England will meet the US squad on June 12th at Rustenburg in South Africa and fans in the US are already anticipating what will probably be one of the most watched games in the States. Unfortunately, history is not on the US squad’s side. England have appeared in thirteen tournaments and made it to at least the quarterfinals seven times. The US, on the other hand, has eight appearances in the tournament and has made it to the quarterfinals once. As far as team matchups are concerned, England definitely has the advantage having played the US nine times and only lost twice. I don’t think that will stop the enthusiastic US side from taking it to England but you see the difficulty they face.

On the England fan and media side, a simplistic, arrogant view has been predominant concerning the US squad. They appear to underestimate the US squad and, although the England team rightfully is the favorites in this group, may find themselves to be in for quite a surprise against an eager US side. Just one example of this arrogance is England’s The Sun when they summed up this idea by printing a headline with the word “easy” being an acronym for England, Algeria, Slovenia, and Yanks.

I think a major problem with the US fans and media, however, is their unjustified belief that the game against England amounts to some sort of grand significance. To listen to some fans and media, one might think that beating England was more important than getting out of the group stage. During the US international friendly with the Czech Republic on Tuesday, I was amazed at the amount of times the announcers brought up England. I understand that this is the first game for the US in the tournament but the obsession seems to hinge on unhealthy. Even the new US shirt seems disrespectful to the talented US teams in the last decade or so by celebrating a 60 year old win against England that didn’t result in advancement from the group stage. Why are the US fans so concerned with beating England?

• US fans view this as a chance to prove themselves.

With most American soccer fans watching the Premier League and possibly even having England as their “second” side, there’s the hope that the birthplace of football will give the US some credit. However, I don’t believe that beating England will do this. Constantly qualifying for the World Cup and having players at top clubs accomplishes this much more convincingly. Plus, even if the US demolishes England, a loss at this point in time to the US will still be seen as a fluke in England and will gain little respect.

• Many US fans view this as a rivalry.

It seems many US fans view England as a rival and see this as the equivalent of an international derby. Maybe it’s because of our close political ties or the amount of ex-pats living in the US. This rivalry, however, doesn’t seem to be a shared one. Paul Bestall wrote an excellent article last week describing the regular, England fan’s view of the US squad. His view is that England does view the US as a threat – but just like any other team out there. He writes, “…as with Algeria and Slovakia, the team are expected to win. Nothing more, nothing less.” I feel similarly – that English fans want a win against the US but it wouldn’t mean anything more than a win against Slovenia. England fans just don’t seem to share the US fan’s intense feelings about the game, only the expectation that they should win. The US already have a shared rivalry and it’s Mexico not England.

• Beating England will bring exposure to the sport in the US.

I’ve heard this argument a few times (and many times from people I respect) and it still doesn’t make any sense to me. The argument is that by beating England people will start to see their national side as real contenders and take notice of them. The US beat Spain, an arguably much more talented side than England, last year and it didn’t seem to raise any awareness other than with the enthusiast. I believe common sense should lead you to understand that (as said before) continuous advancement in the tournament and quality US players signing for top clubs should be the main goals for the US in order to raise awareness of the sport. Beating England or Spain without these two goals being met is not enough.

In addition, I think anyone that thinks the US will beat England is letting one of the above reasons cloud judgment. Would US fans take a similar stand on a matchup between Greece and Germany or Egypt and Argentina?

The question of who will win aside, US fans should not be so concerned with England. If the US squad and their fans really do want to prove themselves to the world and advance the game in this country, they have to forget about England and focus on the tournament.

After Clint Dempsey moved to Fulham in 2007, his leap in quality was beyond remarkable. This was evidenced in his subsequent call-ups to the US national team. Stronger, defter, more confident. He was a new player. He’d already been a stand-out in Germany 2006, scoring the only non-own-goal for the US, but after his move to the Premier League, his ability, drive and influence on others seemed to escalate drastically in a short amount of time. His first season at The Academy EPL was already showing a return.

Overall, the schooling of US players abroad has been of great importance to the development of the national team. Bocanegra, Feilhaber, Beasley, Bradley, Adu and Edu have all been among those to join the likes of Everton’s Tim Howard in the diaspora of US talent. They ship out to strong leagues abroad and later bring their new prowess back to their national team.

