The next question for the US team, is qualifying for the World Cup enough?

In England it’s expected that they will be playing deep into the tournament, making it to the last 8 and loosing on penalties is typically enough to keep the media at bay. Any worse than that and it’s a total failure, heads should roll and so on. Make it to the semi finals and years of sins will be forgiven (especially if they are drawn against the Germans) and the jingoistic press splash Churchill quotes across the sports headlines.

England is a team that supporters expect to beat anyone we play. Fans get some games are more difficult than others, but the expectation is clear. The US needs to have the same, they expect to beat Grenada and Panama, is that enough?

I was doing some reading last week and came across “Project 2010″. Just before the World Cup in 1998 (and before the failure of the US team to beat Iran) the US Soccer Federation unveiled “Project 2010″. A 12 year, $50 million project to pave the way for the US to win the World Cup in 2010, bizarrely I could find no mention of “Project 2010″ anywhere on the USSF site today.

I think the US should qualify for the finals every time. Looking at CONCACAF it should be US, Mexico (the only real rival for the US team in the confederation) plus one or two of whichever of the other Central American or Caribbean teams are having a good run of form. Four years ago it was Costa Rica and Trinidad and Tobago, this time it’s Honduras and Costa Rica looking like the best of the rest.

I get that me saying the “US should qualify… every time” is a bold statement, but with the resources they have to pull from and the opposition in CONCACAF I believe that should be a given. 16 years ago it was different and qualification was not a sure thing, and now it’s expected and that’s progress, but is that enough?

When “Project 2010″ was started consistent qualification was about where the US team was at, but today there seems little ambition beyond that. The US has a few players that are consistently playing their club football in Europe, but that one true world class player has yet to emerge from the very structured US Youth system.

While I think Landon Donovan is a good player whose direct style is very at home in the MLS, he is not world class and ongoing talk of Donovan’s ”potential” is ludicrous. Clubs don’t invest time to develop 27 year olds, that’s the prime of their career.

One of the few remnants from “Project 2010″ is the “Generation Adidas” program. Generation Adidas is a venture between MLS and USSF and has been very successful in identifying and helping younger players prepare for playing professionally. The first generation of players coming though the revamped system (led by Beasley and Donovan) made it to the last 8 in the 2002 World Cup, before loosing out to a good German side. This showed a lot of progress in a just 8 years, from happy to be there, to giving an established side a good run in the knock out phase.

So with all of this in place and a couple of generations of players coming through the revamped system, is just qualifying for the World cup every four years enough? If fans expect more than just being there, then the question becomes why does the US struggle against well drilled sides?

Clearly on the day the US can beat anyone, but the flip side of this, they can be beaten by anyone on their day. And that’s a problem.

The MLS produces some decent players, but not world beaters. Most of the US players in Europe are not playing week-in, week-out for their clubs. Unfortunately the US national side plays its competitive games within CONCACAF, a conference not nearly as competitive as Europe or South America. There is nothing like competitive games that mean something, against quality opposition to get a team to raise its game.

They US system clearly has money, but seems short on top level coaching (similar to England a few years ago) and is somehow falling short on producing players capable of standing against the best the world.

In England after the failure of Glen Hoddle and Kevin Keegan the FA (who run the England team) had to completely rethink the way the national team was put together. Clearly there was no English coach qualified to manage the side so the FA did the unthinkable and looked abroad for someone who had proven his ability at the very highest level. First was Erikson who made success of the senior side all important. Currently Capello is in charge and while he’s not English, maybe the best man for the job, and is perfect in World Cup qualifying to date.

The FA made the hard decision and look outside England for a manager was a seismic policy change from one of the most change adverse organisations. The US may need to do the same thing by getting the best coach available, ignoring the Gold Cup and playing more meaningful games against better sides.

The won-loss record may temporarily head south, the FIFA ranking may fall a little, but it would be worth it in the long term in an attempt to belatedly fulfill the idea behind ”Project 2010″.

We’ve identified the risk, the potential cause of the risk and what we can do to mitigate the risk occurring and the fall out from the risk.

