More people means there’s a better chance the matches sell out, there’s an avid soccer base and the city has the infrastructure to handle thousands of visiting fans. This hurts Salt Lake City (which hits on a lot of the other criteria) since only 1.1 million people live in the metropolitan area, ranking 49th in the United States. Size is a plus for all the major cities: New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, etc.

2. Demographics — More of your fans + less of their fans = a better chance your team wins. It make sense, right? The U.S. would win more matches in Columbus than Dallas because they’re less Latinos in Central Ohio than Central Texas. It makes sense, but I’m not 100 percent sure its accurate. In matches that matter (World Cup qualifiers) the U.S. has done well everywhere (with the exception of RFK Stadium) so it’s hard to know if there’s a correlation between home team support and points won.

Also, if you’re going to pick a home city, it’s important to visualize what the city is going to be like 50 years from now. Though many Latinos currently identify with their, or their parents, native country, this will change as more and more generations are raised in the United States. My grandparents were from Ireland, but if the Irish played the U.S. in the World Cup I’m rooting for my country, America. Cities that are closest to Central America: Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and Miami will become less hostile over time.

That said, after watching the Gold Cup final in New York it would be silly to overlook the demographics issue. I’m just saying it’s not the be all and end all some might think it is.

3. Location — The farther East the city, the better the location. Most of the U.S. players are playing in Europe, so traveling from London to Boston is a lot easier than London to San Francisco. Other CONCACAF countries top players also play in Europe, so it  evens out, but your players might start dreading national team duty if they’re taking 11-hour flights every couple weeks.

4. Stadium — Ideally, the city chosen would already have a suitable stadium. Of course, it would be great if a city builds a 52,000-seat soccer stadium specifically for the USMNT, but it’s probably not realistic. Therefore, the city needs to have at least a 50,000 seat stadium ready to go. Seattle and Kansas City get points because their stadiums (Quest Field and Arrowhead) gives its teams a great home-field advantage (it gets loud) and Dallas gets points for the having the coolest stadium (Cowboys Stadium) on the planet.

5. Fans — The city needs to fully embrace the team. Ten years ago, I think this could be a serious problem but it seems like U.S. sports fans are getting off the “I’m too good for soccer” soap box. I have no scientific evidence of this, but I do think soccer is quite popular in the Northwest, West Coast, Midwest and Southeast; kind of popular in the Northeast and Rockies; not that popular — compared to the other places — in the South and Upper Midwest.

So that’s my criteria. After going through the cities, there isn’t one “Oh, this clearly has to be it” city. Every city is flawed, but I do think No. 1 is the best choice. Here’s the Top 5.

5. Charlotte
Size: C
Demographics: B
Location: B
Stadium: C
Fans: C

The first city that came to mind when I heard the question, and I tried to convince myself this was it. In short, it’s not. There’s just nothing great about Charlotte. It’s a convenient location and the demographics are U.S. friendly, but that’s not good enough. Bank of America stadium is average at best and with a capacity of 73,504 I doubt it would be packed when Trinidad and Tobago came to town. North Carolina is a soccer friendly state but its never had an Major League Soccer team and I can’t think of an important U.S. match ever taking place there. Plus, it’s Charlotte.

4. Kansas City
Size: C
Demographics: B
Location: C
Stadium: B
Fans: C

Kansas City is compelling. It’s the U.S.’s 29th biggest metropolitan area (over 2 million people and less than 10 percent are Latino), it has one of the most underrated stadiums in the U.S. (Arrowhead) and the barbecue is world-class. A sticking point is Kansas City never really embraced its MLS team (though the team never really gave it reason to) and the location isn’t ideal. Like Charlotte, there’s nothing really wrong about Kansas City but there’s nothing really right about it either.

3. Dallas
Size: A
Demographics: F
Location: C
Stadium: A
Fans: B

The U.S. moving to Cowboys Stadium would give Jerry Jones the chance to rename his masterpiece “America’s Stadium” and that by itself is a good enough reason. Dallas could be a cash cow for U.S. soccer. True, the stadium will be nicknamed “Azteca North,” but with 6 million people living in the Dallas area there won’t be a lot of empty seats. Though FC Dallas isn’t the most well supported team in MLS, Texans love soccer and quite a few national team players have come from the Lone Star state. If Dallas had the same demographics of Green Bay this would easily be No. 1.