The progress has been notable, and, under manager Bob Bradley, the US has looked the strongest it’s looked in ages.

Until yesterday.

Now, I did not expect the US to topple a Brazilian side who can pull both Kaka and Robinho off the gun rack any time they want. But four days earlier, a ten-man US admirably earned and converted a 41st minute penalty and then held Italy off until the 58th minute, when sub Giuseppe Rossi sparked the Azzurri comeback with a confident blast from distance.

The Italy won 3-1, but based on the way the US staved off the inevitable Italian goal fest until Italy made substitutions, I felt sure that if Ricardo Clark hadn’t seen red after his 33rd minute late tackle, the USA could have held their own against the standing World Cup Champions.

So while I knew Brazil would probably win. I still expected a decent performance from my countrymen.

Oops.

The first goal came from a needless tackle and bad man marking on the set play. It happens. But the second goal was an absolute shock. The US won a corner kick (I repeat: the US won the corner), which they took short. Landon Donovan passed to DaMarcus Beasley who’s first touch had all the grace of a blindfolded, drunken water buffalo. Brazil gobbled up his mistake and the counterattack led to two Brazilians rushing toward one backpeddaling US defender. Robhino fired the second goal past Tim Howard, sealing the US defeat.

And Beasley’s touch wasn’t some fluke error. It simply came at the worst time and inspired the worst reaction. Throughout the first half, the US seemed to forget how to pass. A foolish dispossession here. Mistaking the touch-line for a teammate there. It was painful to watch.

The US would get another red card for Sacha Kljestan’s rash tackle  and Brazil would score another goal when Maicon found net off a sharp angle and a choice deflection.

By then, I wasn’t expecting a US miracle. I did hope they could sully Brazil’s clean sheet and carry away a modicum of pride.

Again, the ten-man side showed some grit and some shots went off the bar. But 3-0 was the final score.

If the FIFA Confederations Cup was to provide the thermometer reading for the US before the next World Cup, the boys are lukewarm. They need to get hot if they want to get past the 2010 group stage. Maybe the fact that they now need to beat Egypt by at least four goals for the chance to stay alive in the Confederations Cup will raise the temperature.

It wasn’t the act of losing to Brazil. It was the sloppy play that led to the first two goals. It was the lack of composure that saw two important players ejected in two matches.

I think the US were overwhelmed by the idea of Brazil. The reputation that preceded the heirs of Pelé was too much. The collection of mistakes and the disorientation that pervaded the US eleven raises big concerns on the eve of South Africa 2010. These concerns can be addressed with more seasoning in Europe.

In the face of total demolition, Dempsey, Feilhaber and Donovan, who all ply their trade in European leagues, kept their heads and looked the most likely to spark a US goal.

So, while it is bad for Major League Soccer in the short term, I’d like to see more of our players go to the Premier League and elsewhere in Europe. The step back our domestic league might take will lead to a step forward for American soccer on the whole. The boys will come back from school in Europe with great gifts for the national team that will filter down to every other level of the sport in this country.

What once seemed like an oddity, the American footballer in Europe, is now becoming a foregone conclusion: our best players will cross the Atlantic. Once they’ve shown their individual talents to the world, the clubs in England, Belgium, Germany and elsewhere will be willing to hire their services. As long as they eventually come back, this is a healthy development for the sport here in the States.

This Tuesday and Wednesday in London, several hundred rare football collectibles are being sold by auction through auctioneer Graham Budd. Among the collection are rare medals, programmes, tickets and a treasure trove of football shirts, photographs and rare pieces of memorabilia.

Here are a few items that stood out for me:

• Nat Lofthouse England shirt from 1952,
• Ole Gunnar Solskjaer shirt signed by the 1995-96 Man United squad,
• 1916 photograph of the first ever USA national soccer team (pictured above),
• The original 1905 lease agreement between a landlord and Chelsea to acquire Stamford Bridge, and
• An oil painting with a portrait of BBC football commentator Kenneth Wolstenholme (who was best known for the “Some people are on the pitch” phrase from the 1966 World Cup final).