USA v. England: Who will win?

[wrenmj]

whats a robert hoyzer???

you fail to understand the attitudes of the old boys running english football if you think that winning is all that matters. the premier league may take that attitude as they are businessmen, but the people that select england managers are commitee members who feel they are in public service and have a duty to protect the game. for all svens managerial credentials he was hired as the footballing equivalent of abba or volvo, "be swedish, be bland and be inoffensive....oh, and a world cup would be nice if you can manage it!"

it's a laugh mate. google robert hoyzer and you might get it. i respect the "attitudes of the old boys" but it's 2005, not 1905. england has the talent to win on the pitch AND achieve all of those idealogical goals but they don't. that falls at the feet of sven or the powers that be.

[TheAmerican]

I really hope the US wins, but to be real about it ...England's going to spank us! :(

[wrenmj]

The amount they are 'worth watching' is all in the eye of the beholder. And if you still can't understand why so many people are pulling out if this tour, then do some more reading round here.

i'm well aware of the reasons AND the excuses, mate and i'm not bagging on england. i support england. legitimate reasons aside (like terry), i simply wonder who the genius was (american or english) that came up w/a us tour just weeks after the Premiership and while the CL is still in the balance? why schedule a tune-up when there is so little be gained?

[james_smith99]

it's a laugh mate. google robert hoyzer and you might get it. i respect the "attitudes of the old boys" but it's 2005, not 1905. england has the talent to win on the pitch AND achieve all of those idealogical goals but they don't. that falls at the feet of sven or the powers that be.
hold on...how did this happen....i think we're actually on the same side of the argument!!

i'm all for hiring winners and agree that svens at fault, and in turn the FA for hiring him (especially with the contract they gave him)

...and as for googling robert hoyzer - i don't know if you realise this but that guy is german and there are some things even the english FA wouldn't try!!!

[M]

that attitude is exactly why they keep getting bounced from international competitions. the "just a friendly" attitude is competitive poison. i support england but many of ther players are no longer hungry. this is an opportunity missed by the uk's a-teamers to prepare against a quality side. if they're so good, why not send your a team, destroy the us, send an early message to the world that you will be a force in 06, and generate some early momentum for a change?

UK's a-teamers?

Um, because some of those "A" teamers are playing in the Champions League final, for Real, or are injured and/or having surgery. Even if others had chosen not to pass, England wouldn't have been able to field a competitive team in this game. And anyway, what's wrong with experimenting in friendlies; isn't that what they're for? England no longer hungry? Could have fooled me. Did you watch them at Euro '04?

[M]

i'm well aware of the reasons AND the excuses, mate and i'm not bagging on england. i support england. legitimate reasons aside (like terry), i simply wonder who the genius was (american or english) that came up w/a us tour just weeks after the Premiership and while the CL is still in the balance? why schedule a tune-up when there is so little be gained?

$$s

[schmuckatelli]

$$s
DING-DING-DING - we have a winner, folks! USSF and the English FA know perfectly well that this is a pay-day for the US. There are some additional benefits, though. For England, it gives Sven a chance to look at some players he might not have seen before returning to qualifying for WC06. It also gives the US a chance to test their metal (and speed of play, especially) before their next qualifiers.

[wrenmj]

hold on...how did this happen....i think we're actually on the same side of the argument!!

i'm all for hiring winners and agree that svens at fault, and in turn the FA for hiring him (especially with the contract they gave him)

...and as for googling robert hoyzer - i don't know if you realise this but that guy is german and there are some things even the english FA wouldn't try!!!

that's the laugh! now you understand the twisted sarcasm. btw, we are on the same side because i'm a massive england supporter. i'll be the loudest american at the pub when england plays but they frustrate me when they are ill-prepared and when they, for whatever reason, field the wrong players.

[Ender]

You know who I am going to support? Beer. Beer is the winner. Yeah beer. I will be on my couch drinking beer, supporting beer, and pissing...you got it...Beer.

