Questions about USMNT

Though this has been termed an "easy" draw I think that's a bit dismissive. Slovenia and Algeria both present difficult challenges for us because of their style of play, and both have shown the ability to beat favored opponents recently (ie Russia and Ivory Coast). England of course are an elite nation, one struggling through some injury issues at the moment, but have nevertheless still won their friendlies seemingly playing at half-speed, and qualified brilliantly.

That said, most of us were very relieved to see this draw, as it is probably the kindest draw we've gotten in ages, and it really could've been much worse. There's no doubt it's a much more favorable draw than in our last WC in 2006, which included Italy, the Czech Republic, and Ghana.

Advancement from group stage. Anything less will be considered a failure. Once making it out of the group stage, every game is a one-off, and anything can happen. At that point, as far as we go will be exciting no matter if we make it to the quarterfinals, or only the round of 16. We've been growing our program for the past 20 years slowly, and at this point we're reaching a stage in our development where failure to advance out of the group stage into the final 16 can honestly be seen as a failure. Particularly as our draw is more favorable than in the past.

An interesting question, and the answer is unfortunately not very simple. The "mainstream" media is indeed talking about it and hyping it up a little bit, but, in terms of national news, it's still a bit of a minor bit, a curiosity. If you're talking about general sporting news specifically, then yes, it's a bit more of a newsworthy item, though the hype as much to do with the fact simply that it's England and is where most of our better players play (and much of our soccer-specific sports coverage is centered) as it has to do with the historical 1950 victory. At first, there was even a bit of a buzz about the Donovan-Beckham teammate connnection, though with Beckham's injury that had subsided.

Most Americans had no idea even in 1950 that such a victory took place, though it's been talked about in soccer circles for ages. Many non-fans have now heard of that victory, of course.

What's interesting and different about this WC is that one of our major "mainstream" sports television networks, ESPN, is spending large sums of money in producing and publicizing both this match and its World Cup coverage in general. ESPN hired well-known English Sky network commentator Martin Tyler as an announcer, they're building a studio set to broadcast the daily sports news live from Johannesburg, and all 64 matches will be broadcast live in HD, with pre and post-game shows. This level of production exceeds anything they've given the WC in the past, even though this is our 6th consecutive World Cup appearance as a nation. It FAR exceeds the level of coverage and pre-tournament publicity given in 2002 or 1998. Daily news of the team training camp even is being shown on ESPN's regular daily sports news show, where soccer (even the national team) was generally of minor importance previously and only major events were mentioned and/or aired. It will be VERY interesting to see just how much advertiser support the World Cup broadcasts receive. If that turns out to be as lucrative as they hope, soccer just might take a much more prominent place in American sports broadcasting in the near future, which is a dream for this small but dedicated group of fans that we are.

There are still major newspapers in the States, however, that are only barely mentioning our line-up or pre-WC friendly results in their sports sections, and not offering any additional commentary or analysis.

However, soccer fans in the US (and specifically, fans of American soccer, as not all fans of the sport in the US think of themselves as "American" when it comes to this sport) are a relatively small but growing group, who tend to be very tuned in and more aware of our sport than the average sports reporter in this country. We get our news largely from the internet, and we generally tend to watch a lot of matches all over the world, not merely MLS and the national team. (Personally, I actually watch at least twice as many European league matches as I do MLS matches, and almost as many Mexican/Argentine/Brazilian domestic league matches as I do MLS. However, I follow the US national team itself more closely than all others.)

Well, American soccer has been changing drastically for the past 2 decades. The first World Cup tournament we qualified for in the "modern" era was 1990, and we've competed in every WC since (including the 1994 tournament which we hosted and did not have to qualify for). The 1990 team was made up largely of amateurs from the college ranks, supplemented by a few professionals, including a few that many would consider "foreigners" who happened to have American passports. That's changed dramatically. Beginning in 1994 the entire team was made up of full-time professionals. In 1996 our top flight domestic league was established and began play. Our 1998 team was made up largely therefore of MLS "all-star" players. Our 2002 team was a greater mix between MLS players and players based in Europe. In 2006 the balance tended more towards the European-based players, and now at this point in time we will field only 4 MLS players out of 23, most of which are considered "back-ups" with the exception of Landon Donovan, who spent the past two winters on loan with Bayern Munich and Everton FC.

