USMNT Goals, Requirements, and Direction Discussion

[Eliezar]

I was interested in discussing the presuppositions that we are using to evaluate the manager/coach selection for the USMNT as well as looking at what criteria are actually needed to get to where we are going.

Goals

Obviously we all know about Project 2010 or for the US to be a credible team with the ability to win the World Cup in 2010. Frankly, I do not think we will be there and I doubt many people would agree with that. Well, we have a chance to win the WC like Greece had a chance to win the Euro, but it is not large enough to be considered a project 2010 success.

What is a realistic goal? I believe the mark of a true soccer power is to be able to reach the QF in at least half of the World Cups played. A look at the real powers in the past 6 World Cups looks like this:

Brasil 86, 94, 98, 02, 06
Germany 86, 90, 94, 98, 02, 06
Spain 86, 94, 02
England 86, 90, 02, 06
Italy 90, 94, 98, 06
Argentina 86, 90, 98, 06
France 86, 98, 06

This list basically provides half the QF field at any WC

86 - 6/8
90 - 4/8
94 - 4/8
98 - 5/8
02 - 4/8
06 - 6/8

The next tier of countries is likely to include countries like Mexico, Holland, and Sweden and the US needs to advance out of bracket in 2010 to demonstrate that it has achieved part of the second tier.

Requirements

So what conclusions can we draw from the top tier teams and why they are successful?

First, we know that two continents dominate soccer and that the rest of the continents are playing catch up.

Second, we know that these are the most populous countries from their region (UEFA's top 8 population include Turkey, Russia, and Ukraine; Colombia has slightly more population than Argentina) as well as being in the top 33 in the World.

Third, we know that these are the richest countries by GDP in their region (UEFA Germany, UK, France, and Italy are top 10 in the world, Russia 11, Spain 16; Brasil and Argentina are 1/2 in Conmebol and 12th and 23rd in the world)

Fourth, if we consider domestic leagues is it reasonable to say that the UEFA sides are probably the 5 strongest leagues in the world, but actually ranking what this means for the Conmebol leagues is difficult. Both because those two countries export a massive amount of players to the top leagues in the world and because it is very difficult to accurately measure the quality of leagues outside UEFA with the leagues in UEFA. It is a reasonable argument to say that Brasil and Argentina would be included in a world top 10 domestic league list though.

I am sure people can draw more accurate conclusions from that group, but this is what came to me off the top of my head.

Direction

With my belief that soccer performance basically is a function of soccer playing population, the money involved, and the competition level I think there are several important steps the USSF must take to try to elevate the US to the elite status.

First, the US must have programs to increase the soccer playing population and retain the soccer playing populations elite players.

Second, the US must increase the quality of MLS (youth development, increasing the quality AND quantity of foreign impors).

Third, the US must export the best American players to the top leagues in the world at an early age (18 to 23) and in a sizeable quantity. (To counteract this the US must heavily fill its rosters with strong imported talent)

Fourth, the US must compete in strong tournaments in both the club and international levels. Both of these are difficult to arrange and it would seem that the US needs to find a way to partner with Mexico/Conmebol to advance here.

Fifth, the US must increase the amount of money that is going into MLS.



Conclusion

Where does Bob Bradley, Klinnsman, Pekerman, Novak, or Jose Morinho fit into this?

I am not sure that the coach has a large or significant role in the direction of US soccer as a whole nor their ability to reach the elite rank of footballing nations. For all practical purposes Bradley may be as effective here as Morinho (random name coach) or Klinnsman or Pekerman.

I think that more important than the coach are the two positions taken by Sunil Gulati and Don Garber. If you look to France or Germany they have great soccer minds like Platini and Beckenbauer running their federation. In the interest of US soccer it may be that the US needs someone like Arena or a great player to take a powerful role in the federation and combine them with a great business mind (and we should have plenty of talent there from the MLS big money connections) to get long lasting planning with a mission statement and strategy to reach the stated goals.

