So, USA Soccer....now what?
I dont know anything about soccer. At all. I do know that we have be better in the first half though. Thats my take on the games. Once again. I know nothing about soccer so i cant go in depth. I just know we need to improve our first half.
I'm proud of what they did. I can't imagine how ugly that game would have been if Ghana had Michael Essien. I'll still watch soccer like I always do. At least the wolverines play in 70 days.
Oh BTW, Ricardo Clark starting = FAIL.
we cannot fall behind early in games since that dictates strategy. We need to continue to move forward and develop talent to represent us in four years. This is not baseball, football, basketball or hockey so we need to be patient regarding success in an international arena. Many of us dismiss soccer as a major US sport, but then get ticked when we lose a World Cup game. We cannot have it both ways.
I don't think USA soccer will take that step to going toe to toe with the Brazil's of the world on any regular basis as long as it remains a niche sport in the country. The best and most talented athletes growing up in this country will still mostly gravitate toward basketball and football. They are seen as more glamorous, and a chance for a much larger payout.
The average American sports fan will continue to follow soccer every time the World Cup rolls around. As long as that's the case, this is most likely the result you will get.
You can definitely develop inner-city talent. If you look at a lot of the best players in the world, they honed their skills playing in the urban environment of Paris, Rio, Buenos Aires, London, etc. They don't always have fields but they play cage soccer or something similar. It could easily translate to the basketbal courts that we have now. I'm a huge proponent of this since the sport is cheap to play and it's a great alternative to just basketball (i'm not anti-bball).
I don't know about the body type point. I bet Jordan would have been a hell of goalie. Chris Weber probably would have been good too. Tall, good hands, great jumping ability - doesn't that translate good goaile skills? (That is actually a sincere question - I've always thought this but I really don't know enough about soccer to state it as fact.)
I do think that your point about not getting the football and basket players is right on. The problem with USA soccer is that our best athletes tend to go for the other sports for a number of reasons. If the MLS can ever rival the other leagues in terms of coverage, glamour, money, etc. then maybe that will change.
Until then, this seems to be what USA soccer is - a top 16 level program but not a real elite team. While not what we may want - it isn't all that terrible.
No doubt about it.
I just bet that a kid like that in Germany or Brazil gets steered into net or made into a striker. That is the difference in the telent level in soccer, and why the USA will have a tough time until MLS reaches the level of the other leagues.
Jordan's getting at the top range of height where you can be an effective goalie. Webber's far beyond it. While they'd be great at picking crosses out of the air, they'd both be hugely vulnerable on the ground because of the increased time it takes for a taller person to go to ground.
There are more than enough people in this country to produce both basketball/football players and soccer players. Maybe we would be more awesome if LeBron played striker and Allen Iverson was the original Messi, but there are still more than enough kids playing soccer that we can be a world contender, as long as the talent is recognized and developed. That's the problem right now, not the number of kids, but the development.
Swimming/downhill skiing/4-man bobsled/sprinting/water polo are all niche sports, and we still manage to produce world class athletes in these sports.
You'll notice in most of those sports you mentioned, bobsled and downhill skiing coming especially to mind, we do about as well there as we do in soccer, really. That bobsledding gold was a huge shocker, we hadn't done that since 1948.
And nobody's best athletes play water polo.
but you're making a disingenuous argument by nitpicking what is an undeniable point: we "win" the summer olympics and finish in the top 3 of the winter olympics every time. There is no doubt the US produces the most best athletes in the world (that's an awkward phrasing but makes my argument). Basketball and football contribute at most 1 medal to our total.
We don't win in soccer, and if we're looking at things historically, we don't even do well in soccer generally.
And just to defend myself, taking bobsled and water polo out, we continually have had good skiers in the last 20 years (Street, Moe, Liggety, Rahlves), and we are far and away the best sprinting nation out there.
We win all those medals because we flood the Olympics with athletes in a lot of sports that a lot of countries don't care about, and there's a severe difference between the money we pump into our Olympic programs and that of most other nations. That's why we produce the most best - sheer volume and piles of cash. Sure, we "won" the 2010 Olympics, with the most medals; we had 216 athletes. Norway was next in the medal count and brought 99. South Korea was after them and brought 46, and no, they weren't all speed skaters, although that's a pretty excellent illustration of what happens when a country really focuses its efforts and brings its absolute best athletes to bear, much like Italy and Brazil do with soccer.
If we're going to compete at the highest levels in soccer, which we're trying to do, then we'll have to do it without that monetary advantage because we're competing against countries that care immensely and without the ability to flood the World Cup with athletes.
I think those very arguments you make about why we do well at the Olympics (population and monetary resources) are why we'll eventually be a top 10 soccer country. It'll take time, but it's inevitable, more and more money will go into the sport (either at home or abroad in the form of kids going to European club academies). By WC 2022 on US soil, I'd wager we're in the seeded pot.