Part of it, therefore, is probably due to the fact that a number of our players are now playing in foreign leagues, mostly in Europe. Part of it has to do with the fact that people are probably getting used to seeing our names in the World Cup draw. And part of it probably has to do with our success in 2002 when we advanced to the quarterfinals, and the finals of the 2009 Confederations Cup, and the number of upsets we've achieved over major teams here-and-there over the years.

I still think that respect for the US team (and American players in general, apart from goalkeepers) is still given begrudgingly. Europeans have long ago awoken to the fact that there are a great number of excellent players who hail from Africa, and are even beginning to take to certain Asian players (from Korea, or Australia for example), but Americans still tend to be regarded quite skeptically from the start.

There is no doubt that Mexican clubs are considerably ahead of MLS clubs by some margin at this point in time, though the same cannot be said for the Mexican national team and the USA. Money is a factor (the Mexican league is far richer and pays much more!), as is its much more established tradition, far better professional player development, a style of play that tends to suit Mexican players and their culture and environment, with large and enthusiastic fan support (both in Mexico, and also in the USA, where it is followed extensively by both immigrants and also by American soccer-lovers). The gap does not seem to be decreasing; if anything, I'd say it's growing. However, the American market and talent pool are still underdeveloped, and as that situation rectifies itself, so will that gap. It's already happened at the national team level with our best 23 players, but it is yet to happen club-to-club.

Most of us know that Henry and Pires have been discussing their MLS options, and in fact there has been a significant amount of discussion concerning Henry. Opinions here in the States are mixed as to whether or not this is a good direction for us to follow. The last time we had a top-flight soccer league in the US, the NASL (from the late 60s to early 80s), it was populated by pre-retirement big names from all over Europe and South America. Pele, George Best, Franz Beckenbauer, Johan Cruyff, Giorgio Chingalia and such all played in that league. American player development was not really a priority, it was to some degree a retirement exhibition league of world stars. It did pique American interest to a degree, but it did not lead to the advancement of the game that MLS has, nor had it developed nearly so much talent. And, honestly, talent development is still an area that MLS definitely has much room for improvement.

He's a talented player, but with the least experience (out of several inexperienced forwards we're bringing) playing at the highest level. He'll be a back-up in the World Cup most likely.

Here's a thread that began in April about Edson where we discussed his national team possibilities. You'll find much more information and a wide range of opinions there: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1382542

Hope that helps.

 

I would just add to Marko72's response that limits on roster size and team salary put MLS at a significant disadvantage when playing in multiple competitions. Even our best teams have very little depth and there are many Americans who would be good, but not great, MLS players in places like Scandanavia or the Bundesliga 2 or England's League 1 because a good but not great player can make significantly more money abroad. I think if teams had the money to keep these players, the quality of play would not be a lot better in MLS, but MLS rosters would be deep enough to compete more effectively in Superliga and the CONCACAF Champion's league

 

Agreed. Key points.

 

This is debatable, but I think "yes." It seems that every four years, a few new fans to the game enter the fold. What's different this time is that the media is actually joining in the hype and investing money in covering this; it's not the cheap production of the past. If this WC turns out to be profitable for them, then we might see more spill-over in the way they cover and publicize the sport in general; coverage of MLS, coverage of European leagues on broadcast networks instead of only cable networks (as exists at this point), more soccer news in the newspapers, etc.

And of course one of the biggest factors in all this is the performance of the national team. There seemed to be a bigger increase in popularity during and following the 2002 WC (where we were successful) than in 2006 (where we weren't). In part, rooting for the US national team to an American soccer fan is rooting for the success of the sport in this country, not merely the success of our team. A winning US team attracts attention and tends to engender additional fans to join in the fun. Also, equally as important I think in the long run, it creates more heroes of our own for our youth players to aspire to, and that success encourages them to stick with the game for longer. I'll know that US soccer has turned a corner when I see kids walking around with Donovan, Dempsey, and Altidore jerseys around the park, instead of Messi or Ronaldo jerseys (or, more often, Kobe Bryant or Tom Brady jerseys).

 

– What do you think of the draw ?

It's a very favorable draw.


– What do you expect for US NT ?