I believe Don Garber is doing a reasonable job of making MLS profitable and trying to increase the international competition for MLS clubs. Perhaps he would be a perfect counterpart to our soccer mind driving force. However, I actually think the coach is a very small part of the puzzle and we need the Wynalda's, Balboa's, Arena's, Keller's, and Reyna's to provide for us a great soccer mind that can be a leadership influence on all policy within the federation.

Sorry for the exceptionally long post.

[Eliezar]

Oh random stats from:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

[cpwilson80]

Great post.

I think the plan's most critical element is training. When viewed from a macro level, there's no reason for the US to be anything but a great soccer nation: we have the population and money.

What has been mentioned countless times (and I fully agree) is that kids don't necessarily grow up in the US with soccer as the only sport or first-choice sport. It's not that we lack a "soccer culture", it's that young athletes concentrate on multiple sports -- stark contrast to soccer-predominant countries. While this might help us develop goalies (anecdotal, but I buy it), it hinders field players' tactical and technical development.

The technical ability comes first. Think back to our past World Cup teams: how many players do you think were comfortable with the ball at their feet under pressure? How many players were you comfortable with when they had the ball at their feet? ;)

Off the top of my head, my list is this (in no particular order):

Perez, Ramos, Dooley, Stewart, Wynalda, Harkes, Reyna, O'Brien, Mathis, Donovan, Dempsey.

Pretty sparse list for the past 4 WC cycles. However, I have reason for optimism: I think this next cycle where there will not be a black hole on the field. Be it in attack (Donovan, Dempsey, Convey, Mapp, Adu) the midfield (Clark, Feilhaber, Bradley) or the backline (Spector, Parkhurst), there is a noticable improvement of ball skills.

Now that younger players are emerging with the skill set to play at the highest level, the next step is to start tactical learning earlier.

[Albirrojo]

The analysis has been fine, I do believe one factor that skews the results and Eliezar touches on it, is that all of the Cups except 2002 have been held in the Americas or Europe; And of course, '94 was the US's. The last one held in South America was in '78 and of course, Mexico has hosted two, '70 and '86.

So, the old adage that except for '58; a European team always wins in Europe and a team from South America has always won when it is held in the Americas may come into play in 2010 in Africa. The host nations in the past have been oriented towards Europe and somewhat South America.

And of course, economics and even that some of these countries were not colonies all that long ago have been a hindrance to Africa as well.

[Eliezar]

The analysis has been fine, I do believe one factor that skews the results and Eliezar touches on it, is that all of the Cups except 2002 have been held in the Americas or Europe

Excellent point about World Cup locations. I expect that if the World Cup continues to move between continents it will definitely begin to spread out the QF participants some.

[Bora Fan]

The soccer talent export problem is a nice one to have.

Right now we'd be lucky to have enough good talent to fill all MLS rosters and development teams.

I think we are likely to see an eventual correction when MLS reaches a critical mass.

When you have sold out MLS games and everyone and their brother is trying to be a pro soccer player - there just won't be enough available outlets in the US.

Consider that Garber wants to expand MLS to 16 teams then see what happens.

Well that means 28*16=448 pro jobs then you have to minus the foreign talent - so in a country the size of the US with 300 million people - if there was that much interest in soccer and money to be made - we'd have more players coming out to try and get one of those <448 slots - who would have to find someplace else to play.

Would that prove to be a boon for Mexico? Europe?

These are clearly good problems to have down the road.

In the meantime - our biggest issues is trying to get more kids who have top athletics/sports skill to chose soccer over some other sport.

Then we need to get them into a good year round soccer environment where they can committ to a successful pro career.

We're slowly moving there.

Super Y League - then MLS developmental squads - then Generation Adidas league - now local player rule for MLS teams followed by academy systems.