Agree to disagree though
By WC 2022 on US soil, I'd wager we're in the seeded pot.
Pretty safe bet, considering the host team is always seeded.
You get my point, but I asked for that
don't lump skiing with bobsled. This country is a skiing powerhouse. I should know I used to compete with Bode Miller....
8 alpine skiing medals at Vancouver
FYI we have the second most olympic medals in water polo. We only trail Hungry by 3 medals and after all they invented the sport.
Hockey
Baseball
Nascar
Golf
and
Tennis
Soccer is a "3rd world" sport here in the USA and will never attract the best athletes as you said but it's certainly not restricted to football and basketball beating out soccer for talent.
NASCAR, golf, and tennis are stealing away athletes from soccer? Hockey and baseball are in different seasons.
In this country kids don't grow up dreaming to become the next pele or maradonna. They want to be Joe Montana, Lebron James, Dale Earnhardt (in the south), Tiger Woods, etc.
All of those sports, get more air-time and are regarded as "better" more glamorous sports here in the USA.
I agree that NASCAR & golf aren't stealing 'athletes' from soccer, that's like saying the engineering field is stealing smart athletes from soccer. The skill sets required are almost mutually exclusive; obivously Tiger Woods is very fit and may be a decent athlete, but american soccer is no weaker for the loss of John Daly. Everyone know that fat goalies only work in hockey.
But most tennis athletic ability easily translates to soccer; speed agility, hand-eye cordination, endurance. The way Rahpael Nadal moves around the court, he could have been a world class footballer had his family pushed him that direction.
They aren't directly stealing athletes. Sports like NASCAR, golf are stealing youth interest in the sport at a critical point of their development. We have millions of youth playing soccer until they enter middle school and then interest drops like rock. There a number of reasons for that starting with broadcast distribution of soccer in this country.
The broadcasting situation can't be helped. Nobody wants to watch MLS, and seeing the real leagues requires waking up at 6 am on Saturdays in the fall or watching games that already happened.
It's not an ideal scenario.
The broadcasting situation can't be helped. Nobody wants to watch MLS, and seeing the real leagues requires waking up at 6 am on Saturdays in the fall or watching games that already happened.
It's not an ideal scenario.
I did not say it was a strong league, I said it was 13th in the world in attendance. Which it is, ahead of similarly weak leagues like Portugal's. Please keep in mind that I was comparing MLS to the situation 20 years ago, when the top US league was virtually semi-pro. Ditto for the comments on the TV situation. Soccer has two dedicated cable networks, major matches are shown on ESPN, Fox and ABC and it's possible to watch leagues from all over the world live on TV. That's a major presence. That doesn't mean the situation with the time differences is ideal, it's far from it. But it's a sign of how far the sport has come.
You can even say cross country and track steal athletes from soccer. In the state of Michigan cross country directly competes in the same season as soccer. Distance runners have the physical characteristics for soccer. When I ran cross country in high school, we competed for athletes with the men's soccer team. A few of the soccer players were great distance athletes for the spring track season.
would've buried that chance that Findley had
I agree with what you're stating. I'm not convinced the US will ever get to the Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina level where winning the Cup is a fairly realistic goal every time out. I think there are a variety of factors involved with that
But I also don't think we're that far away from being in the class of an England (always expect to get out of the group and a team that a favorite knows it's going to have to bring its best to win--a run to the quarters and even the semis being a very realistic target). To me, that's the ceiling, which doesn't mean winning the whole thing is out of the question.
Maybe my memory's playing tricks on me as it's been 8 years since 2002, but I feel this is the best OFFENSIVE team the US has put out there. We had 2 controversial goals disallowed and scored 5 in 4 games (and at least 1 in every game). We looked more dangerous on offense than I can ever recall in a World Cup setting.
What we lack is a top notch or even competitive team defense. I feel we've always had world class goaltending (or something close to it). In spite of that, we've shut out only 2 teams in 22 World Cup matches since 1990 (Mexico--a team we know very well in 2002 and Algeria--a poor offensive team by any measure this past week). By comparison, South Korea has had 5 clean sheets in its last 22 World Cup matches, and nobody will ever mistake that defense for Italy.
Those athletes will gravitate towards those sports NOW. However, that hasn't always been true, and it won't always be true. Great athletes used to become baseball players or boxers. They didn't become basketball players and they didn't become football players. However, not everyone wants to get smacked in the head as often as they would boxing. With the research coming out about concussions/head injuries in football, I've heard that the number of children playing football could drop. Football is not a constant; no sport is. That's not to say that soccer will fill that spot in American sporting society. Just saying that football and basketball won't forever, either.
Not to mention the cost involved with playing football is increasingly prohibitive for a lot of families.