To make the second round

– You’ll play vs England and this game became legendary in 1950. The 2010 jersey is a reminder of the jersey US NT was wearing in 1950. Are US medias talking about this game ? Is there a special atmosphere around this game because of that or not ?

There is somewhat of a special atmosphere. The game is going to be on broadcast TV June 12. There is rarely an english language soccer match deemed worthy of broadcast TV so they do hype it up a bit.

– Until quite recently, US NT was considered as a minor team by a large number of people. This has changed now (I hope at least). How can you explain this ? What did US soccer to really start to be considered ? The fact that they are more and more US players now playing in Europe did help in some way ?

Yes, the fact that we have more players in Europe, that are actually doing something, and competing at the highest level. There was also the Confederations Cup last summer where we beat Spain and lead Brazil in the final for a while. It let the world see we're not the slouches they think we are.

– US and Mexican clubs are dominating the CONCACAF competitions but I think we can consider (at least by looking at the results) that mexican clubs are still ahead. Do you have the feeling that the gap is being filled and what has (needs to be) changed to fill it ? (on of my theories would be that it would help if MLS teams could play continental competitions with south american teams more often as do mexican and that MLS shouldn’t try to attract pre-retiring ex-european stars (such as Henry or Pires to talk about french men – don’t know what you think about that).

I can't really speak too much on this subject because I don't follow the CONCACAF competitions as much as I do the leagues. I do think the gap is closing though.

– Last question is a bit more specific and concerns the new US phenomenon : Edson Buddle. I followed his incredible start of the season and couldn’t have imagine such a fast progression this year. Were you expecting that from him ? Now that he will go to the WC, do you think he can be one of the revelation, be a starter at least ?

I don't think anyone saw his high goalscoring and assisting coming. Landon Donovan did an interview a while back where he talked about all the hard work Edson had been doing in the off-season and how it's paying off. So maybe his teammates and coaches did, but I didn't. As for him being in the the World Cup, I hope I'm wrong but, I don't think he will do much. The one striker I expect to break out Herculez Gomez.

 

The only reason Mexican clubs fair better in the CONCACAF competitions are because they are in the middle of their season and the MLS is just gearing up. There's no gap.

 

Your English is just fine, and you picked the appropriate place on the 'net to reach US soccer fans.

Can you please give the link to the website?

Agreeing with previous posters, the general expectation is to qualify out of the group. Everything else after that will be sort of gravy. As far as WC group draws go, this one was on the mildly kind side
of things.

It's widely known and dear to dedicated USMNT fans, but the national sporting media have picked up on this as a storyline for this WC. ESPN, arguably the leader in sport media coverage in the US, has been putting a lot of money into broadcasting soccer and increasing its coverage of the sport in recent years and this WC will be its biggest soccer event to date. The mystique of playing against England--the country who invented the game and with whom ours shares so many historic and cultural ties--has not escaped the imagination of our national media, especially ESPN. In fact, ESPN has hired a squad commentators for its WC match coverage with a distinctly Brit-flavored voice, headlined by the famed Martin Tyler.

I think there are some in the world who still consider us a "minor team," but they do so at their own delusion. But, I think we climbed out of the "minnows" category in the eyes of much of the world since 2002. To be honest, I do not think it matters much what the world thinks of our team; it actually is more important what our own country thinks of our team and of the sport in general. It's cliche at this point, but the US really is a "sleeping giant" when it comes to soccer. This is a very large country with a lot of youth playing the game: there is still much potential to be realized. We are slowly building a professional soccer culture here in the US. The slow but steady growth of MLS has played a major role in this. The big task that remains is increasing tactical and technical acumen from the youth level on up, as well as increasing professional connections throughout the youth level. Soccer has a long history in this country with being perceived as an amateur sport.

The US by far has the most crowded domestic spectator sports scene in the world, of which soccer has to work uphill against other well-established sports. But, Americans love winners. Every WC the USMNT has a chance to capture the general American public's attention if it performs well. The better they do, the better it will be for the sport of soccer in the US. But this is a slow process in a country with many established sports. There are plenty of soccer fans living within the United States who do not care much for US Soccer--if they can be converted, it could provide for a launching pad of sorts for the game as a whole in the United States. This approach, in fact, has been embraced in the more recent marketing shift of MLS: to reach the millions of indifferent soccer fans already living here.

