U.S Cup

[Taly]

Is it time for the USSF to revitalize the U.S. Cup for the USMNT? I would love to see the USSF only invite the GIANTS like Italy, Argentina, Brazil, England, Spain, France, Germany.

Happy postings.

[Wessoman]

Is it time for the USSF to revitalize the U.S. Cup for the USMNT? I would love to see the USSF only invite the GIANTS like Italy, Argentina, Brazil, England, Spain, France, Germany.

Happy postings.

No.

I remember the Nike Cup where Ireland played. I remember the US invited Ireland because they wanted to invite the best team that wasn't at the Euro. Now that the Euro has established the "England Rule", a Euro invitee during the Euro would have even less clout.

Furthermore, the whole point of playing against the GIANTS (as you call them) would be to play them away. I remember during the Arena days, playing England in Chicago and trashing Germany in Florida, but really, the matches that meant the most to us were the games in Europe. In fact, before World Cup 2002 we had three games away to European opponents. Before 2006, we had one. The other (Poland) was played in Europe, but in a neutral ground. Furthermore, in 2002 our sendoffs were against Uruguay, Jamaica, and the Netherlands. A far cry from Morocco, Venezuela and Estonia in 2006.

So where am I going with this? The idea of a fake tournament is now rubbish. Friendlies should only be played to 1-Make money and tune up the team or just 2-Tune up the team. Playing big European opponents away in Europe is Tuning up the team, therefore, it's okay. Playing against Mexico or Honduras in LA is going to make the fed cash, and it's going to tune up the team because it simulates a hostile environment. Playing against a big European team will tune up the team and make money provided we fill the seats. Furthermore, we need to play against non-European teams that can also make us money and be challenging, such as playing Nigeria or Israel (I Know they are UEFA) in New York, South Korea or Iran in Los Angeles, Colombia or Ecuador in Florida, etc. How about the idea of playing Japan in Hawai'i sound?

So, no more US cups with big purses. Our Federation is pretty much above that. BUT we should enter as many tournaments as possible. It's too bad the Copa America invite was withdrawn. And we should try and schedule big games against big teams, home and away.

And one last note: Personally if the US wants to have a send off series before the World Cup, I'd rather them have them overseas.

[TimB4Last]

Is it time for the USSF to revitalize the U.S. Cup for the USMNT?

No, it's not.

I would love to see the USSF only invite the GIANTS like Italy, Argentina, Brazil, England, Spain, France, Germany.

So would I.

Happy postings.

Thanks! :)

[Clint Eastwood]

The USMNT schedule is already full enough. Certainly it is this summer and in 2010. I'm sure we'll have a Gold Cup in 2011, etc.

[Heathens '87]

Come May 2010, ideally, the US can line-up 4 games against high quality competition. Other teams will be looking for such games as well. In 2006, we played a rather soft 3-game send-off series and a closed friendly in Europe before the WC. I think there's widespread agreement that we were not adequately prepared by those games.

While I don't think a return to the US Cup tournament holds much merit, I would like to see the US with a 2-game set in May next year and two other games in Europe or Africa prior to the WC. If the USSF wants to work with Mexico to host games in the US and offer South American teams that qualified a chance to come north to play the top two teams from our region, I think that would be an ideal first step.

The big thing to me is to play teams that qualified. Say four games in the US, Brazil and Argentina, where they play the US and Mexico. Big stadiums, big revenues, big names, big exposure. Head then to Europe and play another WC team before heading toward South Africa with another friendly against a WC team.

If we can schedule four games and play WC qualified teams from at least three other federations, our preparation should be better, and if we can get at least two games on the road, even better......

[PhillyQuakesFan]

And one last note: Personally if the US wants to have a send off series before the World Cup, I'd rather them have them overseas.

That kinda defeats the point of a "send-off" series.

[Justin Z]

I remember the Nike Cup where Ireland played. I remember the US invited Ireland because they wanted to invite the best team that wasn't at the Euro. Now that the Euro has established the "England Rule", a Euro invitee during the Euro would have even less clout.
The "England Rule" is not a concept I'm familiar with, could you explain?

[Adam Zebrowski]

why would a biggie want to come to the usa??

i'm all for usa being far more road tested than ever before...

all this home cooking doesn't get them ready for anything...

a 3 match at home series end of next may might be ok, but i'd still like to see usa go to europe, play a toughie, before heading south

[Heathens '87]

why would a biggie want to come to the usa??

The US is still a place where a "biggie," especially a South American one, can come and get a good payday in front of a reasonably supportive and play in a decent facility. The USMNT has seen friendlies on US soil in recent years from Brazil and Argentina, and Mexico hosted Paraguay in Chicago in 2006 as part of their send-off series.

