Déjà vu: It’s back to 1989 for U.S. men in World Cup qualifying

By Stan Johnston

The next two World Cup qualifiers for the U.S. Men’s National Team are its biggest games in 28 years. Nobody wants to say it, but failure to qualify for Russia 2018 would be a major setback for America’s soccer program, athletes and professional leagues. Welcome to 1989.

If you have followed the ups and downs of soccer progress in America over the past 30 years, the current situation facing the USMNT is déjà vu. Like this year’s team, the 1989 group entered its final two games needing points to qualify for the World Cup (Italia ’90). Back then the U.S. men hadn’t qualified for the tournament in 40 years – a source of major embarrassment because America had been picked to host the 1994 World Cup. (Elite nations panic at a four-year absence.)

I was among the sports writers covering the team as it trained at St. Louis Soccer Park in Fenton ahead of those 1989 qualifiers. The U.S. had gotten four tough points on the road, beating El Salvador and tying Guatemala. A win over El Salvador in St. Louis would ensure they qualified – in front of a home crowd to boot. But like this year’s team, the 1989 version didn’t do things the easy way. I was among about 8,500 who watched the Americans struggle to a 0-0 tie. That meant the USMNT had to go on the road and beat a tough Trinidad & Tobago team in Port of Spain four days later.

The Americans won 1-0 on a dramatic Paul Cagliuri goal in the 30th minute. Media dubbed it the “Shot Heard Around the World.” It was true in the world of soccer then, because it put U.S. players in front of a global audience for the first time in a generation. It also changed the trajectory of American soccer and paved the way for today’s programs at every level.

What can we learn from the 1989 experience (other than to win)? Not much, because the teams were very different. All 26 men on the current roster play on professional clubs. Only two of the 1989 starters were professional players (Caliguri and Peter Vermes). The rest were college or semi-pro players. They had virtually no professional options in the States because the original North American Soccer League had collapsed in 1983 and Major League Soccer (MLS) wasn’t formed until 1993.

Despite their differences, the teams faced the same challenge: Two games left and needing points to qualify to represent the CONCACAF region. This time it’s a home match against a good Panama team two weeks from Friday (Oct. 6) and a road match at Trinidad & Tobago four days later. To fully make this déjà vu, the Americans would tie Panama and be forced to win at Port of Spain again – this time to avoid missing the tournament for the first time since, well, the 1989 team played there.

The 2017 men’s team has evolved into a big bet by U.S. Soccer that American MLS players are ready for prime time

The impact of not qualifying would be felt most by MLS. The 2017 men’s team has evolved into a big bet by U.S. Soccer that American MLS players are ready for prime time. In their last two games, the 26-man U.S. roster featured 19 MLS players – including all three goalies and four of the five forwards. That weighting was ensured when Bruce Arena was named to replace Jürgen Klinsmann, who had encouraged top young American players to cut their teeth in Europe. Arena, former coach of the Los Angeles Galaxy and USMNT, responded as expected by picking mostly MLS players.

To be fair, Arena has done a good job on many levels. He especially understands the inconsistencies you face in international soccer – from player quality and conditioning to officiating and field conditions. Having been a successful coach at both the country and professional levels, he was a calming influence at a critical point. That being said, the U.S. men have come to a familiar crossroads: They must get points in the next two games – and some breaks in other games – or they will miss the World Cup.

Why is that so important to the national program? It means the sport’s most prestigious event would take place without a single U.S. athlete on the screen the entire three weeks. That lack of exposure for America’s players and its top domestic league would have a tangible impact. Athletes would lose endorsement money and bargaining power. The MLS would lose TV revenue from devalued contracts and loss of interest from markets outside the U.S. But most of all, the stacking of the USMNT with players from MLS means their success – and failure – have become intrinsically linked, by design.

It’s a big risk. The U.S. could get in the tournament, make a worldwide impression and boost the reputation the top American domestic league. Or it could fail to qualify, go dark from the world soccer stage during its biggest event and reinforce the global perception of MLS as a nice place for former European stars to retire (but not a league for serious players). Most important, emerging U.S. stars such as Christian Pulisic who play in Europe could miss the opportunity to win the hearts of a growing domestic fan base.

Ironically, MLS players have played key roles for Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama during this qualifying cycle. But MLS is a U.S.- based league and needs to build the visibility of home-grown stars to endure long-term (ask the original NASL). Success will come when the nation’s top male athletes choose to play soccer, and to do it at home. That is still far from a given in America today.

The good news: The next generation of U.S. men will become its best ever (a subject for a future blog). Unfortunately, what happens in the next two games will have a huge impact on their future. Let’s hope it’s truly déjà vu, and that over the next month someone energizes soccer in America with a new shot heard around the world.

