Are The USA a Soccer Powerhouse Yet?

[Grandslam7805]

Some of those players on the US U20 team are already capped senior players, Michael Bradley and Freddy Adu among others.

Also, before our B-team (without key playmaker Landon Donovan, Damarcus Beasley, Clint Dempsey, Benny Feilhaber, and the rest of our European lineup) went 0-3 in group stages. The USA defended the Gold Cup, showing that we are the best North American side for many years to come... and we're STILL growing. Might I add that we did not only win those games, we CONVINCINGLY won those games (especially against Mexico).

Moreover, I, along with other football-crazy Americans, am starting to watch the MLS. That's going to be a league that will develop American talent for the superstar European leagues... and I believe that it is better than most Asian leagues, and most second tier European leagues (i.e. Ligue 2, Championship, etc.).

The MLS will never be a superstar league; that's not its purpose. The superstar leagues are in Europe, end of story. But the MLS will train more and more American talent to play (and play WELL) in Europe.

The results aren't here now, but the signs of success are.

Give us 10 years and we'll be there.
[/b]

The only capped player was Micheal Bradly, Freddy Adu is yet to be capped, get your facts right.

 

[fcukernaut]

However, if you want further proof, take for example the World Baseball Classis staged in the US last year - it demonstrated that the supposed 'powerhouse' and 'home' of Baseball was actually severly lacking in it's talent pool, tactics and management due to the current situation of American baseball and it's league structure - and I'm a big fan of baseball![/b]

Firstly, that doesn't hold much merit when the some teams are playing with players that haven't played in five or six months(ie US, Dominican, ect) and some teams like Cuba who have been playing baseball all winter long. It's not only that they are rusty, but they aren't in shape and that bodes extremely bad for pitchers, who's arm strength is no where near the level it is mid season. There is a reason why pitchers can only go 3 innings and why hall of fame hitters hit .183 in spring training.



Secondly, MLB teams made sure that their players were not pitching a gazillion innings. They made sure these pitchers were on a strict pitch count, and that no position player was given too many games in a row. This gave Japan an immediate advantage because they could go and throw out Matsuzaka for a full nine if they damn well pleased(and they did). On top of that you have players pulling out from everywhere because their MLB team told them to. Don't believe me? Ask Eric Gagne. And then there are arogant self-centered dicks like Barry Bonds.



Thirdly, Americans are developing a ton of talent. Every latin player you see was developed by Americans. Pujols, Pudge, Conseco, Manny, Big Papi. They are all the players they are because of Americans and their special drugs. The only reason these guys are in the big leagues instead of beging for food or manual labour on an obscure island is because of American baseball acadamy's. And that only develops them from 10 years old until they are 16 when MLB clubs can draft them. At that point they put them in their minor league systems and give them money.



Americans are developing a ton of talent, just not all of it is born and bred in the good ole US of A.

You are aware that sticking a bunch of superstars on a team and hoping they win isnt 100% guarantee a total victory. In baseball anyone can win on any given day. I dont get how you say we were lacking in a talent pool considering it had some of the best players in the league to date on the team..and several pitchers were held back from the competition, have it at the end of the season and i guarantee the USA would have rolled the competition. It had nothing to do with the league structure.

[/b]

Yeah a few pitchers were held back, whoopdie ****. When you can roll out Doc Halladay, Roger Clemens Dontrelle Willis, Jake Peavy and a bunch of closers from major league teams, there are no real excuses for a lack of talent. But again if it were held at the end of the year these pitchers would have been much more effective. The fact is you still wouldn't have "rolled over the competition"; the Dominican, Venezuela, Japan and maybe Puerto Rico would have given not only a huge fight but in the case of the Dominican and Venezuela would be favourites.

