Is the USMNT schedule this year too soft?

[Vicious Lhasa Apso]

After the last WC, there was talk of getting an international coach and a tougher schedule. The former resulted in another domestic coach. Yawn. The latter has resulted in accepting the Copa America's invitation, but the rest of the schedule hardly blows one away. Double yawn? Is the USMNT schedule too soft? Just right?

Should Mexico be game 2 in an evaluation year?

Confirmed:
January 20, Saturday:: 3:50 p.m.:: US vs Denmark (Home Depot Center)
February 7, Wednesday:: 8:00 p.m.:: US vs Mexico (University of Phoenix Stadium)
March 28, Wednesday:: US vs Guatamala (PHP)
June Gold Cup
July Copa America

Semi-confirmed/rumored:
March 25, Sunday:: US vs Ecuador (Giants Stadium)

[tab5g]

no.

they're traveling to SA to compete in the CA.

what else do you want, and could reasonably get for the USMNT?

tougher "friendlies"?

keep in mind the USMNT is in Concacaf and UEFA is busy with qualifying for Euro2008.

Denmark, Mexico, Guatemala and Ecuador look to be a nice group of games as the squad starts this next cylce. Hopefully they'll build to a GC win, and a very solid showing at CA.

[onefineesq]

no.

they're traveling to SA to compete in the CA.

what else do you want, and could reasonably get? tougher "friendlies"? thank you for injecting some sense into an already pathetic thread.

[Sachin]

Mexico is always a tough game. And it's going to get doubly tough when you consider all of Mexico's young talent that is just beginning to emerge onto the full national team scene, in contrast to our lack of young impact players.

This game isn't the problem.

Denmark is the type of team that gives us trouble: Big, physical and fast. If they come to play, it will be a test. Hopefully they come out and smack us in the face. We need to learn how to play through that.

Guatemala -- the less said the better. It's a total waste of time.

Ecuador -- Again, depends on their team. If they bring a first choice team, it will be a good match. However, I expect something similar to our friendly with them in 2001. BORING.

Gold Cup -- It's a joke of a tournament. It won't be competitive until the semi-final. If we don't make the final, it's time to panic.

Copa America -- This is the real test. And so far, the only matches we will play outside the USA.

To answer your question: I think the schedule leaves much to be desired. We need to play tougher teams than Guatemala. I'm surprised we don't have a match or two in South America before Copa America. We haven't played there since January 29, 2000 (7 years!).

[Vicious Lhasa Apso]

I thought we were going to improve the quality of our schedule. More Englands, less Guatemalas. Anyone recall that, before the 6-month hiatus? Bashing Guatemala for the 1000th time does not make us any better. The schedule looks just like what we have done every year, for years, and that has not proven sufficient for us to get to the point where we can go to a German World Cup and handle a tough draw.

The Guatemala friendly was staged at a similar time and place last year and added about nothing to team development. We won handily and then a few weeks later got clobbered by Germany. Too soft a game, tells you nothing.

Denmark and Ecuador, while decent sides, and even ranked ahead of us, are not of the elite quality we aspire to, nor the elite test we need to be subjecting the team to. Even if the games are good, our problem at the last WC cycle was not dealing with mediocre sides, it was having to play two top 10 teams plus a rising African side. You don't train for a potential rough draw against the world's elite by playing teams a few spots above you in the ranks.

Mexico is a good game, my quibble with that is more about timing, and the fact that it is lonely on the schedule in terms of sheer quality.

Gold Cup is a given, but I think there was near-universal agreement that it wasn't sufficient for where we need to go. So we brought in Copa America, but honesty requires noting that this tournament doesn't usually involve everyone bringing A teams. It's closer to A/B or B. Even though the name is nice and the competition pretty good, we will likely not be seeing the Brazil A team that we need to be prepared to play next World Cup. Ergo, we should be hunting down A games with great teams outside the tournaments.

While Europe is admittedly in qualifying, most of their groups are "odd-numbered". Teams have open dates. And Europe is not everything, there is South America, etc.