2. St. Louis
Size: B
Demographics: B
Location: C
Stadium: D
Fans: A

If you build it, they will come. The NFL stadium in St. Louis is the Edward Jones Dome and, as you might of guessed, it’s a dome (it’s a crappy dome too). That won’t work. If U.S. soccer wanted to build it’s own soccer only stadium, St. Louis is the place. It’s a sports crazed town, the people are patriotic, they like soccer but have never had a team, the location is in the heart of America, it’s white (this is beginning to sound racist) and nearly 3 million people live in the area. St. Louis is nearly perfect except for that stupid dome! So that leaves…

1. Seattle
Size: B
Demographics: B
Location: F
Stadium: A
Fans: A

This was Bill Simmons’ suggestion and I quickly dismissed it, saying, “it’s too far away.” But after looking at the other cities, I came to realize Seattle’s strengths out weigh its location next to the Pacific Ocean: Seattle is the 15 largest metropolitan area (3.3 million people); Latinos makeup just 6.2 percent of the population; Quest Field is one of the few new stadiums that visiting teams hate to play in (the NFL’s Seahawks have dominated at Quest); this past year, Seattleites proved they are the most soccer crazed city in the U.S.

Most importantly, Seattle would love being the home of U.S. men’s soccer. It goes with the city’s counter-culture image and fans would strive to make Seattle one of toughest places to play in the world. The fans go wild when the Sounders play the Dynamo; how will they act when the U.S. plays Mexico? It would be like a Duke-North Carolina men’s basketball game except with 50,000 more fans.

As great as Quest Field is, there is one flaw — the playing surface. Unlike American football, soccer doesn’t work as well on FieldTurf as it does on grass. A grass field would have to replace the fake stuff. This doesn’t seem like a major problem until you remember Seattle is the rain capital of the U.S., so keeping a grass field in good condition would be challenge. That said, it’s a doable challenge.

The big question is: Should U.S. soccer play its matches in one stadium? I don’t think so. I think it’s cool the team goes to the different regions of the U.S. to play its matches, letting fans from across the country see them play. So why did I waste my time figuring out the best city to be the U.S. soccer capital if I don’t think there should be a soccer capital in the first place? Because, I’m bored and I thought it would be fun…so there!

So is Seattle the best city? Did I miss one? Is this a stupid topic to write 1,500 words on? Are you disappointed this site isn’t dead?

But let me reiterate, this team Bob Bradley selected was bad. If this exact lineup plays against Hondurus Oct. 10 the U.S. loses by at least two goals (I think U.S. is the underdog against Honduras no matter what the lineup is). That said, the Americans left the Port-of-Spain with three points and that’s what’s important.

To the grades…

GK Tim Howard — If Howard played for T&T and Clayton Ince played for the U.S., I think the final score would have been 1-0 Soca Warriors. Howard made a fantastic diving save and a couple other decent stops. He’ll have to be even better if the U.S. hopes to leave Honduras with a point in a month. Grade: B+

RB Jonathan Spector — He hasn’t played a good game, for club or country, since the U.S. beat Spain in June. His agility is lacking and when he faces a fast winger like Carlos Edwards he gets beat every time. I used to wonder if he can play left back (if you saw him against Tottenham you understand why I don’t wonder anymore) but now I’m curious if he might best at center back. Grade: C-

CB Oguchi Onyewu — In the second half, Onyewu looked like Onyewu. In the first half, he looked like a player who hasn’t played a competitive match in a month. I thought Onyewu would be a starter for AC Milan, but after a poor preseason the U.S.’s best defender (maybe player) has done a lot of sitting for the Italian giants. Milan was creamed by Inter in its last match, so maybe Leonardo will give Onyewu a chance. If he doesn’t , U.S. fans should worry. Since Onyewu has been with the national team, he has always been a starter for his club team. Grade: B

CB Carlos Bocanegra — I never feel good completely ripping someone apart, so I want to say this first.