Sure, our players playing abroad in more competitive leagues helps out a number of our national team players. Judging by what he's said and how he's played, playing at Everton has given Landon Donovan greater confidence on the international level. Such experiences for our players personally are more important than how playing abroad might, if at all, change the views of European fans on the USMNT.

A lot could be said here, but I will just briefly address this. International competitions do not yet appear to be quite the highest on the priority list of MLS and most of its teams, for good or for worse. The single-entity and salary cap structure make the league quite unique and internally competitive, but this may in some ways come at the expense of being regionally competitive with foreign leagues.

I do not think he's established enough on the team to be a starter. One can never fully predict how well someone will play on the world's biggest stage based on MLS form (there have been both hits and misses), but we all know the difference in level and speed between MLS and the WC stage and that we cannot necessarily expect that Buddle's MLS form will transfer to the international level (but we are all hoping it will). Deficiencies within a player's game that might otherwise be masked while playing in MLS can sure become quickly revealed and exposed on the international level. I'd expect Buddle to be given some minutes as a second half sub, as well as Herc Gomez.

Thanks for asking and I hope you are correct!

PS - thanks for exporting Sébastien Le Toux, he's a fan favorite of ours in Philadelphia.

 

Appreciate you taking the time. Nice to know someone outside North America follows MLS. It is a league that will continue to improve. I think Marko72 answered all your questions in a very balanced, concise and evenhanded way, that reflects accurately our progress, views of the fans, and the structure of MLS v MFL.

I will only add to one point that he made, because I've lived overseas for awhile now, but follow the USMNT and American players abroad with a somewhat disturbingly high level of intensity.

As Marko72 points out, the conventional wisdom (and its true) is that our minimum level of expectation for performance in the 2010 WC is to advance from the Group Stage, especially as this is probably the kindest draw we've received at a FIFA tournament in the modern era. No one who watched the WC qualification cycle thinks it will be easy, but "Yes We Can ... and We Should," is the attitude.

Two factors from the last five years I would argue temper and shape global expectations of the team. History among American fans presents the USMNT performance in 2006 as a failure. Our best player didn't have a very good tournament, we had a poor opening game against the Czechs, and we struggled in attack throughout. We also had very high expectations following our strong performance in 2002.

However, even then we still almost advanced from our group, narrowly missing out against Ghana. By drawing the eventual World Champions, Italy, 1-1, when the U.S. was down to only 9 men at the end of the game, also served notice to how well the U.S. could play. In fact, the U.S. would have taken the lead in the game were it not for an offside Brian McBride who was in front of DaMarcus Beasley's shot that beat Buffon. This did not go unnoticed by the English media (and the global football media) at the time.

The combinaton of this performance against the eventual World cup winners AND our finalist finish last summer in the confederation's cup 2009, has serious fans aware of our potential to play against the best (Italy, Spain, Brazil, Germany in 2002 QF, etc), but also means we are even more frustrated when our team performs poorly.

Globally, neutral fans are more aware of our high moments, especially the victory against Spain, and less sensitive to our let downs. Hence from Cantona, "America, the world no longers looks forward to playing you"

Our media and mainstream culture:
ESPN, as has been said, is spending millions of dollars promoting this tournament- based on their success with the UEFA Champions League in the past and particularly their success broadcasting EURO 2008 matches live in the U.S. two years ago.

The upward trend of U.S. soccer on the field since 1990, but the only more recent U.S. mainstream public awareness/ recognition probably has more to do with the rise of social network technologies, internet, new media, and globalization. Simply put, on the whole, we are a far less insular country then we used be. For the first time ever, the Champions League Final between Inter and Bayern was broadcast on network (public) television channel- Fox. Americans recognize that football is the global game, and while we tend to want to watch the best at anything, as a public we also have an almost awkwardly strong since of national pride in all athletes who represent our country. So while far more people in the America follow the EPL on television than attend MLS games, a (good) U.S. team means a focal point. So the media outlets are promoting this big time.

