US Soccer opinions: Myths or Legit ?

[kinstlinger]

Here are some US-related soccer myths/beliefs that I think about from time to time - curious about your thoughts.

1. At this stage, Freddy would be far more effective if he was playing amongst better players.

2. You can't produce top-notch soccer players unless you're a top-notch soccer nation.

3. The 'top' US internationals of today are better than the 'top' US internationals of 1996.

4. The 'average' US international is better than the 'average' US international of 1996.

5. The job of US coach is a desirable one to foreign candidates - Non-existent media pressure, good training facility, easy qualifying group, good players.

6. One will become a better player playing on a good European reserve side than in MLS.

7. MLS weakned the careers of Ramos, Lalas and Wynalda.

8. The US is on a irreversible trend to becoming a powerhouse national team.

9. In international soccer, what's important aren't your everyday players, but your stars.

[aGuyatTexasTech]

these are theories, not myths and none of them can be proven. Even if we win the world cup these theories are all opinions.

[numerista]

Terrific list ...

1. At this stage, Freddy would be far more effective if he was playing amongst better players.

False - Freddy already faces plenty of competition, and the ultimate goal is for him to play a big role, not be turned into an outside back.

2. You can't produce top-notch soccer players unless you're a top-notch soccer nation.

False - back when Hugo Sanchez came up, Mexico was far from being a top-notch soccer nation.

3. The 'top' US internationals of today are better than the 'top' US internationals of 1996.

Definitely true - before MLS started, almost none of our top internationals were getting regular minutes in any of Europe's top five leagues.

4. The 'average' US international is better than the 'average' US international of 1996.

Also definitely true - Mike Burns?

5. The job of US coach is a desirable one to foreign candidates - Non-existent media pressure, good training facility, easy qualifying group, good players.

Hopefully, in a few months we'll find the answer is yes.

6. One will become a better player playing on a good European reserve side than in MLS.

Trick question - there's no such thing as a good European reserve side. They're all littered with mediocre teen-agers.

7. MLS weakned the careers of Ramos, Lalas and Wynalda.

Ramos - perhaps briefly, but he was getting old.
Lalas and Wynalda - without MLS, they would've had trouble finding work.

8. The US is on a irreversible trend to becoming a powerhouse national team.

False - it's all based on a handful of very rich investors. As recently as 2002, it was near collapse, and that could still happen.

9. In international soccer, what's important aren't your everyday players, but your stars.

I think stars are more important in club soccer. In international soccer, what's important is your chemistry.

[FirstStar]

Here are some US-related soccer myths/beliefs that I think about from time to time - curious about your thoughts.

1. At this stage, Freddy would be far more effective if he was playing amongst better players.


9. In international soccer, what's important aren't your everyday players, but your stars.

I'll take the bookends:

1. Not a myth. The myth is that Freddy is a goal-scorer. I don't think that's true. I think he's a table-setter. Put him on the field with other players who command respect from the defense, and you give Freddy more breathing space. Put better players on the field to receive his crosses and passes, and they look a lot better. Freddy's not ready to take over a game by himself, but better players make him look better (frequently the case with good players).

9. That's not a myth, it's a tactic. You can eithe (i) have stars or (ii) build a team. Having stars releaves you from the pressure of building a team, but both routes have been followed to international success -- see Greece and Brazil.

[jbeall]

3. The 'top' US internationals of today are better than the 'top' US internationals of 1996.

4. The 'average' US international is better than the 'average' US international of 1996.


Let's combine these two statements into one: The 'top' US internationals of 1996 (provided they're still around) are only 'average' (at best!) US internationals today. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that there are players today who can barely get a cup of coffee with the Nats who would have been shoo-ins a decade ago.

Just for the hell of it, list some deserving (I realize that the word 'deserving' will create some argument) names who have either NOT been called up, or have only gotten a handful (but that you think deserve more). Let's plug them into a lineup and compare it to one of our mid-90s incarnations (suggestions for our 1996 squad also welcome here, as I can't remember who made up the side).

I'll start.
GK: Joe Cannon, Matt Reis
DM: Rico Clark

Who else? Jim Curtin, Justin Mapp, Josh Gros?

[Winds350]

9. That's not a myth, it's a tactic. You can eithe (i) have stars or (ii) build a team. Having stars releaves you from the pressure of building a team, but both routes have been followed to international success -- see Greece and Brazil.

I guess it's how you define success. I think it takes stars to win the World Cup, along with a good team and home country advantage helps quite a bit. A good team can do well in regional play.

I think for the US (or any country) to have a realistic shot at winning the Cup, they will need to have 2-3 'stars', players that any team in the world would like to have starting for them. The quality of the team around them is the difference between winning the Cup and going out in the first round (see Portugal 2002), but you need those stars to win it.

And frankly, Project 2010 is all well and good, but I don't see 2-3 players on the US MNT that will be candidates for World Player of the Year in four years. Nor are there any there now.