In 10 years MLS won't look the same playing games entirely in SSS, with home grown players and higher priced international talent - and being showcased on TV an in packed stadia.

[Monkey Boy]

Great post.

I think the plan's most critical element is training. When viewed from a macro level, there's no reason for the US to be anything but a great soccer nation: we have the population and money.

What has been mentioned countless times (and I fully agree) is that kids don't necessarily grow up in the US with soccer as the only sport or first-choice sport. It's not that we lack a "soccer culture", it's that young athletes concentrate on multiple sports -- stark contrast to soccer-predominant countries. While this might help us develop goalies (anecdotal, but I buy it), it hinders field players' tactical and technical development.


I agree that it's about training from an early age, but I disagree that kids currently are concentrating on multiple sports. Actually the best young athletes are concentrating on one sport, be it bball, baseball, hockey, swimming or soccer. This doesn't seem to be the case for football though, but I believe it is easier to step into football later compared to these other sports. Also, football has had no problem attracting top athletes out of the other sports.

So IMO the issue isn't so much with getting kids to concentrate on soccer, it's more about getting the top athletes to concentrate on soccer and providing those kids the best training. I think it's fairly obvious that our technical skills are improving and we are producing better players, but we aren't necessarily getting top athletes to choose soccer. Making the sport more visible (MLS on ESPN) will definitely help in that department. We are moving in the right direction.

[Albirrojo]

In 2002, both France (without scoring a goal I believe) and Argentina went out in the first round. Argentina still played, from what I understand, a good brand of soccer in that tournament. All teams have tournament flops it would seem, save of course, Brazil in what we might call "modern time" (but their gauge might also be different, as they are the true giant).

In this vein too, we could look at FIFA rankings, I can't quote them right now, but we are probably at 31 and tumultous Colombia, quite a bit above us.

I'm keeping it short. Two of the best teams to have never taken the trophy home are probably '54 Hungary and those 1970s Dutch teams. Those Cups they lost also, call to mind if one investigates, that their may well be shenanigans involved that should not take away from their statuses.


One could also look at other external factors, like basketball in the USA; sometimes soccer is a way out for youth in especially Brazil but some of the other places as well.

Though you might have hard playing football in the USA or an England for example; it usually isn't looked at as a way to keep the wolf from the door.

But that doesn't mean we still can't win it, of course we can, cause we're Americans!

And I'd rather lose giving it our best like '94 and other times, than win dishonestly.

[sregis]

And I'd rather lose giving it our best like '94 and other times, than win dishonestly.

you don't really explain what dishonest would be. but, imo, if you make it to the finals, anything goes.

[Albirrojo]

you don't really explain what dishonest would be. but, imo, if you make it to the finals, anything goes.


Why should it start with the finals?

We agree to disagree.

[sregis]

Why should it start with the finals?

We agree to disagree.

just not sure what you mean by dishonest.

[Albirrojo]

just not sure what you mean by dishonest.

Dishonesty is as in the dictionary; this is offtopic, but let's say, an example from the sporting world would be Floyd Landis winning this past July's Tour De France, if he doped, then it was dishonest. He was stripped of his title.

I'm not out to disparage any team.

The US has a good record for clean play.

I can find a lot of good in the US's Cup appearances. Giants like Argentina and France crashed out in '02. We didn't altogether capitulate in '06 because we were a weak team. These things are always going to happen to some teams.

[Adam Zebrowski]

the french labs handling of the landis stuff is very suspect...

this is the same lab in 2003 who caused bernard lagat, top miler, to miss the world championships in paris, so another decent french miler would have a shot...

lagat misses the event....the drug suspension quickly gets overturned...

recently a german court refused to give lagat lost earnings due to the suspension....

oddly, lagat running for kenya in the 2004, was really an american citizen....

since then kenyan enforced their privelege of keeping lagat out of international competition....