Additionally, our nation's diversity means that we literally have many people who will be cheering and supporting multiple teams. In fact we're probably the only country in this WC that could claim to have thousands of passionate fans (immigrants, transplanted nationals, diaspora), of almost EVERY team in the WC- barring the DPRK. Alot of these people are even American citizens, that would watch the WC regardless, but now also have the U.S. team to follow. So we'll be watching in big groups- whether traveling to South Africa, or on TV in the U.S.

By the way, I'll be cheering hard for France when they line up against our arch-rivals, Mexico. Agitate Marquez and Bonne Chance!

 

I think MLS is aware of this danger, and want to balance the desire to have a big name star as a fan draw and marketing point with the development of their own players. So they are limiting the number of these high-paid players under the so-called designated player rule. In addition to marketing power, these players, at least in theory, are supposed to provide a little extra savvy and help raise the overall level of play of their teams.

But these stars remain the exception. I think most of the foreigners MLS has tended to bring in the past have been semi-established or established players from middle-level leagues and clubs in Latin America or the Caribbean, to meet specific needs. The last two expansion sides have done something interesting and brought in younger foreign prospects. Examples are Seattle's Colombian forward Freddy Montero and Philadelphia's Roger Torres, a winger who is also Colombian.

 

I think we were all ecstatic when we saw the draw. No matter how much people want to say that we're being "overconfident", you can't argue with the fact that Algeria and Slovenia were arguably the weakest or 2nd weakest in their pots.

However, (most) US fans know what the World Cup is all about. Once you get in to the tournament, anything can happen. The US should get out of this group, and while it would be massively disappointing if the US did not advance, it would not be shocking either.

So much of the World Cup is about luck. The US was lucky in the 2002 World Cup to advance out of the group because of Portugal's other loss. The US was also lucky in the 2009 Confederations Cup to have Brazil defeat Italy 3-0. With bad luck, the US very well could go winless and goalless. With some good luck, a quarterfinal or semifinal run is possible.

The television media isn't talking about it quite as much yet, but they will be. ESPN is showing numerous commercials to get people hyped up for the US, the World Cup, and now the England match. Other shows like the Daily Show will talk about it though. The Daily Show has already filmed their segment with the US that will be filmed at some point. As the World Cup draws nearer, more and more shows will get into it. Written media has been talking about it since December. One journalist even did an article about the mysterious player who scored the winner over England in 1950.

The jersey is based on the 1950 jersey, but US fans won't stop whining about it. BUT, that's what we do. US fans hate every jersey Nike makes.

I think all the players and fans realize the magnitude of the match versus England, and how special it could be. But they also realize there are 2 more very important games in the group stage.

I think that US players moving abroad is almost solely responsible for the US's improving reputation. Annoying to me at least, people seem to solely base a player and their national team's worth on where the players ply their trade. Not only are there more American players in Europe than ever before, but they're also playing well. Howard, Friedel, Dempsey, Cherundolo, Onyewu, Bocanegra, Bradley, and Donovan (during his time with Everton) are leading the way. Benny Feilhaber almost never played for Derby County and Hamburg, and now he plays with Aarhus, yet he scored one of the most beautiful goals ever scored by an American and is a player Bradley always wants. He and Donovan (with LA) have shown that clubs don't matter that much.

The upset of Spain was more the cherry on top. That was the culmination of the improvement of the US and its reputation.

(The best) Mexican clubs are still way ahead. They simply have better depth and the schedule works in their favor. MLS teams have a much lower salary and have tough schedule congestion during Champions League stages. Then the knock-out rounds start before the MLS season starts. I'm not saying MLS teams shouldn't be doing better, but that's definitely a competitive disadvantage. Yet, the Columbus Crew in preseason still almost got to the semifinals.

MLS teams competing against South American teams would definitely help them. However, until the league is able to loosen salary restrictions and expand the salary cap, the MLS teams would not fare well at all. They have to earn a spot in CONMEBOL competitions through success in CONCACAF first.

I'll really have to disagree with you about the "pre-retiring ex-european stars." Ljungberg, Angel, and Beckham definitely came into the league with the right attitude competitively (although Beckham carried some baggage). Other than that, its been South American stars and Cuahtemoc Blanco that MLS teams have gone after. Gillermo Barros Schelotto has been one of the league's best players since he got here and performed well in Champions League, so getting aging veterans definitely is not a detriment to the league as long as they find the right players with the right attitude.