[Jabinho]

Definitely true - before MLS started, almost none of our top internationals were getting regular minutes in any of Europe's top five leagues.
Look at the starting line-up against Brazil in the '94 World Cup..
The important thing to note is how many US players didn't even have a club to call home and give them regular time...

UNITED STATES AGE D.O.B. CLUB
1 GK Tony Meola (c) 25 21 Feb 1969 (no club)
5 DF Thomas Dooley 33 12 May 1961 (no club)
17 DF Marcelo Balboa 26 08 Aug 1967 (no club)
21 DF Fernando Clavijo 37 23 Jan 1957 (no club)
22 DF Alexi Lalas 24 01 Jun 1970 (no club)
7 MD Hugo Perez (-66) 30 08 Nov 1963 (no club)
9 MD Tab Ramos (-46) 27 21 Sep 1966 Real Betis (SPA)
13 MD Cobi Jones 24 16 Jun 1970 (no club)
16 MD Mike Sorber 23 14 May 1971 (no club)
20 MD Paul Caligiuri 30 09 Mar 1964 (no club)
8 FW Earnie Stewart 25 28 Mar 1969 Willem II (NED)

[CbR]

2. You can't produce top-notch soccer players unless you're a top-notch soccer nation.

A better question would be: "how many elite players come from countries where soccer isnt the main sport??" (by elite i mean the big money super stars)

Canada ,USA, Austrila (and other countries were soccer isnt the #1) field very solid guys on pretty big clubs but none are "top notch"

Traditionaly non-soccer crazy nations have yet to produce a maradona,zidane,ronaldhino,eto,cantona etc....

[russ]

France is not exactly a soccer-crazy nation in the way that a Brazil or even Germany are.

May I suggest...

10.We must have wide-ranging professional development as opposed to one elite team developing our future stars.

[ChrisE]

False - it's all based on a handful of very rich investors. As recently as 2002, it was near collapse, and that could still happen.


Well, a handful of very rich investors, two even richer shoe companies, and a bunch of municipalities with a lot of capital sunk into stadiums.

[SoccerFreak]

France is not exactly a soccer-crazy nation in the way that a Brazil or even Germany are.

May I suggest...


No probably not, but to my knowledge it is the number 1 sport there. I think that's what CBr was trying say. Comparing the popularity of soccer in the US to France is unrealistic.

[afgrijselijkheid]

Trick question - there's no such thing as a good European reserve side. They're all littered with mediocre teen-agers.



why answer a myth with another myth?

[Elninho]

Let's combine these two statements into one: The 'top' US internationals of 1996 (provided they're still around) are only 'average' (at best!) US internationals today. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that there are players today who can barely get a cup of coffee with the Nats who would have been shoo-ins a decade ago.

Just for the hell of it, list some deserving (I realize that the word 'deserving' will create some argument) names who have either NOT been called up, or have only gotten a handful (but that you think deserve more). Let's plug them into a lineup and compare it to one of our mid-90s incarnations (suggestions for our 1996 squad also welcome here, as I can't remember who made up the side).

I'll start.
GK: Joe Cannon, Matt Reis
DM: Rico Clark

Who else? Jim Curtin, Justin Mapp, Josh Gros?

Even easier: take a WCQ lineup from late 1996... and compare directly to the all-MLS lineup that we'll field against Canada next weekend. They'll be of quite similar standard, probably - the current B-team may even have a slight edge. However, when the World Cup rolls around we will probably bring in at least 3 EPL starters, 2 Bundesliga starters, and 2 starters at the Dutch Eredivisie's biggest clubs.

One thing that does surprise me, incidentally, is how often American players at foreign clubs seem to become recognized as team leaders. If John O'Brien's healthy, we will field players who have worn captain's armbands at Ajax, Glasgow Rangers, Manchester City, Hannover 96, Fulham, Sunderland, and Wolfsburg - no fewer than seven European top-flight clubs.

[ElRoss425]

1. He is playing against players that are better than him week in and week out.

2. If you follow soccer at all you'd realize how dumb this statement is.

3 and 4. Absolutely

5. I don't think so. Everybody has their price, so I'm sure we could land a top, top coach if we offered him enough money, but I don't think top notch coaches will be falling all over themselves trying to land the position if Arena steps down.

6. Hell no.

7. I agree with numerista.

8. We're producing better players, but only time will tell.

9. I'd much rather have a team of star players than everyday players if everything were equal, but with the egos and resulting fighting within the team it seems like it's better to have balance. Greece is a good point to dispel this myth.

[elbita]

1. He is playing against players that are better than him week in and week out.



i think the OP is talking about better teammates.

[Shaydee]

Look at the starting line-up against Brazil in the '94 World Cup..
The important thing to note is how many US players didn't even have a club to call home and give them regular time...