In a previous life, Stan Johnston was an award-winning newspaper writer and editor. That included covering the match Nov. 5, 1989, for the St. Louis Sun.

World Cup champions show my company how to win after suffering setbacks

I like sports metaphors – in part because I love competitive sports, and in part because I started my career as a sports journalist. While covering events such as the Super Bowl and World Series, I watched teams rise and fall. Some even found a way to rise yet again (except for the Chicago Cubs, of course).

A wonderful recent example is the U.S. women’s national soccer/football team, which won the World Cup on Sunday by beating Japan 5-2. As the team was being showered with confetti from above, cheers from the crowd, and praise from the announcers, I thought back to a very different scene four years ago. Then the Japanese women were celebrating and the U.S. women were in tears.

It made me consider how good organizations emerge from adversity stronger.

In 2011, the U.S. women led the championship game until giving up a late tying goal. Then in the penalty phase, player after player failed to execute. The team lost and was devastated. A year later, head coach and leader Pia Sundhage announced she was leaving. That was followed by off-field controversies around players like goalie Hope Solo, who also publicly criticized new coach Greg Ryan. That led to yet another coaching change, with Jill Ellis taking over last year.

The team had many doubters and more detractors entering World Cup 2015. Was this generation of American women past its prime? Would they come up short again and forever live in the shadow of the ’99 championship team?

When your performance is public record, you have nowhere to hide if you stumble. You also have to expect mistakes will be examined and criticized in a public way. Sure, it’s more fun when they gush over you for winning – as the world did on Sunday with the U.S. women. But many of those same pundits were calling for their heads four years ago.

So how did the team battle back from that major setback?

Most important, they never stopped believing in themselves and each other. They determined to remain positive and confident.  They returned to the fundamentals that brought them success in the first place. But they also were willing to change. They bought in a new coach and new talent, such as Julie Johnston (not that her last name matters). They tested new formations and began using longtime stars like Abby Wambach off the bench.

They also didn’t fall into the blame game. No one coach or player lost the World Cup final in 2011. They recognized every person in their organization had a role in its results.

I feel the same way about where my company (NetApp) is today. Our “coach” has changed recently, and our performance is under public scrutiny. But the responsibility falls on every employee – not just the CEO. Since the key issue is execution, like it was for the U.S. women in 2011, I think NetApp can learn from that team’s experience:

We must believe in ourselves and teammates. Stay positive. Be confident about our ability to help customers succeed. Get back to fundamentals while being open to change. But most important, every person in the organization has to make a commitment to give their best. Nothing less will get it done.

In business, it’s naive to believe you will only have confetti moments. Eventually you experience defeat. In those moments, the best teams form a collective determination to change the outcome next time. The U.S. women had to wait four years for their chance.

Our moment is now. And I like our odds.

Stan Johnston, strategic messaging manager for NetApp, was sports editor of The Sacramento Bee and St. Louis Sun in a previous life.

Upcoming World Cup in Brazil will be an inflection point for soccer in America

Jergen Klinsmann understands the stakes in Brazil.

In the technology industry, we often talk about “inflection points” – events that change how people behave so much they affect progress, positive or negative. Those inflection points include the advent of the Internet and mobile smart phones. The upcoming World Cup in Brazil is an inflection point for soccer in the United States.

Last week the U.S. Men’s National Team head coach showed he knows this is a crucial moment by cutting its best-known player, Landon Donovan. Coach Jürgen Klinsmann put his chances of winning ahead of popularity, and the present ahead of the past. “I have to choose the 23 best players based on what I see today,” said Klinsmann.

The debate among Donovan supporters, of course, is what defines the “best” players. Donovan is certainly one of the top 23 players in terms of skills. However, this team is designed for a run in the tropics, not the suburbs of L.A. This is a month-long tournament in grueling humidity of up to 99 percent in northwest Brazil this time of year. It starts with three games in three cities over two weeks of group play (June 12-26). The second stage – the round of 16, quarterfinals and semifinals – runs from June 28 to July 9. The championship game is July 13 in Rio De Janeiro.

Landon Donovan admitted he was behind in fitness, a key player assessment issue for Brazil.

Michael Bradley, the most talented and important U.S. player in Brazil, understands clearly what is needed: “For us to go into a World Cup and have a real chance at making a run, we’ve got to be the fittest team there,” he said after a 2-2 draw with Mexico in April.

When Klinsmann said other players had a slight edge over Donovan, he wasn’t talking about skill on penalty kicks. The coach clearly knows player fitness will be a differentiator in this tournament, and the stakes are far too high to compromise on that.