Ljungberg and Beckham will be in the Champions League this season. Now we'll finally get to see how much "pre-retiring ex-european stars" can really help MLS teams against Mexican teams. BUT don't try to tell me Henry won't be great for the league. He's still world class. Pires . . . not so much.

I was dying for him to get called up in 2008 when he scored 15 goals in MLS. He had a tough season in 2009, but I think most of us knew he had a ton of talent. He's an option to start alongside Altidore, especially now that Bradley is showing that he's not looking for long-ball tactics. This is the first time all cycle the US does not have a true "target striker" on the roster.

Buddle had a great advantage to playing in a similar system with the Los Angeles Galaxy and alongside Landon Donovan.

 

Bob's definitely looking for a dynamic forward to pair with Altidore. The fact that Buddle, Gomez, AND Findley are all on the World Cup roster speaks to that. Bradley saw the possibilities of having two dynamic forwards when he was able to have Charlie Davies alongside Altidore against Egypt, Spain, and Brazil last summer.

Buddle is an option to pair with Altidore, but I don't think any of us have much idea of what Bradley is thinking after he left Brian Ching off of the roster and included Robbie Findley. I think a lot of us are thinking that both Gomez and Findley are excellent substitute options at this point, but its unlikely that he would introduce both into a game and ignore other players like Torres, Feilhaber, Beasley, Holden, etc. who may be on the bench. So are one of those 2 an option to start? If so, then Buddle may not have much of a role on this team.

 

1950: USA participates in WC, beats England, prevents England from advancing to Final Round

{40 years in the World Cup desert}

1968: North American Soccer League formed
1970s Pele, Beckenbauer, Cruyff, Best, etc. play in NASL
1984: North American Soccer League folds
1988: USA chosen as host of the 1994 World Cup!
1989: USA qualifies for 1990 WC with "Shot Heard Round the World"
1990: USA loses all 3 matches
1994: USA hosts WC, advances to 2nd round, loses to Brazil 1-0
1996: Major League Soccer started
1998: USA qualifies for 3rd consecutive WC, fails in France
2002: USA loses to Germany in quarterfinals
2006: USA fails to advance from Group of Death
...
2010: USA reaches semifinals

 

Also, an aside to my comment that Americans' movement abroad being the basis for its improving quality and reputation: Major League Soccer.

A stable, modern, domestic league has been the catalyst to the US's rise. Its reaches are immeasurable. Whether it is players like Howard, Bocanegra, Bradley, Dempsey, etc. getting their start in the league or more exposure to the sport of soccer to American children, MLS is a huge part of US Soccer's improvements. Dempsey, Edu, Adu, and Altidore are 3 of the biggest transfers in US Soccer history. With the same amount of talent, would they have been able to make the same moves and subsequent improvements if they were previously playing in USL instead of MLS? Definitely not.

 

I have a question,

Does anyone know what the travel arrangements were like for the Nats to South Africa.

Charter or Commercial, First Class, Business or Coach or some combination depending on status, Landon upfront with coach, Gooch in Business, Findley in Coach.

 

They almost always fly charter, and I can't believe this trip would be any different in that regard. And their travel from the time they land will be very well-secured, for certain.

 

Definitely charter, I'm not a frequently flier so I don't know if this counts as first class or business:

 

Good questions, and glad to see you're writing about the US and MLS!

My quick answers:

1) The draw is a favorable one, and I expect us to reach the second round. Anything after that is golden.

2) We have a love/hate relationship with England. There are probably more EPL fans than MLS fans in the US, but few things would please us more than beating England (Mexico is still our biggest rival.) The 1950/American Revolution undertones are there, but there are quite a few mentions of our last friendly with them in 2008 (where we lost 2-0) as well as the US players in the EPL (particularly Dempsey, Howard, and Donovan's recent loan.)

3) Everything changed in 1990. Making a World Cup put US Soccer back on the sports scene, and hosting in 1994 made me a soccer fan for life (and I'm sure others my age.)

 

Ditto.

 

I've nothing to add here, this is the easiest draw not involving SA we could have gotten. We should get out of this group, and don't think we wouldn't love another shot after Germany in '02. We feel about Germany the way the Irish do about France.