Our last olympic squad was far off from the dream team of the 90's :lol: . Sure there may have been a hell of a lot of talent on the basketball squad but professional basketball here is all about the individual and not about the team. Europeans won it for a simple reason... team basketball. Now put a bunch of college kids on the floor, say take the best college kids and put them on the floor they would probably roll the competition.. in college you play for the team and not for yourself, thats what they know and they could probably blaze most of the euro squads.

[/b]

That is the biggest crock of **** and you know it.



Firstly, most American schools still run it through one man or two players, ie Kevin Durant and Texas and Acie Law and Texas A&M. You can add to that list most second tier and third tier schools who attract some kid with great athletic ability but is dumb as a god damn broom handle. They write his tests for him and in return he takes them on a run to the sweet 16.



Secondly, it wasn't just that the Dream team had no idea how to play team ball they have no damn point guards. When you have Kobe, LeBron, Iverson or Carmello taking the ball up the court, what the f*** do you think is going to happen? They are going to make a token pass, drive the basket or miss a jump shot(minus kobe as he knows how do that, now only if he can limit his shot totals to 25 or 30). This isn't some new phenomenon. The US can't produce pass first point guards anymore. That's not changing with the use of college players. Hell every year rookie point guards get embarrassed and only by the end do they learn from their mistakes. Now take an extra year of experience out of them and throw them to the wolves. Make no mistake, Europeans are crafty veterans who know how to play D and would shed college kids apart.



Thirdly, the American team had no spot up shooters or 3pt specialists. They just assumed they could win by sheer physical pressence. Note to the US: there is more to basketball than dunking. College kids know how to shoot the ball far less effectively than the pros; that is a fact. The pros have had the chance to learn more and develop their game a whole lot more and thus are better players and would perform better. The American team needed more role players, rather than the largest payroll they could muster.



Fourthly, the US team did not know how to play defence. The only guy who did was Shane Battier and Bruce Bowen and Bowen picked splinters out of his ass for most of the tournament. We both watch NCAA basketball and lets not fool ourselves they don't know how to play defence that well there either and those kids are just college kids. Why does every single rookie get embarrassed when they step on an NBA court? Because college does not prepare them for it. I wouldn't want to see what would happen to a bunch of snot nosed kids trying to guard a ten year vet, because it'd get ugly and fast.



Finally, the last time the US tried using college players they were prison raped at the 2002(?) World Championships and didn't even make it out of the pool rounds. Let us not forget that embarrassing defeat to the hands of New Zealand who were on their way to a 4th place finish.

It has everything to do with the league structure. As I said on the previous page, any form of sport that exists in a structure whereby every year, no matter what your finishing results/position the year before, you are garranteed to partake in the competition, and without possibility/fear of relegation, will ALWAYS be a weaker league than one where compeition for finishing places is strong because it is needed to survive in that league! I say you were lacking in talent pool simply because you were expected to win, and you didn't qualify past the semi's. If you read the article I posted, you note that some of the blame is attributed to, as you say, the reliance on big names, but the main weakness was the pitching.[/b]

Then why is the Southern Hemisphere, in particular New Zealand, so dominant at rugby? They have no relegation system, or any real relegation system, yet they dominate the world. Why?

But the Refs in the Gold Cup were absolutely dreadful.[/b]

You can say that again, let us not forget that bullshit call that took back the Canadian equalizing goal in the dying seconds of the game between the US and Canada. The score should have been 2-2, giving Canada a great opportunity in extra time.

 

[JDion20]

<div class='quotemain'> You mention that and I begin to remember something about the yanks trying to make the game into 4 quarters during the '94 World Cup so they could run some adverts.

It's no wonder it was a piddly small tournament (for a World Cup at least). [/b]

I just wanted to point out that the 94 world cup had the greatest attendence of any world cup of all time.

"To this day, the total attendance for the final tournament of nearly 3.6 million remains the greatest in World Cup history, despite the expansion of the competition to 32 teams in 1998."