[wrenmj]

UK's a-teamers?

Um, because some of those "A" teamers are playing in the Champions League final, for Real, or are injured and/or having surgery. Even if others had chosen not to pass, England wouldn't have been able to field a competitive team in this game. And anyway, what's wrong with experimenting in friendlies; isn't that what they're for? England no longer hungry? Could have fooled me. Did you watch them at Euro '04?

you mean that little tournament where they got beaten by a lesser france and whacked in the quarter-finals by portugal? yes, i heard some mention of it. by specifying euro04, you are indirectly aiding my argument. had england been slightly better prepared, had they taken their friendlies a bit more seriously, could they have found that little something extra (like a decent beckham penalty!) to push them past portugal?

[socks]

Who care if it is England's A, B or C team. The US has shown they can play with and beat the top teams in the world now. The only team that I think would be a slam dunk defeat for the US would be Brazil.


Soooooo sad. England loses and the limeys feel better because the news calls it the 'b' or 'c' team. The limeys know that both their b and their c teams could beat their a team on any given day. The difference is not so great and we are not talking about a different 11 players....we are talking about 5 or 6 different players who could probably be starters too. The U.S. of course does not enjoy the depth that England does....maybe someday. But it would be pure cowardice on the part of any limey to say that oh we would have won had beckham played etc. no mames.

[Ender]

that's the laugh! now you understand the twisted sarcasm. btw, we are on the same side because i'm a massive england supporter. i'll be the loudest american at the pub when england plays but they frustrate me when they are ill-prepared and when they, for whatever reason, field the wrong players.
And what side are you on again? You are an American who supports England and wears the Jersey of a German club.?

[wrenmj]

And what side are you on again? You are an American who supports England and wears the Jersey of a German club.?

it's wose than that. i'm a chelsea fan pulling for liverpool today! what can i say? i was beaten as a child.

[Heathens '87]

2:1 USA beats England. While we might want to wish for more, there is still a huge drop in talent and experience when you go from the American A team to to our B squad. That's just not the case for England, and they're bringing A-level players at GK, 3/4 of a backline, and 2/4 of their midfield. We're not exactly healthy and at full strength either, with 3/4 of our starting midfield out.

All in all, should be a fair match-up and an entertaining game, but the hot-foot of McBride will make the difference..........

[M]

you mean that little tournament where they got beaten by a lesser france and whacked in the quarter-finals by portugal? yes, i heard some mention of it. by specifying euro04, you are indirectly aiding my argument. had england been slightly better prepared, had they taken their friendlies a bit more seriously, could they have found that little something extra (like a decent beckham penalty!) to push them past portugal?

They drew and Portugal advanced on pks. Some whacking. There's no evidence to suggest that taking friendlies more seriously would make any difference - plenty of competitive qualification matches for that. Personally, I'd rather see England try out new players in friendlies than in games that actually mean something. If they showed up with their first team for these two games, they'd be faced with minimal -or zero - opportunity for new players to be tried out before next year's finals.

[Prenn]

The UK/Brit national team will win.

[nick]

how come no option for a draw?

dont mean to rain on your parade but an England b team can still easily beat the USA.

5 to 10 years ago. Where have you been???? Must be one of the 4400! ;)

[TheAmerican]

You know who I am going to support? Beer. Beer is the winner. Yeah beer. I will be on my couch drinking beer, supporting beer, and pissing...you got it...Beer.

Now that's a win/win situation right there! Sounds like a plan.

[Mosco]

No way dude England still has strength within those players selected for this friendly remember some of these English players play in the English premeire league so their pretty much on the mark! but hey good luck to the usa squad thats just my point of view on this!

[bbsbt]

England will beat USA: 10 -1
But the US media will be so shocked by the score, they'll assume the "10" must be a typo; so they print--- England 0, USA 1.
Only after they visit BigSoccer.com for the real facts, will they realize the truth.