It’s such an important moment, I believe it’s what Intel co-founder Andy Grove once called “a strategic inflection point … an event that changes the way we think and act.” In world football, the World Cup has the weight to do that in entire countries, impacting the perception of the sport and even the nation for years by its sheer mass of worldwide interest and exposure.

Many consider the U.S. failure to get out of its group stage in 2006 to be a negative inflection point, after a young 2002 team that included Donovan and DaMarcus Beasley got to the quarterfinals. I witnessed one of the positive inflection points in the late 1970s, when Pelé came to the New York Cosmos to help kick-start the North American Soccer League. The upcoming World Cup is such a moment for soccer in America for two reasons:

It’s time to show progress or retool.

Even after cutting Donovan, this may be the most experienced, capable and competitive men’s team the U.S. has ever fielded top to bottom. The whole world knows it. Yes, they’re in a tough group in Brazil. But there are no excuses at this point. I appreciate the fact Klinsmann understands that. With veterans like Bradley, Clint Dempsey and Tim Howard along with a fit and underrated bench, failure to get out of group stage would be a setback for the domestic development program and recruitment of players with dual nationalities. Winners want to play with winners.

It could impact professional soccer in America for years.

Grove also talked about inflection points in industries – say, Major League Soccer, the top American/Canadian professional league. With 10 MLS players on the 23-man team, the reputation of the league will be impacted by their performance in Brazil. Players like Dempsey and Bradley have made recent high-profile moves to MLS from top European leagues. They could gain significant credibility for MLS if the U.S. men’s team could get to the second stage. Failure to get out of group stage would be a PR disaster for MLS, validating its reputation of being a nice place to retire – and significantly affecting its negotiating position in contracts.

Michael Bradley is the most important and talented U.S. player in Brazil.

As far as inflection points, it’s not the fall of the Berlin Wall or landing on the moon. It’s not even as far-reaching as the invention of the curling iron. But this is a turning point for the worldwide reputation of U.S. soccer on several levels, and everybody knows it.

Like all good inflection points, this will be driven by one key event. The good news: About six weeks from now we’ll have clear winners and losers. There are no ties in this game. Klinsmann gets that, and I’m grateful.

In the end, the progress of soccer in America over the next four years will rise or fall on the won-loss record of one team in one tournament. Oh, and it’s against the world’s best players in withering conditions. Such is the way of competitive sport. At this level, you have to earn respect every day. Just ask Donovan.

byStanley is written by Stan Johnston. He started his career as an award-winning newspaper writer and editor. Currently he is on the global marketing team of NetApp, a Fortune 500 technology company based in the Silicon Valley.

Revive major-league baseball with Europe’s relegation system of demoting losers

Compelling sports drama played out across Europe the past few weeks as professional soccer leagues ended their regular seasons. But the drama wasn’t just in title races. For many teams it was a fight for survival at the bottom of a system called “relegation” – a polite way of saying you’re demoted to the minor leagues. Not just individuals. They kick out entire teams and their communities. And it might be just what major-league baseball needs.

The relegation system could boost interest in major-league baseball, and not just by bringing more teams into the playoff race. It brings a “Hunger Games” mentality as the pressure mounts on at-risk teams, players, managers, owners, and even entire communities – facing the potential of seeing only minor-league teams the following year.

In European club soccer, a late-season game among the bottom four teams can draw as high a TV audience as the top four. Best-case scenario is when one of the endangered teams knocks somebody out of the title race.

Here is how relegation works, with England’s Premier League as an example:

The Premier League has 20 teams. At the end of the regular season, the top four teams qualify for the best European playoffs – the UEFA Champions League. (The Champions League title game on May 43 will draw a higher global TV audience than the Super Bowl.)  Where it gets interesting is the other end of the standings, or “fixture.” In the EPL, the final teams are “relegated” to the next level down of professional “football.” In major-league baseball (MLB) terms, that would be Triple-A ball.

Consider the possibilities If Major League Baseball had implemented a similar last season, relegating the final four:

That means MLB would have lost teams in Chicago, Miami and Houston and replaced them with teams from the Research Triangle Park area of North Carolina, a small resort town called the “Pearl” of Mexico’s Yucatan’s gulf coast, the capital of Mexico’s major coastal state (Oaxaca), and the family sin capital of the United States.  It actually would make sense if the final four teams also qualified for a regional professional baseball tournament of champions – with teams from Cuba, Puerto Rica, Mexico, Panama and other countries.

Obviously that won’t happen. Why? You don’t earn your way into the MLB. You buy your way in. (OK, some may say Manchester City bought its way to the title this year, but that’s another blog.) Baseball still sees itself as the American game, ruled by tradition on and off the diamond. That means changes like this take generations. Just the facts.