My risk management plans typical consist of the following as a minimum for each risk:

• Roles and responsibilities – Include both team members and any outside resources that may be used as part of the risk management plan.
• Risk category – from the risk register
• Probability – how likely is this risk to be realized
• Impact – if it is realized what will it mean to the project
• Mitigation plan – what we are going to do to reduce the probability and/or if it does happen reduce the influence o the project
• Timeline – the time line of he risk overlaid with the project plan milestones. It shows where the risk may affect the project (WBS) and where we will apply the steps of the mitigation plan
• Tracking and report outs – how the risks and plans will be documented and reported to the stakeholders

Risk Category – this can be from a standard list to look for complementary risks or put together by the team.

The output here is the Risk Assessment, one for each identified issue. Additionally the risks can be ranked in some kind of order at this point, likelihood or potential impact are two sorts I’ve used in the past.

Remember a risk may, or may not happen and it’s very possible for a risk to have a positive effect on a project (an opportunity).

The next stage is to quantify the potential impact using the data from the probability and impact sections of the risk analysis. This is designed to produce a quantified potential cost and probability of the risk (80% chance of a 4 week slide/$20K one time cost).

The corresponding mitigation plan should include any opportunity (with the cost) that has been identified that would reduce or eliminate that risk (again quantify the risk reduction, show where the PM adds value whenever possible). Also note risks that can be worked together using a single complementary strategy.

Responses to risks can take a number of forms:

• Avoid – Eliminate the risk before it happens (with any corresponding cost)
• Mitigate – Reduce the probability or/and the impact
• Transfer – deflect the risk and make another party responsible for it

If it is positive risk (opportunity) note in the plan what you need to do to enhance and exploit it, along with the opportunity cost.

Strategies for dealing with the risks need to be timely, and appropriate to the level of risk. More than one response may be appropriate and always involve the team and stakeholders in the plan.

And always, always celebrate the wins.

The US national team has had a busy couple of months, 13 games spread across World Cup Qualifying, Gold Cup and Confederations Cup. They ended up winning 7 (1 in extra time), loosing 5 and drawing one. Not bad, but hardly world class when you look at the opposition.

On the plus side there was the obvious highlight of beating Spain, making it to the Confederation Cup final and being 2-0 up against Brazil at half time. However the same tournament had big losses against Brazil and Italy in the group stage in what is ultimately a fairly meaningless tournament.

Where it counts is World Cup qualifying it’s not been so bright. There have been two games this summer, an unconvincing draw against Honduras and a big loss in Costa Rica. The next qualifying game is in Mexico, if the US loose in the Azteca, the away game against Honduras in October may have a huge say in who goes to South Africa.

Ultimately the US are good enough that they should qualify for South Africa next summer, but it’s not an easy path at this point.

The 5-0 loss to Mexico in the Gold Cup final really showed up some ongoing problems with the current set up. Finishing in the red-zone is woeful, the defence seems to lack discipline with players consistently being caught out of position and not able to pick up the runs in the box. Yes this was not the US “A” team, but nor was Mexico.

I feel that the coaches have a far bigger influence over the B team players than the first team. A lot of these players play in the MLS and don’t necessarily have access to top level coaching and opposition week-in-week out the way the European based players that make up a bulk of the first team do.

It’s not a bash on the MLS, just reality that a player that goes against top level defenders every week in training and games is going to be better than a player that goes against defenders earning $40K in the MLS.

This lack of exposure to top level football places more of a burden on the US coaches to provide tactics that work for the players they have, and I don’t think the current coaches have done this very well.

Bob Bradley inherited a team from Bruce Arena that was well drilled with players that understand their role. It was a team that knew where they had to be during set plays, especially on defence but also in the red zone. When playing internationally, not giving away cheap goals to teams that have the ability to close a game down is absolutely paramount.

Looking back over the last couple of months the Spain win looks like something of a lucky win (granted, to a certain extent you make your own luck at that level) and constantly changing line ups don’t help, but during the two games that really meant something they did not play well.

This summer I don’t think the US team has played with the same level of discipline, knowledge and confort, and I think in large part that’s down to the coaching staff.

I find Risk management is one of the tougher parts of managing projects.

I get that ideally I should be working on preventing problems, the reality is that more often I am dealing with problems as they come up. I spoke to a couple of colleagues and they had the same problem.

I see two major reasons for this

• Lack of formal RM training. There are some excellent Risk Management tools available, but effective risk management requires more than just tracking the what the team has identified.
• Risks are identified during the initial phases, but the risk identification process is rarely revisited to search for new risks before the become issues.