I didn't say they would be constant. My point was as long as soccer is where it is in the minds of Americans the results will be similar. If football backslides, maybe soccer becomes more popular here. Or maybe baseball sees a resurgence. All I was trying to say was if our views of soccer don't change, neither will our success rates.
I agree about getting the athletes. Having played every sport, I've always felt that probably the best athletes in the world happen to play CB in the NFL. Why ? Because they need to run like the wind, hit like a truck, shed a block from players twice their size like a 350lb offensive linemen, need to jump to the sky, need to tackle a 230lb rb who can also fly, all while carrying 30 lbs of equipment.
Having said that, if our best athletes being NFL CBs, played soccer instead, I seriously think we'd be one of the top teams in the world.
Seriously. I think a lot of CBs (and WRs) would make amazing soccer players. They mostly have the same physique, and I would bet that the natural athletic ability that makes them great at what they do would transfer, in a lot of cases, over to soccer.
That said, can you imagine the amount of diving and playacting if T.O. or Moss were soccer stars instead?
The population of the U.S. is more than ten times that of Ghana and that of six of the other nations in the round of 16. Only Brazil (at 194M) is even close. Yes, MOST of the most talented athletes in the U.S. will gravitate to football and basketball (and hopefully hockey). But 75% of 4th graders are playing soccer nowadays. And that just wasn't true 20 years ago. SOME of the best athletes are going to gravitate toward soccer, now that they're familiar with it. And you couldn't say that even 15 years ago.
Even if (American) football and basketball get the 1A athletes, soccer is beginning to attract the 1B players. And some stars are going to bubble up from such a large pool.
Our confederation (CONCACAF) sucks. It has two decent teams (the U.S. and Mexico) and a bunch of nothing after that. The lack of consistent, quality competition in our confederation is probably leaving us less well-prepared than teams that have to slug it out through the European and South American confederations. Maybe against Barbados you can mail it in for the first half and still win comfortably, but at this level you have to gut it out 90 minutes. When you see Mexico, which is obsessed with soccer and has a huge population base to draw from, always lose in the round of 16 in the WC (and they aren't likely to change that this year), it really seems like CONCACAF membership is a hindrance. Of course, I can't imagine us leaving.
I wish we could pull and Australia and join CONMEBOL. It would really put us over the edge.
I'd love to see us do that. Mexico should as well. Qualifying for the WC would be a lot tougher, but we'd be far better prepared. As it is, with CONCACAF getting 3.5 spots, the U.S. and Mexico are practically assured qualification every time out. That was great when we wanted to get the sport back on the radar, but now it's becoming a liability. We never face a world-class opponent in our confederation.
It's really too bad we haven't been invited to Copa America next year. Would have been a great tournament (only just bellow WC level) for the team.
Really the US needs to work on getting players in bigger and better clubs in Europe. We need to see Americans on teams fighting for league championships and in the later rounds of the european cups. There aren't enough American players playing at the top level every week to yet, but that's nothing to be ashamed of. We've got a lot of players in good leagues now, it's just the slow process of moving up.
I'd also suggest a foreign coach for the Nats in the future, there is always talent available for such a lazy job and it could get the team playing in a more sophisticated matter in the future.
Not trying to be a dick but USA thinks way to highly of themselves as a soccer team. Ghana isnt a bad team at all. Just because the USA scored in the last mintue against Algeria doesnt mean they can beat the world powers. Let them develop some more players, get new defenders. On a good day they could beat the world powers but usually they could keep it close for most of the game. They dont have that great of players on the rosters. So most of us USA soccer fans need a reality check. Try to make it to the round of 16 next WC
What sides should think of themselves as world powers? England? Spain? Brazil? In the past year we've tied the first, beaten the second, and held a 2-0 lead at the half against the third. Yes, on a good day we could beat the world powers - that's why, on a good day, we should beat Ghana too.
Of course, on a good day, Ghana can beat us. They're no slouch either. But I don't think it takes a reality check to think we could have won that game. Not that there's great shame in losing to Ghana or "only" making it to the round of 16 (according to our ranking, that's where we should end up) but it's stupid to shrug your shoulders and say, "well, that's good enough."
Ghana's talent level, without Essien, is the same as ours or slightly lower (Tim Howard factor). We aren't nearly as talented as the Spains and Argentinas of the world, and we won't get there in the foreseeable future.
But we can certainly move forward, and the last 10 years are plain evidence of that. We might not have "that great of players," but this team is steadily improving.
Knocking heads with Brazil? We should worry about Mexico level teams first, once we can become consistent at that level, then we'll worry about reaching the top. The next step probably requires improving the competition at the youth level, which will put more of our players in Europe to compete on a consistent basis. But it all probably starts by generating more interest in the sport.