Anyone concerned by the lack of road games, Copa America aside?

[england66]

we will likely not be seeing the Brazil A team that we need to be prepared to play next World Cup. Ergo, we should be hunting down A games with great teams.




I imagine Brazils B or C team would be more than a handfull.....

[chitrader]

Who cares about who we schedule for our friendlies? When we played your precious England, they brought a C team, we brought a B team. Yippee. We're playing Gold Cup and Copa America, two actual competitions. If that's too soft for you, I don't know what to tell you.

Do you honestly think any other country gets as riled up about playing friendlies against "competition" as we do? I have never understood how we learn any more when we play a European B or C team in a meaningless game than in a CONCACAF friendly. Friendlies don't "improve" your players, they are just useful for gathering information.

[tab5g]

To answer your question: I think the schedule leaves much to be desired. We need to play tougher teams than Guatemala.


Like Mexico and Ecuador and Denmark?


I'm surprised we don't have a match or two in South America before Copa America. We haven't played there since January 29, 2000 (7 years!).

When's the last time the USMNT was invited down there?

Yes, more games in SA would be great, but it takes two to tango, and the US is a great location for friendlies -- with nice venues, great weather, potentially large, devoted and diverse crowds eagar to see and spend money at some international matches. Even other Concacaf and SA nations would at times choose to "host" their "home" friendlies in the US.

Although it would be ideal if US Soccer could call up Buenos Aires or Rio and say, 'Hey fellas, we'd like to come and get in a match on March 25 and/or March 28, does 8PM at your place work?' -- that's just not realistic.

[Vicious Lhasa Apso]

Who cares about who we schedule for our friendlies? When we played your precious England, they brought a C team, we brought a B team. Yippee. We're playing Gold Cup and Copa America, two actual competitions. If that's too soft for you, I don't know what to tell you.

Do you honestly think any other country gets as riled up about playing friendlies against "competition" as we do? I have never understood how we learn any more when we play a European B or C team in a meaningless game than in a CONCACAF friendly. Friendlies don't "improve" your players, they are just useful for gathering information.

How to put this: even accepting your argument as true: is England B or C a sterner test than Guatemala B or C, which is what we saw last year? We should at least be inviting in teams that have a chance of beating us, as that is actual preparation for what one will see in South Africa, which is anything but Guatemala B or C.

You're taking "it's a friendly" too far. It's always a friendly. That's the only way this gets done. Working within the structure of a less than perfect tradition, the question is how best to prepare ourselves, even if no one brings their best.

GC and CA are not any closer to WC-quality, even if they are "actual competitions". Are you suggesting winning the last GC did anything for us, in light of how things turned out? I don't think we'd be in CA if it did. The universal impression after we won in 05 and then flopped in 06 was that the GC was soft. And CA is more of the same, just incrementally better quality. Go look at whom these teams actually run out, which is not Brazil A and Argentina A. That's why we've won games down there before.

[Vicious Lhasa Apso]

Like Mexico and Ecuador and Denmark?

---Give me a call when any of them wins the World Cup. It's a matter of degree. Are we preparing just to win qualifying, or to win the whole enchilada?

When's the last time the USMNT was invited down there?

---Do hosts tend to keep inviting guests who turn down invitations? We were re-invited because we hinted we'd accept this time.

[tab5g]

Anyone concerned by the lack of road games

i'm more concerned about the lack of home fan support that will likely be drowned out by the 'away' supporters in the 'home' friendlies against Mexico and Ecuador.

The Gautemala friendly could also be thrown into this group, but I think the US supporters will be in the majority at PHP.

[Vicious Lhasa Apso]

I imagine Brazils B or C team would be more than a handfull.....

Fair enough, but that's one game, and we don't know how the draw will work out. My point is that we ought to have more of those events on the schedule. If it's on the schedule as a friendly, you know you will get that game. And I think that's more like what we need every game.