While a lack of accountability on a club level does offer fans security by guaranteeing their team will be in the league (if not in that city) next year, it also reduces the drama and new opportunities that could be generated.

On the other hand, as a lifelong St. Louis Cardinals fan I understand a relegation system in the MLB would almost assure we would lose the Chicago Cubs to the International League for long stretches. Who else would I love to hate after so long? I guess the status quo has advantages.

byStanley is written by Stan Johnston. He started his career as an award-winning newspaper writer and editor. Currently he is on the global marketing team of NetApp, a Fortune 500 technology company based in the Silicon Valley.

Very Superstitious: Instead of results, our rituals offer comfort – and sometimes magic

When a young baseball player came off the bench during this year’s World Series as a pinch-runner and promptly got picked off first base for the game’s final out, most people thought it was a twist of fate. But some are certain it was because they were watching – or not. As Stevie Wonder put it: “When you believe in things that you don’t understand, then you suffer.”

Growing up in St. Louis, I purposely stepped on every sidewalk crack – just to irritate the other kids. Maybe that’s why I always chose number 13 as a sports jersey. And it’s why I scoffed at recent national ad campaign saying “it’s only weird if it doesn’t work.” Truth is, it’s only weird if it does work.

My mother often was convinced her beloved Cardinals won – or lost – depending on whether she had been watching or listening. Being a good Baptist, she would never ascribe it to occult powers (unless they lost to the Cubs). However, she had no problem asking for divine intervention when it came to the Redbirds. Fortunately, her pride or guilt usually only lasted until the next game. Unfortunately, her superstition has become a family curse.

I confess that when I watch them lose now, just for a moment afterward I wonder. Would they have won if I hadn’t watched? The level of superstition in our lives ranges wildly – from feelings about sidewalk cracks and broken mirrors to an affinity for hanging garlic and wearing a crucifix just in case. Call it juju, random chance, or que sera. It’s about aligning the stars your direction.

Few areas of our world have more performance-enhancing rituals than sports – especially baseball. In that ill-fated World Series, my beloved Cardinals lost a tough home Game 5 to the Boston Red Sox. It meant the Redbirds had to head back to Boston down 3-2 in the seven-game series. Nobody was panicking. The Cardinals had rookie phenom Michael Wacha pitching, and he had yet to lose a post-season game.

But things started going awry for the Cardinals before they even stepped on the field. The morning of their flight to Boston, the plane was delayed for hours. Other odd things began to happen – and extended into the game, when St. Louis crumbled and Wacha was hammered as Boston won the clincher.

Sure, it all could have been coincidence. It also could have been a hex. We all know New Englanders are into witchcraft. And let’s face it, most athletes would wear the same clothes for weeks without washing if they thought it was a talisman of success. You know the rationale: “I swore I wouldn’t wash my jock as long as we were in first place. No big deal. Only been three months.”

Seriously, how many baseball announcers still refuse to say a pitcher has a no-hitter going late in a game for fear of jinxing it? How many players on a hitting streak sleep with their bat, or spit on their hands before picking it up? Do you really think that wad of gum stuck on the shortstop’s hat is for chewing? Ever notice how many softball players avoid stepping on the baseline coming off the field? The good news: If you have an evil streak, you can really mess with people’s heads in this game.

Golfers, fishermen, and hockey players also can be notoriously superstitious. (Did you really think Grandpa spit on the bait because it would make the fish bite better?) Most athletes go through specific rituals – from bouncing the basketball exactly three times before shooting free throws to a playlist with the perfect song before each swim event. From tapping your goalie on the shin pads before a game to starting your warm-up by running 10 laps around the field because it’s your number. From rubbing the mascot’s head as you enter the arena to always putting your right foot in the stirrup first. You get the picture.

My routines were more around how I got ready – my uniform, socks, shoes, hats, and especially the gear. (I love toys.) I’d work down a mental checklist as I got prepared to focus my attention on the upcoming competition. Most of my life, I played at a decent level of recreational sports, especially wrestling, tennis and softball. My kids remember me oiling my glove the night before a ballgame. They probably thought I was just taking good care of my equipment. You probably know better by now.

My twin brother and I won a few amateur tennis tournaments in our early 20s, and I always checked my racquet string spacing and tension before stepping onto the court. It could have been just nervous fiddling or the comfort of habit. But occasionally, when it was followed by a memorable victory, I just knew that was the difference.

Looking back, it seems silly. Eventually I had to outgrow things like that – right? As Stevie said, believing in things like that makes you suffer. So don’t read anything into the fact I got my current job because I was wore my lucky suit to the interviews.

byStanley is written by Stan Johnston, a former newspaper editor now on the Global marketing team of a technology company in the Silicon Valley.