Pretty impressive for a nation that hasnt embraced soccer [/b][/quote]Actually, I remember attending some of those matches in 1994, and being surprised at how many traveling fans there were. Not just for the big countries with famous support, but nations like Sweden, and Switzerland. I think a lot of folks had an excuse to finally holiday in America, despite the massive travel involved in following their teams.

I think if they were to host it here again in 2014 or 2018, it would shatter the old attendance record by at least 30%. (Between the extra group stage games, the increased exposure for soccer in America, and the availability of half a dozen more 70,000+ seat stadiums with FIFA-regulation pitches . . .

 

[DC]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> You mention that and I begin to remember something about the yanks trying to make the game into 4 quarters during the '94 World Cup so they could run some adverts.

It's no wonder it was a piddly small tournament (for a World Cup at least). [/b]

I just wanted to point out that the 94 world cup had the greatest attendence of any world cup of all time.

"To this day, the total attendance for the final tournament of nearly 3.6 million remains the greatest in World Cup history, despite the expansion of the competition to 32 teams in 1998."

Pretty impressive for a nation that hasnt embraced soccer [/b][/quote]Actually, I remember attending some of those matches in 1994, and being surprised at how many traveling fans there were. Not just for the big countries with famous support, but nations like Sweden, and Switzerland. I think a lot of folks had an excuse to finally holiday in America, despite the massive travel involved in following their teams.

I think if they were to host it here again in 2014 or 2018, it would shatter the old attendance record by at least 30%. (Between the extra group stage games, the increased exposure for soccer in America, and the availability of half a dozen more 70,000+ seat stadiums with FIFA-regulation pitches . . .
[/b][/quote]

Without a doubt it would, especially with the newer generations of soccer players and fans now reaching ages in which they can travel to those matches.

 

[Ashton]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> You mention that and I begin to remember something about the yanks trying to make the game into 4 quarters during the '94 World Cup so they could run some adverts.

It's no wonder it was a piddly small tournament (for a World Cup at least). [/b]

I just wanted to point out that the 94 world cup had the greatest attendence of any world cup of all time.

"To this day, the total attendance for the final tournament of nearly 3.6 million remains the greatest in World Cup history, despite the expansion of the competition to 32 teams in 1998."

Pretty impressive for a nation that hasnt embraced soccer [/b][/quote]Actually, I remember attending some of those matches in 1994, and being surprised at how many traveling fans there were. Not just for the big countries with famous support, but nations like Sweden, and Switzerland. I think a lot of folks had an excuse to finally holiday in America, despite the massive travel involved in following their teams.

I think if they were to host it here again in 2014 or 2018, it would shatter the old attendance record by at least 30%. (Between the extra group stage games, the increased exposure for soccer in America, and the availability of half a dozen more 70,000+ seat stadiums with FIFA-regulation pitches . . .
[/b][/quote]

Without a doubt it would, especially with the newer generations of soccer players and fans now reaching ages in which they can travel to those matches.
[/b][/quote]



Definately the games would sell out but mainly due to the travelling fans, I mean England could fill a 70,000 stadium with its travelling fans alone.

 

[Bullitt]

They could proberbly fill a 70,000 stadium with ex-pats alone over there, let alone travelling support.

 

[totalpakaj]

US Soccer has a very long way to go here. My city has a club in MLS (Columbus Crew), and I'd rather watch an EPL match on TV than to go to the game. I think the Crew's Village People logo has something to do with it.

 

[DC]

US Soccer has a very long way to go here. My city has a club in MLS (Columbus Crew), and I'd rather watch an EPL match on TV than to go to the game. I think the Crew's Village People logo has something to do with it. [/b]

You have to admit though the columbus crew stadium is really nice looking.

I know when i go to Ohio State ill make sure to check out a few crew matches.

 

[nam97]

Are The USA a Soccer Powerhouse Yet?[/b]

No.