[Albirrojo]

the french labs handling of the landis stuff is very suspect...

this is the same lab in 2003 who caused bernard lagat, top miler, to miss the world championships in paris, so another decent french miler would have a shot...

lagat misses the event....the drug suspension quickly gets overturned...

recently a german court refused to give lagat lost earnings due to the suspension....

oddly, lagat running for kenya in the 2004, was really an american citizen....

since then kenyan enforced their privelege of keeping lagat out of international competition....

I did say "if" ; there are just so many examples; and all countries practically, have had their problems. Some moreso.

[Eliezar]

In 2002, both France (without scoring a goal I believe) and Argentina went out in the first round. Argentina still played, from what I understand, a good brand of soccer in that tournament. All teams have tournament flops it would seem, save of course, Brazil in what we might call "modern time" (but their gauge might also be different, as they are the true giant).


Germany has made the QF or better in every single tournament from 1954 on. Brasil on the other hand were eliminated in group play in 66 and eliminated in the secound round in 1990.

This is one of the reasons why the German run in 06 was way over hyped. They only did better than their worst World Cup in the past 52 years by penalties. /shrug

No other nation comes remotely close to those two in performance. For instance Italy did not make the QF in 54, 58, 62, 66, 74, 86, 02 but did make it in 70, 78, 82, 90, 94, 98, 06 or they made it in exactly half of those cups.

England is solid with 9 out of 14 QFs in that span. And people on Big Soccer are constantly belittling England. Sure Germany has 3 wins and 4 runner ups in that time and Italy has 2 wins and 2 runner ups in that time while England just has the 1 win, but England is one of the most consistent teams in the last 50+ years in getting to the QF.

Brasil of course has 5 titles and 1 runner up in that time.

[gnatfan]

I think another interesting aspect of the USA talent pool is the fact that we are just starting to see the huge waves of children who got their start because of America's participation in the World Cups. I think Italia '90 went too far below the radar of the countries conciousness--it wasn't until 94 that soccer became a BIG DEAL (that and the white bronco chase). That first wave of 5 year olds that year is our U-17 team/U-20 team. There are enormous numbers of kids following that group.

What this means is anyone's guess, but from here (with my eight and twelve year old kids) it means most every kid has at least had a chance to play soccer.

These next years are going to be very exciting.

[Adam Zebrowski]

any one have any numbers of kids playinf soccer over the years going into the past...

i still think there were tons going back to 1990...

i do wonder what percent increase there has been, but i can't see it being much more than 20% or so...

don't count the females here, as the 1991 womens world cup and beyond, I think rocketed the number of young girls playing...

boys?? it's increased, but not like the girls

[schmuckatelli]

This is one of the reasons why the German run in 06 was way over hyped. They only did better than their worst World Cup in the past 52 years by penalties. /shrug

I think it's interesting that you bring up Germany's run in 2006 - expectations for that team were low, by German standards, so what they achieved seemed remarkable. In contrast, expections were high for the US in 2006, so their failure to go through to the second round was similarly remarkable.

I agree with your analysis that the US needs to improve the transition from youth development to professional development in order to get consistent results on the world stage. Until/unless that happens, the best the US can hope for is develop "good" or "journeyman" players, not the kind of players who will lead them consistently to QF results.

[Tonerl]

any one have any numbers of kids playinf soccer over the years going into the past...

i still think there were tons going back to 1990...

i do wonder what percent increase there has been, but i can't see it being much more than 20% or so...

don't count the females here, as the 1991 womens world cup and beyond, I think rocketed the number of young girls playing...

boys?? it's increased, but not like the girls

I would guess that there has not been a significant increase. I do think that kids are more likely to stay in soccer now, though.

[Adam Zebrowski]

i agree kids continue with the game, and i do think a higher percentage remain BIGGER fans of the game than say 20 years ago...

chad johnson displays his passion for the game before every nfl game....wonder how he became a fan of france though


there's a growing pool of fans...otherwise folks like espn would NOT have increased their coverage of the game