[Vicious Lhasa Apso]

i'm more concerned about the lack of home fan support that will likely be drowned out by the 'away' supporters in the 'home' friendlies against Mexico and Ecuador.

The Gautemala friendly could also be thrown into this group, but I think the US supporters will be in the majority at PHP.

I'd say that there is a difference between "home" in quotes and home for real. We beat Mexico in Columbus; we tied in Houston; we lost to them in Mexico City. Further it gets from the "heartland", the worse we do. Costa Rica has gone similarly. World Cup is not often a homefield thing, so you need to be able to "play on the road". I see no substitute for playing England in England, Germany in Germany, that type of WC-esque fervor.

[tab5g]

When's the last time the USMNT was invited down there?

---Do hosts tend to keep inviting guests who turn down invitations? We were re-invited because we hinted we'd accept this time.

i was speaking of friendlies, not Copa America. the fact is (yes, partly through some of their own doing) that the USMNT receives few, if any, invitations to play in desirable locations against the best national teams.

---Give me a call when any of them wins the World Cup.

i tend to think your standards for 'friendly' competitions are too high.

there are a total of 7 countries that have ever won a WC. i'm sure their calendars get booked up rather quickly and the USMNT isn't the most desired opponent for them.

I see no substitute for playing England in England, Germany in Germany, that type of WC-esque fervor.

that's great for the 2006WC, and we did play at Germany in that run-up (they also got in a game v Poland in Germany). the next major tournament for the USMNT (not counting the GC which we host) is the Copa America, so I'll take the Ecuador friendly, and not worry about missing out on a trip to some nice European match.

when '09 and '10 roll around, i'd hope US Soccer gets the squad some matches in Africa and against stronger competition than Denmark and Guatemala. but as it is for 2007, i'm fine with the four 'friendlies' on the schedule at this point, as i see them as realistic and useful. sure other games could have been ideal or better, but those options aren't always logistically feasible.

[Sachin]

Do you honestly think any other country gets as riled up about playing friendlies against "competition" as we do? I have never understood how we learn any more when we play a European B or C team in a meaningless game than in a CONCACAF friendly. Friendlies don't "improve" your players, they are just useful for gathering information.

Part of the reason, heck, most of the reason, why we get riled up over friendlies is that our European opposition goes from the World Cup final to European Championships Qualifying to the European Championships Final to World Cup Qualifying to the World Cup final to the European Championship Qualifying to the .... oh you get the idea. They are always playing competitive matches to blood new players. Sure you get the occasional Malta or Albania, but then again, we get Greneda and El Salvador as well.

In South America, you've got two Copa Americas and a brutal 22 match qualifying slog in a four-year period. So basically, everyone plays everyone at least twice, and usually more often than that.

We get two or three Gold Cup matches that matter twice and about 8 World Cup qualifiers that really count as true tests: Mexico home and away, Costa Rica away, Jamaica away, Guatemala away, and usually a couple of others. So we have 15 truly difficult matches, while our World Cup final oppsition is playing 20-30 over 4 years.

That's why who we play in friendlies is important. It's the only opportunity we get to match oursleves against teams we're likely to see in a World Cup finals.

Sachin

[tab5g]

Part of the reason, heck, most of the reason, why we get riled up over friendlies is that our European opposition goes from the World Cup final to European Championships Qualifying to the European Championships Final to World Cup Qualifying to the World Cup final to the European Championship Qualifying to the .... oh you get the idea. They are always playing competitive matches to blood new players. Sure you get the occasional Malta or Albania, but then again, we get Greneda and El Salvador as well.

In South America, you've got two Copa Americas and a brutal 22 match qualifying slog in a four-year period. So basically, everyone plays everyone at least twice, and usually more often than that.

We get two or three Gold Cup matches that matter twice and about 8 World Cup qualifiers that really count as true tests: Mexico home and away, Costa Rica away, Jamaica away, Guatemala away, and usually a couple of others. So we have 15 truly difficult matches, while our World Cup final oppsition is playing 20-30 over 4 years.

