watching Argentina vs. Mexico, I can't help feeling that the US is being misperceived by (a) the maintstream media and (b) "us." We could have competed with either team, and would have competed against Brasil.
ok how is the US team being 'misperceived'? Obviously we can kick Mexico's ass any time we play them outside of Mexico. Argentina would cause us more problems, but as long as we don't play flat like vs the Czechs we can hang in there with any team.
listen to any mainstream sports talk show. headline is: US just sucks; let's face it and let the lame europeans have their stupid sport etc. etc. The US got screwed this time, which is bad timing for us, but not indicative of where we are, i think.
The 'us sucks' thing is a shtick just like Britney Spears white trash jokes or Kirstie Alley fat jokes. People who pay attention to soccer know that the US is a good team with a bright future.
meaning what? that we don't belong in a game vs. mexico, a team we beat regularly? or that mexico didn't belong with argentina, notwithstanding that the game went into OT? don't get me wrong, i have to admit the mexican first touch and general skill level seemed higher to me than i'm used to seeing from the likes of pope for example. but we do beat them regularly, and they did compete with ARG play for play. so what is your analysis max?
That was what was so disappointing vs the Czechs" the lack of heart and effort put forth by the US. I started a thread (now lost) about whether the Cary camp wore down the players too much. Watching Arg-Mex confirms my belief.
I don't think the Cary camp was any big problem, the lack of being able to score goals was happening before that. Twellman scored a boat load against the Norway junior national team but other than that the offense was absent all year long.
i recall hearing that MEX trained longer than we did in Cary. those dudes (MEX) did look impressive -- but it is simply undeniable that we did too against Italy and in '02 against Germany. i really think we are good enough to beat anyone, after watcing mexico nearly defeat arg. can anyone tell me why i am wrong?
this is what you are saying a>b b>c so a>c that is not how football works, it's like me saying. Jolly GEE Morocco beat USA 1:0, Morocco is clearly at the USA level of playing, hell, morocco is even better than the USA! you cant compare usa with a top tier team, yes I'm talking about argentina. yes I'm biased, but so are you.
You are not wrong, but in the context after the first round elimination, it seems ironic. Perception is everything. What so frustrating is that we aren't there on the same level of "big" teams. Argentina was down early, but they found ways to get back into the game and beat their opponents. They exude the confidence which we didn't have. When you see attacking guys like Messi, Aimar, Riqueme etc. chasing Mexico and putting on the pressure whenever they lost the ball, and our super stars Beasly, Donovan the right of watching balls in the same situation, you can't help but get angry.
I do agree with max that the us isn't in the 'top tier' yet but they are probably one of the best teams in the 'second tier' we can play with 'top tier' teams but its difficult though not impossible to beat them. I'd say these teams are the 'top tier': Brazil Germany Argentina Italy Spain England Dutch France has been there but seems to have slipped down a notch now. some of the 2nd tier would be: US Mexico Portugal Sweden Australia is probably up to this group now. The 2nd tier teams can beat the top tier teams anytime but it would generally be considered an upset.
Right now, it looks like Morocco is better than our overhyped USA. Anyone still has the rotten eggs? Yes, I'm still mad.
Its a game of match ups. Mexico matchs up very well with Argentina's style they dont match up well with the US and their style. This is why we dont compare teams on that basis. IE: We beat mexico and mexcio can play equal with Arg...therefore we are equal with Argentina. It doesnt work that way. I posted in the Mexico forum that if i were them i would want to play Argentina not Holland if i were them. Why? They match up so much better against the South American style of play than they do the more physical and refined European style. Mexico is very technical and plays short ground game...they match up well with teams that employ similar tactics.