Risk management needs to be proactive to be effective, it’s more than a list that’s tracked, it’s about getting ahead of the identified issue and preventing or mitigating the problems before they go wrong, and doing all you can to make things go right.

The process can start at any time during the initiation or planning phase of the project, but can not be completed until the full scope of the project is identified and the Work Breakdown Structure is complete. This ensures the team knows what the project is going to produce. While the planning phase of the program may have a specific risk identification session, risks can be identified by any member of the team at any time during the project.

The later in the project the risk is identified the more resources maybe required to deal with the issue. The identification should involve all stakeholders and consider including non-stakeholders with specialist knowledge as required. Everyone brings a slightly different mix of perspective and skills to what should be a iterative process. There are any number of tools (Delphi, brainstorming, SWOT analysis and so on) that can be used to aid identification of risks.

The identification is followed by a qualitative and quantitative analysis and then an initial cut at response planning.  After this exercise is run you have a Risk Register that consists of the following:-

• List of risks
• Potential responses to the risks
• Root cause of the risk
• Uncertainty in the risk
• Risk categories

At this point it’s important to understand the sponsors risk tolerance level. Some risks may be unacceptable to the sponsor and may require modification of the project scope or response plan. For example, a risk that may drive a cost increase of 10% or a schedule slip of 4 weeks may be acceptable, but any more than that is unacceptable.

Not only was an article about cow tipping published in the esteemed London Times, it included how much effort it would take to do the tipping…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article586737.ece

As in all good exams they even show the working…

Like most project managers I’ve typically tried to manage roadblocks and issues behind the scenes with out raising too much of a fuss. This is usually effective in getting the results I require with out drawing too much attention or using too much political capitol.

However there are times it is best to get a problem out in the open, almost always in conjunction with the behind the scenes work, not instead of. Lining everything up first with your usual communication plan before airing the issues in a more public setting makes sure no one gets surprised.

In the past I’ve usually booked a special meeting of the Project team to address a specific problem or issue that’s causing the roadblock.

A lot of PM’s and some sponsors can see this as a failure of the PM process, however I believe more often than not, calling the “trouble” meeting can benefit the PM directly:

While you may not have foreseen the problem in the planning stages calling a special meeting helps build your credibility because you recognized a problem that the project needs help with and not everyone was aware of.

It also allows the PM to proactively manage the attention given to their project by leadership. This attention is a limited resource that you want to use only when needed. Gets the people you need further u the food chain to pay attention and is used to solve both systemic problems (process) and tactical problems (project).

Perhaps most importantly it shows that you are “Managing the Project”, often a PM’s skills are may not be visible to senior managers and this gives people outside your usual reporting structure that you working to keep things under control.

Meeting with the project team allows people vent, and encourages participation in the solution, which improves buy-in, and makes your change job easier.

If you find yourself confronting a significant problem or barrier in your project, call a special meeting, and get the problem out in the open.

Your project and how you are how leadership perceive you will benefit.

Tuesday night was fun, I was unable to be at the game at Starfire and was restricted to watching the computer feed. It had everything, drama, good, desperate football with everything on the line.

The Houston goal lived a very charmed life during the last 20 minutes as Seattle threw everything at them time and time again. This time the 89^th minute goal was needed just to send it into extra time, and the rest is history.

Next up is DCU in DC for the trophy, and a place in the lucrative CONCACAF Champions League next year.

Dare I dream of international club football in season two of the current incarnation of the Sounders?

To quote John Motson “This just keeps getting better and better”.

Today the war of words between the finalists escalated, it’s not just between the supporter groups (that’s been on going since the final whistle on Tuesday), but between Adrian Hanauer and Kevin Payne (DCU president).

Hanauer talked to the Olympian newspaper about DC getting the game over Seattle. How the sounders would sell out Quest Field and DC may not even get a 10,000 gate (last year they got 8,200 at RFK for the final).

(http://www.theolympian.com/sports/soundersfc/story/918575.html).

Payne replied in the Washington Post, he called Hanauers’ comments offensive and had a little bash at Seattle and playing on the plastic.

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2009/07/payne_responds_to_sounders.html#more).

My favourite quote: “I just think it is a little out of bounds in your first year to throw stones the way they have.”