I can't see a European team benefiting from a May 2010 trip to the US, but South American squads are a different story........

[appoo]

That kinda defeats the point of a "send-off" series.

Indeed it would. I don't really care where we play big name sides, so long as we play them. Remember, this is a neutral field tournament, and home matches against the likes of Holland in Boston are closer to the WC that playing at the ArenA

[Elninho]

I can't see a European team benefiting from a May 2010 trip to the US, but South American squads are a different story........

In 2002, we benefited from the Netherlands failing to qualify for the World Cup. Had they qualified, I don't think they would have accepted the invitation to play a friendly over here.

The US Cup could be revived in the form of a pre-WC warmup tournament. There's more incentive for any team to travel a long distance if it has more than one game scheduled, so we could simply expand the send-off series slightly by scheduling our opponents against each other. It becomes even more attractive if the competitors are teams that don't normally get to play one another. A possible lineup might be the United States, a CONMEBOL team preparing for the WC, and the best teams from Europe and Africa that didn't qualify. Because of the way CAF qualifying is structured, we're likely to see at least one African team surprisingly fail to qualify because of a single slip-up.

Of course, if any team from Europe, Africa, or Asia that qualifies for the World Cup is willing to come over here and play a few games, we should by all means bring them over!

[Wessoman]

Indeed it would. I don't really care where we play big name sides, so long as we play them. Remember, this is a neutral field tournament, and home matches against the likes of Holland in Boston are closer to the WC that playing at the ArenA

Well, let's just say I was so fecking turned off by the 2006 send-off series that it really defeated the purpose of it. Yes, we got lucky in 2002 by getting Holland, and another World Cup contender in Uruguay.

I think, honestly, that the send off series (if we have one) should have these three nations:

1-A team that has already qualified for the World Cup and needs another friendly. (Uruguay in 2002 was perfect)

2-A European team that didn't qualify for the World Cup, but the team should have been a runner-up in the Group stage. (Holland in 2002 was perfect, Latvia in 2006 was terrible)

3-A competitive side that will play their full team, and such a team will have at least 4 European based players. (Morocco 2006 and Jamaica 2002 were just fine, Venezuela 2006 was not)

Furthermore, our send off series should be planned right when our group is known. 2002 was perfect because the send-off series (Uruguay, Jamaica, and the Netherlands) looked a LOT like our group opponents (Portugal, South Korea and Poland).

I know some of you are saying that there is no way 2006's send off series could have prepared us for that group, but bear with me. Let's take 2006's results, shall we? And let's use my template to make a better send off series.

First of all, Morocco is no problem because it qualifies as team 3. Fine then.

Then we get team one. A team already in the World cup that needs a friendly. Any team will do, so let's pick one. Considering our group has one african and two European teams, let's pick a team that's European. To sweeten the deal, let's play them in their own country. Sure, that cuts the tip off of our send-off, per se, but it guarantees a good match. Picking a random number, we get---Wow. Spain.

So now we need team 2, the Euro team. Looking at runners up, we have Turkey, Slovakia and Norway. ALL of them are a huge step up from Latvia. Furthermore, even if you go down one tier, you still have loads of quality: Romania, Denmark, Russia, Israel, Scotland, Austria, Bosnia, and Bulgaria. All of them are still much better sides than Latvia, truth be told. Let's say, using a random draw, we get Slovakia.

So that's a send off with games against Morocco, Slovakia, flying over the Spain in game three, and then Germany. And let me tell you, those three teams look a LOT like our group opponents, Ghana, the Czech Republic, and Italy. That's proper preparation for the World Cup. BB, are you listening?

Even when I drew again-I got Morocco, Bulgaria, and France- It STILL looks like our group in the World Cup. My third draw- Morocco, Austria, and Portugal, still looks good. Another draw- Morocco, Norway, and Ukraine. Still much better than what we had.

The "England Rule" is not a concept I'm familiar with, could you explain?

Basically, they increased the number of participants in the Euro, so named because England now have a better shot of getting into the competition. Back in the days of the old US cup, they would invite a European team that was not in the Euro championship. With that rule implementation, a nation not playing in the Euro would pretty much be no better than a CONCACAF side like Canada or Guatemala.

[Heathens '87]

In 2002, we benefited from the Netherlands failing to qualify for the World Cup. Had they qualified, I don't think they would have accepted the invitation to play a friendly over here.

