Turkey has a 4th place in the World cup, they play in Europe so they do not make the world cup as often as the USA or Mexico. They also have some very good German-Americans (Imagine Ozil playing for Turkey), as of now they are higher on the ELO than we are, I wonder if our potential is greater than theirs?
Yes, it is. Quite obviously, if you think about it. What you are describing in their case is how much more developed they are than we are.
Well Bundesliga development more than anything, they do have I believe more Turkish-Germans than we do American-Germans. (Edit: playing in Germany) One of their problems is corruption in their FA/Leagues, but at least their economy is growing, relative to the rest of Europe so that will help them. I think it will be interesting, both teams at around the same level, one competes in Europe with hard competition, the other in Concacaf with relative weak competition. Now if the NFL/NBA (Turkey also loves basketball) NHL/MLB were to collapse and soccer become the #1 sport in the USA then hell yes our NT potential would be much larger than Turkeys.
The US has a 3rd place World Cup finish. It's tough to compare the two countries directly given Turkey has direct access to UEFA resources and competition. Only 10 or so countries have made the knock out stages in at least 3 of the past 5 World Cups so this is no small accomplishment. The pool consists of the players who play or want to and are eligible play for you. Otherwise if the US has Rossi and Subotic , perhaps they win WC '10. Mexico has higher ELO than US but similar accomplishments in past 5 World Cups.
Mexico is like clock work, always out of the group and always will lose in the round of 16 (outside Mexico). Actually has a Concacaf team ever beaten a team from outside Concacaf in the elimination round of the WC when not playing at home? Edit: Only Concacaf wins over non-concacaf opposition at the FIFA WC 1938 Cuba over Rumania (first round was an elimination round) 1986 Mexico over Bulgaria (in Mexico city) Also Mexico technically has a draw vs Gemany in 1986 (lost on PKs) The only other Concacaf victory was over a concacaf team (USA over Mexico 2002).
As for the elimination rounds, the draws have not been kind. Since 90, non concacaf elimination round LOSSES are to Czechoslovakia, twice to Argentina, one to Brazil, twice to Germany, once to Ghana. Of these 7 losses, 5 are to the super elite. Costa Rica 1990 did not really have a chance against the Czechs (but they did beat Swe and Scot in the first round). Only the US-Ghana was a "favorable" match-up. Mexico did tie golden generation Bulgaria in 94, but failed in PKs yet again. Concacaf has not had the fortune to encounter Asian teams, or many, if any second tier Euros or Conmebol teams in the elimination rounds. After Germany98 , Argentina 06 and Argentina 2010 again, I am sure Mexico would love to see the likes of a Korea, Ecuador, or Slovakia in the second round. Certain not easy games, but much more manageable.
Turkey actually finished 3rd not 4th it was South Korea that finished 4th, other than that I agree with what your post says.
Under their new coach, Turkey is fielding a rather different squad in preparation for their WCQ's. Most of the players (sans Sahin and Altintop) are home grown and are quite good.
This sentiment was echoed by a million US soccer fans in May of 2002 when asked about the USA's chances of making the QF of a World Cup. Half of winning is believing. Americans win because of their mentality, and they will win a World Cup much sooner than most of us think.
Then I had high hopes for 2006 I do not think a Concacaf team will win a WC before I die, so Mexico or the USA winning before I pass away would be sooner than what I think for sure. Just because I do not think they will win it all does not mean I can't cheer them on, shit over 90% of the Nations in the world will never win a world cup.
Mid majors have certainly made World Cup semis during the past 50 years but haven't won it. I'd be ecstatic with semis appearance this cycle.
By the next decade, the US will be a power capable of winning the Cup every four years. I don't measure that based on the players and prospects currently active (the Messi of the 2020s might be a random 9 year old running around the streets of Brooklyn), but the overall growth of the sport in the country--especially in recent years. MLS scores higher ratings and higher attendance numbers every season, and viewership for the Euros this year is double what it was in 2008. These are enormous gains, and the talent will follow the market. It always does. The market grows, and the talent grows with it. The thing about the US market is that it's so large, soccer really only needs to achieve the popularity of the NHL for the country to field a top world team. It will be there in a decade, I think. And take it to another extreme: if soccer were as popular as football here, do you have any doubt that the US would be the best side in the world?
You and me both. (though I have to admit I don't think it's very likely. The path to the semis was paved for us in 2010. Great courage during that World Cup, but our early defensive lapses cost us big time. I rewatched the Ghana game recently and was shocked by how much better we were than them through most of that game.)