A reason? You're calling players like Howard talented which just about sums it up. While there are some potentially good players on the horizon such as Freddy Adu (who is only playing for the USA in a similar fashon to half of the AB's for New Zealand - He was poached), the game is still far too small in the US itself for them to be taken seriously in an international stage. Beckhams arrival won't change that.
[/b]

That's a stupid comment, all of the non New Zealander's playing in the AB's are not poached.

Your theory can be applied to the French Football team then. Look at Zidane, not French so i suppose he was poached Teh Mite? Also, Viera, Malouda, Abidal, Govou, Gallas etc.... are all African, were they poached also?

A Polynesian to a NZ team is the same as an African to a French team. It's a part of the culture, NZ a country where many poor Polynesians come and are brought up here. It is different to what you interpret, you obviously don't have a clue.

Now that I have finished my rant, to answer the main question of this thread: NO

 

[Hazey]

Your theory can be applied to the French Football team then. Look at Zidane, not French so i suppose he was poached Teh Mite? Also, Viera, Malouda, Abidal, Govou, Gallas etc.... are all African, were they poached also?
[/b]

Yeah, but they are okay, because they are ex-French colonies and...err.... well.... we run the EU! So :bleh!:

 

[Prestwick]

Yeah, but they are okay, because they are ex-French colonies and...err.... well.... we run the EU! So :bleh!:
[/b]

Sadly we do not run the EU, France, Germany & Italy run the EU. We are but willing gullible partners being suckered into its beuraucratic mess while willing rentboys like Ireland cheer it on because, hey, surrendering your sovereignty to Brussells is apparently so much more different than say, surrendering your sovereignty to London.

Confused? You damn well should be!

 

[Hazey]

<div class='quotemain'>
Yeah, but they are okay, because they are ex-French colonies and...err.... well.... we run the EU! So :bleh!:
[/b]

Sadly we do not run the EU, France, Germany & Italy run the EU. We are but willing gullible partners being suckered into its beuraucratic mess while willing rentboys like Ireland cheer it on because, hey, surrendering your sovereignty to Brussells is apparently so much more different than say, surrendering your sovereignty to London.

Confused? You damn well should be!
[/b][/quote]

I was actually taking the position of a Frenchman, hence why I said they were okay...

 

[golasso]

Define "powerhouse." We will, for the forseeable future, be one of the top 20 sides in the world. Will we make Brazil or Italy sweat consistently? Probably not.

 

[Hazey]

Surely that's what a Top 20 side would want to do?

Secondly, present an arguement why. Don't be boring!

 

[Gulli]

Define "powerhouse." We will, for the forseeable future, be one of the top 20 sides in the world. Will we make Brazil or Italy sweat consistently? Probably not. [/b]

Powerhouse = serious challengers for the world cup, one of the best leagues in the world, attracting young superstars to the league and not just old guys who want to make a few more million

got the potential but not getting there for a long time yet

 

[fcukernaut]

I think we can all agree on one thing though: this sport has always been, currently is and shall forever be a bunch pansy divers who kick a ball back and forth and for some reason the game ends with a riot and flares being thrown at goalkeepers. (Que Simpsons video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhT4oACS7ec

 

[jmmontoro]

a few good matches don't make a top team, keep it up and we'll see in five years

 

[O'Rothlain]

Sorry to end this debate early, but it's official, I just saw it on CNN, USA are the best soccer team in the universe. Amazing, isn't it? Well, that's settled now. Bring on Snooker, or whatever that fancy version of pool is.

 

[dbdynsty25]

No way in hell the US ever becomes a power. We may sneak into a World Cup final and hey, maybe even win one, but we'll never be on the same level as the Brazil, Italy, France and Germany's of the world. All of our really good athletes go into other sports. That's just a fact that will not change because the ratings are just not there to televise the sport, thus, no one really gains any interest. It's a shame too, because good soccer is one of the most enjoyable things to watch...by far.

 

[onslaught]

oh btw freddy is totally overrated, he was quite good prospect last season, but this year he aint on form...theres a reason man utd didnt want him ( other than saving money squander on some europeans)