From everything I can tell, Bocanegra is a great guy. He didn’t become captain on accident and whenever I see him interviewed he comes across as a cool, intelligent dude. So, Carlos, if for some strange reason you’re reading this, it’s nothing personal.

With that out of the way, Bocanegra should never play center back for the U.S. again. He’s a disaster. Cornell Glen abused him and the U.S. was very lucky it didn’t result in a goal or two. Not just against T&T, but he’s been a bad center defender for three or four years now (remember how Premier League forwards dominated him a couple years ago?). He can’t mark, he can’t clear the ball and he can’t complete long balls to the forwards. He really can’t do much. Bob Bradley isn’t an idiot (no, really, he isn’t) and he knows Bocanegra is hurting the team emmesley. Unless the U.S. is devastated with injuries at center back, there is no reason why Bradley should start Bocanegra in the middle again. Still, Bocanegra probably doesn’t have to worry about a World Cup spot because…Grade: F

LB Jonathan Bornstien — Bocanegra can (sorta) play left back. One day, Jonathan Bornstien might become an adequate international left back. That day probably isn’t coming anytime soon. Bradley obviously wants to make Bornstien his guy — starting him the last two matches — but the 24-year-old looks completely and consistently out of his depth. He has no confidence on the ball right now, and he showed that against T&T as he was unable to link up with Donovan on his wing. Maybe Bradley has 10-step plan to get Bornstien ready for the World Cup, but even if he does, I doubt it works. Grade: D

RM Clint Dempsey — It was about eight matches too late, but John Harkes finally realized Dempsey has the work ethic of college freshman. I want to rename him Demitar Dempsey. It’s interesting to think what Dempsey’s internationl career would like if he didn’t head home the third goal in the U.S.’s 3-0 victory over Egypt. Before that goal, Dempsey’s performance in the Confederations Cup was a disgrace (it was physically hard to watch him in the first match against Brazil). But that goal lead to another goal against Spain and another one against Brazil and another one against El Salvador. For all of his walking around, he does score goals — an attribute that shouldn’t be underestimated on this team — but when he doesn’t score a goal he brings very little to the match. Grade: D+

CM Ricardo Clark — Clark was so bad in this match — his defending was disgraceful —  I litterally thought Tim Howard had a better chance of scoring a goal than he did. At times I really don’t think he knew what to do or where to be. Throw in Feilhaber as Bradley’s second favorite option (I personally prefer Beckerman) and Maurice Edu and Jermaine Jones can’t get healthy soon enough. Oh, yeah, almost forgot — nice goal. Grade: C

CM Michael Bradley — Like Onyewu, it’s difficult to have a good game when the guy next to you has no business being on the field. Excuses aside, Bradley didn’t play well. Being so young it’s understandable that he lacks consistencey, the problem with the U.S. national team is if Bradley doesn’t play well the entire team is trouble. Grade: D+

LM Landon Donovan — He’s getting too good for this team. You can almost see him out there thinking, “seriously guys, what are you doing?” His runs and passes were world-class on a team that was MLS-class. If he can keep this form up and two or three other key players are playing well next summer, the U.S. has a legitamate chance making it to the quarterfinals. Grade: B+

FW Jozy Altidore — A couple years from now, people are going to be saying, “Remember when we thought Charlie Davies might be a better player than Jozy? (light laughter) How ridiculous was that!” Altidore’s pace, strength and technical ability was on full display against T&T. He was connecting really well with Donovan and had no trouble taking on defenders and beating them. He isn’t going to set the Premier League on fire (eight goals would be pretty good) but he deserves to be playing in the best league in the world. Grade: B

FW Charlie Davies — Never really had a chance to show off his blinding speed and I can’t even thing of a half chance he had on goal. Not his best performance, but without a doubt he should still be considered the No. 2 striker on this team. Grade: C-