That's why who we play in friendlies is important. It's the only opportunity we get to match oursleves against teams we're likely to see in a World Cup finals.

Sachin

this is a Concacaf issue/problem, and is really beyond the control of US Soccer. it is an unfortunate situation. the US does need to make the best of it's non-Concacaf opportunities, but often the 'best' they can arrange isn't the 'ideal' in the fans' mind.

it's important that the USMNT wins the GC so they can travel to the Confederations Cup in '09. and part of the preparation for the GC are games like hosting Guatemala in Frisco, and Mexico in Glendale.

[Vicious Lhasa Apso]

i tend to think your standards for 'friendly' competitions are too high.

there are a total of 7 countries that have ever won a WC. i'm sure their calendars get booked up rather quickly and the USMNT isn't the most desired opponent for them.

that's great for the 2006WC, and we did play at Germany in that run-up. the next major tournament for the USMNT (not counting the GC which we host) is the Copa America, so I'll take the Ecuador friendly, and not worry about missing out on a trip to some nice European match.

when '09 and '10 roll around, i'd hope US Soccer gets the squad some matches in Africa and against stronger competition than Denmark and Guatemala. but as it is for 2007, i'm fine with the four 'friendlies' on the schedule at this point, as i see them as realistic and useful. sure other games could have been ideal or better, but those options aren't always logistically feasible.

I'd respond to both arguments by saying that the whooping from Germany told you more about the team than any number of the other friendlies we played in 2006, except perhaps Morocco and Jamaica. Those 3 games told more truth than the lying balance of our schedule. All the others offered false hope about our quality. We don't need "false hope" games.

My standards might be higher than some people's, but they are also higher than "group and out", which I would hope is not also my lonely hope. I see the two as linked. We need better pro games for our players, and we need better internationals.

[Vicious Lhasa Apso]

this is a Concacaf issue/problem, and is really beyond the control of US Soccer. it is an unfortunate situation. the US does need to make the best of it's non-Concacaf opportunities, but often the 'best' they can arrange isn't the 'ideal' in the fans' mind.

it's important that the USMNT wins the GC so they can travel to the Confederation's Cup in '09. and part of the preparation for the GC are games like hosting Guatemala in Frisco, and Mexico in Glendale.

I don't think we deserve automatic qualification to GC, nor does anyone, and playing real games to qualify for that, instead of fake ones to no end, might be worthwhile, even if posing no real risk of exclusion. Until that happens, though, what we endure in CONCACAF is a constant and we should work on the variable elements we can fix, like the schedule we control.

This is very tangential, but a real CONCACAF Champs. League would also be helpful for our continent. The current minimalist version suits MLS sides ill and limits international club competition in the region. This too should be expanded and opened.

[dcsundevil2002]

After I dropped a post in the other schedule thread about the USSF scheduling who they could schedule, rather than who they wanted to schedule, i sat down and thought it out long style. I posted it here on my blog (http://dcsundevil.blogspot.com/2007/01/much-ado-about-somethingusmnt.html).

I think it gives a good mixture of home and away and good opponents, without trying to line up Brazil, france, Germany or Argentina.

[Adam Zebrowski]

a domestic denmark side is a nice start for the domestic americans, here's hoping the danes are better than the domestics norway sent...

mexico is fine...let's see if bradley stays domestic or bring in the euros....

then end of marh matches, as posted in the sticky tread, there are quite a few euros with open dates on those FIFA dates...

did ussf even pursue them ???

apparently ireland in may is in the works, which would be a good preparation for the gold cup and copa crew...

what's the draw for copa america....?? one toughie, a weak one, and a mid level one which'll be interesting...

it's the matches COUNTING, not being friendlies...that's what's good about copa america...

gold cup would be nice for 2nd line guys, guys with minimal international experience....get them blooded, and hope some are ready for wcq process..

on a scale of 1-10, i give the schedule a 6....march could be better