It is really nothing to most Americans, since they don't know it happened. ESPN will talk about it some in the pre-game coverage, but not as much you would expect. They don't have video, so it simply can't command much air time.

Any improvement in how the world views USA soccer has to be rooted in two things, our upset of Portugal's Golden Generation in '02 (making the 1/8 finals matters far more to people on this board than the rest of the world I bet) and beating Spain last summer. Our European league presence is about as close to zero as you could get among the field players. I suspect that our goalkeepers get a bit of respect, and Donovan had a few good weeks with Everton but I can't imagine any of this makes the USA matter to most worldwide fans.

The out-of-season argument is absurd. When Mexican teams care and try, they are the best in CONCACAF. Our salary cap ensures this, but that cap reflects the reality that in the US domestic league soccer is a TINY sport. The cap is kept very low because the league would go bankrupt if it was higher.
This gap won't be filled very soon unless MLS can figure out how to tax all of the Ronaldinho jerseys and EPL broadcasts paid for with US dollars. Following European or Mexican leagues is the preferred method of following soccer in the US, since that is where the best players are. I have MLS season tickets but I also pay a high premium every month on my TV bill to be sure I can see Arsenal whenever they play. If my money was tighter I know I would give up the MLS season tickets first.
This fascination with the best players in the world is understandable but it leads to the Beckham/Henry problem. We can't afford the best players, but US soccer fans won't come out to see the players we can afford. More fans will come out (for a while) to see truly exceptional players play in their semi-retirement. But this creates no real attachment to the team so they don't come back until the next name player comes along. If the owner sells enough Henry jerseys it is a good move, if not it wasn't. It is outside of the normal fan-team relationship.

Buddle is an odd story. His progression hasn't been all that fast. He has played 9 years in MLS, but between injuries and attitude he was never someone a coach would make a commitment to. This season has been a another good year (he has had a few before) and it comes just when we need a striker. Realistically I don't see any of the Buddle/Gomez/Findlay trio getting 3 starts in the group phase. I wouldn't be surprised if they each get one. The fact is they are all flawed and none of the are Charlie Davies.

 

I think everybody will have the same answer. A very good draw for us but by no means will it be easy to advance. However, not advancing is a failure for the US.

The 1950 game is legendary but it was so long ago and there is very little connection between the current US national team and the US of 60 years ago. Soccer was literally non-existent from that game until 24 years later and that has served to erase a lot of the historic connection that for instance Uruguayans feel for the Maracanazo.

In the 70's the NASL did an interesting job in creating a soccer league but ultimately they were all about creating a league and making money but didn't consider actually developing American soccer players and because of other financial shortsightedness they disappeared. Nonetheless, they left an imprint in many people's mind. The US soccer association started an ambitious plan to make the US a true soccer country. They successfully brought the World Cup to the US. Since they didn't have many professional players they had the best players year around playing friendlies. The 1994 World Cup was incredibly successful for the US. The US NT played better than expected and the stadiums were full. This contributed to convincing important businessmen that soccer with American players was viable in the US. Since then MLS has been the motor that has developed most of our soccer players.

MLS is configured in such a way that the best MLS teams will not necessarily compete well with the best Mexican teams. In fact, MLS is so radically different from other leagues that there would not possibly be enough space here to cover all the points. In any case, financial considerations mean that team roster are typically small and cannot handle multiple tournaments. Also, the league expands each year, so teams will typically have to give up players to the new teams coming in each year (this is something that could only happen in a US style league.) Finally, until recently, many of the better players have been leaving the league for better pay in Europe. In 2004 MLS provided over half the players of the NT, now it's a negligible amount. However, all of the players have originally come from MLS.

Edson has always been at the edge of the NT. He certainly always had all the physical tools to be there. What seems to have change has been a mental attitude and a greater consistency. In previous years he was famous for dominating in a few games and getting multiple goals but disappearing for many more. This year he has scored in various games in a row while also working hard when he does not have the ball.

 

not true.

even when mls is in midseason, mexican clubs win concacaf competitions.

there is a gap.

salary cap, squad size....

 

It might be a little more interesting this year if the Galaxy are as good as they seem to be...but yes the infastructure in Mexico is so much better, no doubt about that.