It’s 5 weeks until the game and the clubs are trash talking. Forget Portland for another couple of years, this is the big leagues and this is how rivalries are created.

Nice peace in a British blog about the Sounders.

http://europeanfootballweekends.blogspot.com/2009/07/seattle-sounders-fc.html

Football (the round ball version) seems to have a couple of major hurdles left to overcome to really become a mainstream sport in the US.

First, attract the top level athletes early and have them stick with the game.

From limited my experience the US youth development system seems to be aimed at preparing players for college. By the time a player has a couple of years of college it’s too late, very few clubs will invest the effort to develop 20 year old players.

There are a few good players that come out the college system, but generally they look unprepared for the professional leagues. I think the key is to create a real academy system tied to the club sides, identify the really talented players at 14 to 16 years old and give them the intense quality training that only a professional setup can.

The US has a few potentially world class players, Howard, Adu, Altidore and Johnson come to mind. I believe Altidore, who is only 19, may have the potential to be the best player yet to come through the US youth system.

Howard was spectacular against Spain the Confederation Cup semi, probably the best performance in a team that overall had a great game. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the four players I names all play in Europe, and maybe more importantly most moved there early in their professional career.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, promote the game and create more of a demand for the game from the public.
While there are some MLS success stories (Sounders rather spectacularly leading the way, Toronto FC, LA and one or two others), there are some other teams playing some good football but drawing less than 7 or 8,000.

A win in the Confederation cup could have helped in really establishing the beautiful game in the minds of US sports fans. A win over one of the strongest football nations (and probably the biggest “name” in the game) would have increased the momentum from the stunning win over Spain.

Don Garber (MLS commissioner) Said “We’ve always believed we deserved more respect than we receive, in sports you’ve got to earn respect, you can’t just ask for it, and the US (and by extension the MLS) earned some respect this past week.

Europe has always looked down a little on US football, despite being 14th in the current FIFA ranking and consistent qualification for the World Cup (something my England can’t always claim) drawing the US is always thought of as a relatively easy game by European fans. I think the win over Spain and taking the game to Brazil will cause more people to take the US national team, and by association the MLS a little more seriously in the future.

Garber followed up by adding “Today we proved that we can compete at the highest level, for 45 minutes, we had one of the best teams in the world shocked and on their heels.”

That’s true, but the question to Mr Garber needs to be what are you going to do with that success and growing respect to make a difference to the game in the US?

There is that fleeting moment, it’s the split second where you know it’s all gone terribly wrong, but the full extent of the trouble has not played itself out yet.

• When you feel the front tire of the bike go flat on the downhill…
• When you feel the back of the race car step out when you turn into the corner…
• When you see the football heading towards your head…
• When you catch the ball and the biggest forward on the other team is about to hit you…
• When the jump turns out to be bigger than you thought…

Time slows down, senses become much sharper and you notice the details that would have normally passed you by….

Then the impact occurs, you hit bike/ground/car/tree and just for a fleeting second you think that maybe you got away with it, that its not going to hurt as much as you thought…

Then reality smacks you upside the head and it hurts, oh my it hurts…

I was rallying with JB Niday in California a couple of years ago. The notes read “50 Jump 100 Big Jump 350”, translated that’s a jump followed by a short straight that led to another bigger jump, again followed by another straight.

Others slowed for the second jump, we did not, and hit the crest of the second jump at a little over 80MPH. That was the moment we both knew our day had taken a turn for the worst.

It seemed like we were in the air for an age, I had enough time to drop my notes, assume the crash position of putting my chin on my chest and holding onto my shoulder harness to stop my arms flapping around if we rolled.

I then had time to look up once again, see we were still in the air and I recall the ground being a lot closer than it was previously. We were in the air for 164 feet (we went back and measured it) and landed heavily, very heavily, nose first and yes it hurt a lot. It was not pretty, the car was very bent, but we got some cool pictures of the accident.

This is my favourite photo, the front had landed, the back was still in the air with dirt auguring off the front, and the best bit… The brake lights are on.

The car behind us had friends in it, they stopped to see what had happened, we explained how we took the big jump flat. George looked at us and blurted out “you are so f$#%ing stupid…”, Jeff his codriver yelled “You did that? That is so f$#&ing cool…”

That’s rally, and people like George and Jeff are why I love the sport.