Yeah, fair point. I'm just not sure a team of that quality will be available, and given that WC teams are also looking for games, there are mutual interests to be served. I'd also offer the view that the Moroccan side was solid defensively and revealed our offensive limitations. They just missed on qualifying, and while I can't say that game helped us, it did offer some early indicators that problems lay ahead in Germany.......

[PhillyQuakesFan]

There are always a few good teams that don't make the World Cup, particularly out of Europe and Africa. No reason we can't line up a few of those teams for the send-off tour.

[Sachin]

In the run up to 2002 World Cup, after the end of qualifying, we faced South Korea (2x) (Away and Home - Gold Cup), Costa Rica (H-GC), Italy(A), Ecuador(H), Mexico(H), Germany(A), Ireland(A), Uruguay(H) and Holland(H), along with a few other CONCACAF also-rans. That's 10 matches against 9 teams that qualified for the World Cup, with 4 of those matches away.

In 2006, we faced Japan(H), Germany(A) and Poland(A). We didn't even face Mexico!

It's obvious which schedule prepared us better for the World Cup!

[Wessoman]

In the run up to 2002 World Cup, after the end of qualifying, we faced South Korea (2x) (Away and Home - Gold Cup), Costa Rica (H-GC), Italy(A), Ecuador(H), Mexico(H), Germany(A), Ireland(A), Uruguay(H) and Holland(H), along with a few other CONCACAF also-rans. That's 10 matches against 9 teams that qualified for the World Cup, with 4 of those matches away.

In 2006, we faced Japan(H), Germany(A) and Poland(A). We didn't even face Mexico!

It's obvious which schedule prepared us better for the World Cup!

Great observation. 2002 was also helped by the fact we played a tournament right before the world cup, to help solidify the team. We don't have that luxury in 2010, and we didn't have it in 2006.

That said, if we remove the Gold Cup in 2002, the USA played 10 matches before going to Korea. In 2006, we played 11. Considering we don't have a Gold Cup, we will probably play 11 friendlies again this cycle before the World Cup, I would hope 12, because in the space of the Gold Cup in 2002 we could have played two friendlies. But for argument's sake, let's go with 11 friendlies.

In 2006 it was the QUALITY of friendlies that was dour compared to 2002. Excluding the Gold Cup, the USA played eight games against teams qualified for the World Cup. In 2006 it was three. It should be par for the course that the USA should have at least five friendlies against World Cup qualified teams.

Furthermore, the US played away in four of those games. In 2006, we only played away in two games- and also a game against Poland-Which was played away in a Pro-US venue, Kaiserslautern. I know that the World Cup is a "Neutral" venue, but really, away games simulate a World Cup atmosphere more than US based friendlies. So, in 2010, we should make a point to play away in four of our games, and we should not play away in Neutral ground. We can play home and do that (Iran at Los Angeles, Italy at New York, Mexico at Houston, etc.), as well as get our fed some cash.

I've already talked about the Send-Off series in a previous post, that should be adressed. I really think the first or last game of our send-off series should be an away fixture. Personally, I like the idea of playing two games in the US, flying over to Europe to play a big team in a warm-up, and then flying straight from Europe to South Africa.

In both sets of pretournament friendlies, we played three games against CONCACAF opposition. In 2002, however, we played against Mexico. I understand that CONCACAF opponents are easy to set up, so we will play three of them. But a rule should be that one match should be against a CONCACAF opponent that has also qualified for the World Cup, unlike 2006.

And finally, the tournament will be held in Africa, so why not play a friendly away in Africa? Preferably against a team qualified for the World Cup.

These are simple guidelines with realistic expectations. Despite how good we looked in 2005 we really flubbed it by our dreadful preparation in 2006. It was like Arena saw the group, and gave up. Failure is not an option here, and we need to prepare our side properly.

[Scott e Dio93]

Actually, I love to see USA vs France

[Scotty]

I always liked the U.S. Cup.

There are some good memories associated with it. Like for instance in the first one in 1992 when we drew 1-1 against Italy, and beat a Portugal side that included Figo, Couto and Joao Pinto.

The 1993 edition had the most star appeal. Highlights included our 2-0 win against England and holding our own against Germany in a respectable 4-3 loss.

Then there was the forgettable 1997 U.S. Cup where we lost all three games, including a 4-1 thrashing by Denmark. :eek:

But when it comes down to my all-time favorite U.S. Cup memory the choice is an easy one:


YouTube - USA 4-0 Mexico / 1995 U.S. Cup

[Sachin]

That was my first US-Mexico cap.

[Adam Zebrowski]

after that 1995 match, every one thought reyna was gionna emerge as a domonant attacking player...