UNITED STATES AGE D.O.B. CLUB
1 GK Tony Meola (c) 25 21 Feb 1969 (no club)
5 DF Thomas Dooley 33 12 May 1961 (no club)
17 DF Marcelo Balboa 26 08 Aug 1967 (no club)
21 DF Fernando Clavijo 37 23 Jan 1957 (no club)
22 DF Alexi Lalas 24 01 Jun 1970 (no club)
7 MD Hugo Perez (-66) 30 08 Nov 1963 (no club)
9 MD Tab Ramos (-46) 27 21 Sep 1966 Real Betis (SPA)
13 MD Cobi Jones 24 16 Jun 1970 (no club)
16 MD Mike Sorber 23 14 May 1971 (no club)
20 MD Paul Caligiuri 30 09 Mar 1964 (no club)
8 FW Earnie Stewart 25 28 Mar 1969 Willem II (NED)

I thought Dooley was with Schalke or Leverkusen then. He might have been out of contract but he always had a club.

[numerista]

I thought Dooley was with Schalke or Leverkusen then. He might have been out of contract but he always had a club.

For those who don't know the history, the US national team trained as its own "club" for a couple of years, playing a ton of friendlies -- this is how a lot of the old-timers got so many caps. In Dooley's case, he actually left the Bundesliga (Kaiserslautern, where he was playing regularly) in order to join the US for the 93-94 season. It was a classy decision and helped our team's preparations a lot.

Following WC94, he went over to Leverkusen and played a fair bit before he finally slowed down and joined MLS. Between 1994 and MLS's debut in 1996, a fair number of other "no team" guys were given opportunities in good European leagues; however, I think Reyna was the only one good enough to stick.

[mschofield]

Let's combine these two statements into one: The 'top' US internationals of 1996 (provided they're still around) are only 'average' (at best!) US internationals today. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that there are players today who can barely get a cup of coffee with the Nats who would have been shoo-ins a decade ago.

Just for the hell of it, list some deserving (I realize that the word 'deserving' will create some argument) names who have either NOT been called up, or have only gotten a handful (but that you think deserve more). Let's plug them into a lineup and compare it to one of our mid-90s incarnations (suggestions for our 1996 squad also welcome here, as I can't remember who made up the side).

I'll start.
GK: Joe Cannon, Matt Reis
DM: Rico Clark

Who else? Jim Curtin, Justin Mapp, Josh Gros?
So would joe cannon or matt reis knocked Brad Friedel or kasey keller off the US roster?

While we're at it:
In 96, the US was drawing on a forward combo of Wynalda and Moore. Are you seriously saying they couldn't make the team today? We currently have McB (class) and EJ (potential) and....uhm...oh yeah.
In the midfield, our b-teamers would have overwhelmed Earnie Stewart, Tab Ramos, John Harkes, Cobi and a young Reyna? I don't think these guys are better than LD and DMB, but let's not ignore that there's a bit of success in that bunch. They would all add to our current pool. In fact, being able to draw on that bunch in their prime would thrill Arena right now. The current bunch can barely put paid to a much slower version of Cobi's international career, yet they would have been too much for the younger, actually fast and good version?
Today's defenders are head and shoulders above who among Eddie Pope, Dooley, Balboa and Lalas? Agoos, before he lost a step, was also in that group. He wouldn't have made the roster today?
The US is a better, deeper team today than 10 years ago. I agree with that. But the difference is not night and day.
Also, regarding Mexico hardly being an international power when Sanchez went to spain, I know they had a couple down years, but they were two time QFists before he got on the scene, and their reputation as a legit soccer nation was pretty much set. You'd be really hard pressed to say that this is their best ever WC team.

[numerista]

Also, regarding Mexico hardly being an international power when Sanchez went to spain, I know they had a couple down years, but they were two time QFists before he got on the scene, and their reputation as a legit soccer nation was pretty much set.

That is incorrect.

-- Prior to Hugo's arrival, Mexico had won a grand total of three matches in its entire World Cup history. Two of the victories were in meaningless games after both teams already knew their fate, leaving only one victory in a meaningful World Cup Finals game ... over El Salvador at home.

-- Mexico did make one pre-Hugo quarterfinal appearance (not two), but that also came when it was the host. And remember, there were only sixteen teams back then, so you went directly from the group stage to the quarters (where in spite of their home field advantage, they lost 4-1).

-- In the final pre-Hugo World Cup cycle (1974), Mexico failed to qualify, finishing behind Haiti and T&T.

-- In Hugo's first World Cup cycle (1978), he started as a teen-ager as Mexico lost all three of its games by more than one goal (even to Tunisia).

-- In Hugo's second World Cup cycle (1982), Mexico again failed to qualify, finishing behind Honduras and El Salvador.

Mexico used to really suck.

[FabFiveFigo]

One thing that does surprise me, incidentally, is how often American players at foreign clubs seem to become recognized as team leaders. If John O'Brien's healthy, we will field players who have worn captain's armbands at Ajax, Glasgow Rangers, Manchester City, Hannover 96, Fulham, Sunderland, and Wolfsburg - no fewer than seven European top-flight clubs.
Of course the majority of these examples are from just one guy, :) but we get the idea.