im a firm believer that individuals and talent can win you games even if your coach, therefore includeing tactics, are wrong. a good example being England. everyone knows SGE is a complete idiot, yet, his players have found a way to win. NOW, the USA suffered during that 1st game but i blame bruce arena completely. lets look at the czech game, OK, its halftime, youre completely losing in every part of the game, youre playing like crap! what do you do!? you go into the locker room and you inspire your players and you find a way to get them to atleast play better, to show some pride and lose with dignity. a good example being sweden today against ze germans the game was over at halftime, but they kept pushing and atleast can go out with there heads high. IMO, the american tie with the italians was just due to the fact the italians allways have ONE bad 1st round game, but the americans did step up there game a bit. now, the US showed its flatness and lack of any desire and passion in games 1&3
i'm not saying our dominance of MEX means we are better than ARG -- clearly, we are not -- merely that the mainsream media's notion that we are a level below, given that we lose to the like's of GHANA, is stupid. and that mexico's near defeat of ARG has to mean SOMETHING --eg, we are in the same pool as the best. i.e., we weren't as bad as we looked agains Czech..that is, maybe we were as good as we looked against italy. put differently, people need to understand that this is no longer '90 and we CAN maintain possession even against Brasil and will indeed win occasionally. anyway, that's what the ARG vs. MEX suggested to me. not based on some transitive property nonsense but what i saw from the supposedly transcentental ARG. part of what puts me in this mind is that we deserved to be in the semifinals in WC 2002. i believe we are FAR closer than our 1 point result shows.
As long as we keep our players in their natural position we can play anyone......Why Bruce tell me why ...?
We had our chance to compete with CR, Italy and Ghana... and we chose to compete in- survey says- 1 for 3; and not even good enough to win the 1 we showed up for. So hate to say this... but see "us" in 4 years. p.s. I do agree that BA set "us" up all wrong, but it all comes in one package I am afraid.
Meaning that you've gotta stop paying attention to dumbasses who don't know a thing about the sport as if their opinions means anything. They've got a shtick that changes weekly, right now they're lucky enough to have an anti-soccer shtick. Big effin' deal. And actually, I don't think we could have competed with either of the above teams the way we played in this cup. Something was seriously off.
He is scared Czech's Nedved and Italy. He though that if he can get 1 point and win his last game against Ghana, he may still get into 2nd round. So even after Italy game, he still somehow alone his plan. Then after he watched Ghana thrashed Czech with increadiable team speed, he pushed panic button and put another pu$$y formation in must-win game. If he did these things like any reasonable coach did, then we probably play a level-field with all three teams: 1) Put Johnson or Wolfe to pair with McBride if you want to use their get-behind-defense ability. Or put Ching and McBride up top, if you think all your chances will come up with crosses with a bunkered defense--such as Ghana in 2nd half. 2) Put Donovan in his best postion to run from the deep after he got the ball. Forced Donovan's lazy ass to get the ball instead of complaining that he didn't see enough ball. 3) Put one of Reyna or Mastro to handle the work behind Donovan with your wing midfielders cut in to help out on defense. One wing to go attack and one wing to stay defend. 4) Don't start Beasley and Pope because they are not in good form.
This is the story of our World Cup... 1) When you play a 4-5-1, that means you're not that interested in scoring. We scored 1 goal in the run of play. You can't win too many games if you don't score. 2) When you don't mark the best players tightly, you give up goals: Koller, Rosicky, Gilardino. 3) The ref screwed us against Ghana. Draman fouls Reyna to steal the ball, and Pimpong dives and gets a PK. 4) Claudio Reyna is neither a defensive midfielder nor an offensive midfielder. You can't play him close to goal as he his not quick in defense, and he slows down the attack. Therefore, I think the best place for him might be on the right side of midfield, as a substitute. Academic now. I think 3.5 out of 4 of our major problems in this World Cup were coaching mistakes. Therefore, I place most of the blame for our WC failure on the coaching staff.
Always gracious in defeat... Mexico played excellently against a team they are familiar with and have beaten. The US regularly beat Mexico for the same reason. This does not mean the US equates with Argentina. Mexico is not an a par with Argentina and would've been lucky to win yesterday. Sometimes, with simpletons such as yourself, you have to be cruel to be kind. The USA is not on a par with a Koller less Czech side. It is not an a par with Italy (but played exceptionally well for one game). The US is not on a par with Ghana. The only mispercieving you and the media have done is grossly overestimate a mediocre, but hard working side. You are not shit anymore. Unfortunately there's a gulf between being shit and world class, and that's where you are right now. It's miserable to be knocked out of a tournament, especially in a game like soccer where matches always seem to be a lot closer than they really are. But, please, just shut the ******** up now will you? You've humliated yourselves time and time again by refusing to take defeat like men. See you in four years.