That is like saying if Nigeria was a wealthy as Luxemburg if I would doubt Nigeria even winning a World cup, the answer for both is no, but I doubt MLS will ever be as popular as the NFL or that Nigeria will ever be as rich as Luxemburg. (GDP per Capita), Regarding MLS in the next decade, we will see after 2014 and how big the TV contracts they sign, I do think they are 2+ contracts away from signing a 200 million per year TV contract like Hockey, but you never know, BTW attendance is growing, but ratings still remain an issue for MLS. https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/mls-tv-ratings.1914571/page-41#post-25784732 ESPN2 is up a little from 2011 but flat if we compare to 2009. (2009 ESPN2 finished with 284K, as of last week 2012 ESPN2 is averaging 279K) ESPN is down about 100K but maybe the Euro will give MLS ESPN a boost. NBCS is about in line to what their goal should be 100K rating. This IMO is they key, now MLS has a huge opportunity because of how many new sports channels are trying to get content (include Spanish Univision Deportes) so MLS may still do very well when next TV contract comes along even if ESPN bids low for the rights, CBS sports, FSC, NBCS may outbid them and give TV revenue a nice boost. We will see MLS is stable, but it is still growing at a nice slow pace, any huge changes like some people “demand” on the CAP or free agency could jeopardize the leagues future, I think the MLS owner group knows that slow and steady is the best way forward for them.
Definitely don't think MLS will equal the NFL for many decades. My intent was only to demonstrate the strength and potential of the American market with a simple thought experiment. Your point about the stagnation per channel of MLS's television ratings is a very good one. I think the better statement for me is to say the total television viewership has increased over recent years. That's demonstrated by the growing number of television deals.
Recent years is key, because back when MLS was on Univision they would average 200K+ ratings, but since 2007 or 2008 the games have been moved to Telefutura and now Galavision (same with most FMF games) So Spanish viewership went down to about 75K average (but probably 2X that if we add ESPNDEPORTES). Now MLS got more money from the deal even when it lost viewership. The same could happen in the future, lets say ESPN offers only 12-15 million per year, but CBSSports offers 25 million. That could mean ratings going down to below 100K average, but MLS making much more money they could invest on players, stadiums, cash withdrawals, etc. it is a balance the league may need to think about. Obviously best case scenario ESPN offers the most money and they get the best of both worlds.
Whenever the issue of "if soccer was more popular, the US would be boss" comes up, I instantly think of Clint Dempsey. He was the third sibling in line to become a star athlete. Family couldn't afford him the training. It was because of the death of his sister, and the donation of money from his club, that allowed him to ascend to the top. It took an extreme case of circumstances (I won't say luck because of his sister's tragedy), and there are a lot of possible paths in the life of Clint Dempsey that would lead us to never knowing the player that would eventually become the top 5 to ever play for the Nats. The point I want to make, is how many Clint Dempseys are out there who were never discovered because of financial, or other reasons? For example, a kid with great potential in soccer, and whose parents do have the financial flexibility, yet may be pressured out of soccer and into a different sport just because it isn't popular (in my high school, football players referred to us as lawn faeries; there were many kids I played soccer with who went to football and stood on the sidelines when I knew they were, or could be good soccer players. Meanwhile, in Italy or Argentina, you're considered a badass on the street if you play good soccer.) So, while not the total cure for turning us into a perennial power (I believe some are just "born" with the gift), an explosion in popularity would greatly increase our standing.
The US is a funny place from a soccer perspective. As noted, we could have easily lost a guy like Dempsey because of family financial constraints. Although it sounds like this may be changing (slowly). On the other end of the spectrum, we lose a guy like Mike Fisher who opts to become a radiologist. Have to say I can't fault his decision-making. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Fisher_(soccer) And then, we have NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL that siphon off some of our top athletic talent. Three somewhat uniquely American headwinds for the USMNT.
Nice (no kidding) bit of self-effacement on his part. I work with tremendously talented students aiming for med school everyday. In most cases luck has very little to do with whether they make it there, because those folks work their tails off. That Fisher was able to put himself in a position to be competitive for med school while also competing at that high a level in soccer says quite a bit about him.
In 2010 we had more momentum than any team(including Germany and Spain) and the fact that they managed to stop us anyway after that passionate win vs. Algeria and drawing an arrogant England shows it was not meant to be.keep in Mind it took very controversial tactics for Uruguay to beat them in penalty kicks and Uruguay without Suarez still almost beat Holland. The same Uruguay team won the CONMEBOL cup which included Brazil and Argentina! What all this says is that when you get to the last 16 the level is so competitive that the difference is very small mistakes.
Ultimately, I believe we CAN go far in the world cup but, after the group stages a lot of luck plays a role. More so than even the opponent. Holland luckily beat a superior Brazilian team something most people have now forgotten. For us to do well will take fixing as many of our problems and playing as well as we can and hoping it works out.
I thought Holland was the better team that day, though if they play ten times Brazil probably wins six. (Then again, I thought the same thing about Ghana vs USA and a repeat viewing definitely changed my mind) Agreed. And the fact that more and more money flows to the sport domestically every year should tell you where this ship is sailing. The game is gaining popularity. I'm 27 and all of my friends are at least as aware of worldwide soccer as they are of the NHL. Mine is the first real American soccer generation. Most importantly, the American stigma regarding soccer is dying a quicker death than anything I've seen. I truly believe that there are at least a couple kids running around our streets that will be the first world superstars we have in the sport, and each year thereare less and less obstacles standing in their way.
This much definitely does seem to be true from where I'm standing, and is worlds different even looking back a mere 10 years. But I live in Brooklyn. Elsewhere in the country, it might look a little different, I can't really say. In general, it does seem that the younger the age group, the more interest in soccer they have, and the less cultural aversion to it they've picked up. (I say this as a 39 year old.)