Subs

CM Benny Feilhaber (62) — Made one nifty pass which set an opportunity and that’s about all you can expect from him. As people who have read IntelligentSoccer.com before, I believe Feilhaber is terrible overrated but it worth mentioning his club team in Denmark, AGF, is undefeated in its first seven matches this season. (came on for Altidore) Grade: C

FW Brain Ching (76) — Other than experience, he doesn’t bring anything to the national team. The things is, the U.S.’s pool of forwards is so thin its hard to argue that he shouldn’t be a late sub. (came on Davies) Grade: Inc

MF Stuart Holden (81) — I’m all for him starting over Dempsey and using Dempsey as the third forward — who’s with me? (came on for Dempsey) Grade: Inc

Coach Bob Bradley — Not putting Bocanegra on the left and Chad Marshall in the middle was a mistake. Try Bornstien out when you qualify and the games don’t matter anymore, until then, leave him on the bench. When it comes to tactics, Bradley should have figured out a way to hold the ball. Instead, especially Clark and Bradley, the U.S. looked like chicken with their heads cut off. It’s hard to know who to blame, the players or the coach, but Bradley certainly deserves some responsibility. Grade: D+

ESPN coverage — How long are we going to have to endure John Harkes? Is he really going broadcast World Cup matches? I wonder what ESPN executives think when watching him work? Are they really telling themselves, wow he’s really good? There’s no way they think that, right?

Now time for some constructive critisim.

John, you have stop using the word “enjoy” once every ten minutes: “He’s enjoying his soccer,” or “He’s enjoying himself out there.” You can say something like that once in two hours, but that’s it.

Also, don’t just describe what we just saw. This isn’t radio. When the U.S. wins a corner kick, don’t say, “Donovan kicked the ball off the defender for a corner kick.” We know he kicked the ball off a defender for a corner kick. I know it’s hard, but not saying anything is sometimes the best thing to do.

Third. Don’t be afraid to say what Bob Bradley should do. If the U.S.’s central midfielders aren’t playing well, tell us what Bradley could do tactically to change things up. Don’t be afraid to play coach.

That’s three things to work on, I don’t want to overwhelm you (if someone know Harkes, please forward).

U.S. chances for qualification — It’s looking good but it’s far from assured. I really don’t think the U.S. will get anything from the trip to Honduras. The U.S. has proven it’s not a very good road team and Honduras’ talent is at least close to even with the U.S. If the U.S does lose, that means the U.S. will probably have to tie Costa Rica to stay in in the top 3. It should be able to do that, but anything can happen in one match. Still, if it finishes fourth, they still have a chance against a South American club (most likely Argentina) but the U.S. will probably be a slight underdog no matter who they face. Put all of it together, and I say the U.S. has a 90 percent chance of being in South Africa.

Argentina — Someone should give Jose Mourinho a call. If he is offered the job, is there anyway he doesn’t take it? Would Inter get rid of him if he balances an international schedule for one year? I think the answer to both questions is no. Mourinho loves being loved and the chance to become a national hero and win a World Cup would be too much to turn down. Inter would suck it up so they could keep the best manager in the world. It’s very possible, probably likely, there’s a clause in his contract say ing he can’t take an international job, but if there isn’t then this make too much sense.

EPL Betting Challenge — I nailed all three matches in the last round to give myself some breathing room. Here are this weeks picks (remember all picks are $10):

Blackburn (-125) over visiting Wolves
Sunderland (-133) over visiting Hull
Fulham (+215) draws visiting Everton

Season Review:

Record: 7-2
Money:  63.60 (started with $50)

Going to make this quick this week.

Week 3 picks (remember all bets are $10):

Liverpool to beat host Bolton (-200)
Wolves to draw visiting Hull (+220)
Aston Villa to beat visiting Fulham (-142)

Last week review:

Manchester United to beat host Wigan (-200) — ManU 5, WIG 0 (WIN, $5.00)
Arsenal to beat visiting Portsmouth (-625) — ARS 4, POR 1 (WIN, $1.60)
Sunderland to draw visiting Blackburn (+225) — SUN 2, BLA 1 (LOSS, $10)

Season Review:

Record: 4-2
Money: $39.60 (started with $50)