Since the World Cup in the US in '94, there has been a constant rise in the popularity of soccer in America. The USSF have thrown money at the sport hand over fist for decades improving all aspects of the game. Reading this forum is a real eye opener. The quality and number of facilities, the scale and structure of youth soccer, the network of scouts at national level, the number of qualified youth coaches, the number of youth soccer programs is all just phenomenal. I've traveled to the states twice (with successful district level teams) and been soundly beaten both times by High School and amateur level clubs. However, a lot of players were taken from the Islands and Europe. Where is the American talent? Despite all this spending and a population which is almost half of the entire population of Europe, why can the USA not field a first 11 that can compete on the world stage. In fact, they cannot even boast one player who you could deem as world class. Obviously the MLS is a very poor standard, but surely the nation should have produced at least one world class player in the last 25 years if not a successful international team.
I'm curious to hear the definition of "world class." Was Tim Howard in his prime not "world class"? Landon Donovan is one of the most successful World Cup players of this century -- how about him? If Christian Pulisic, already quite accomplished at Dortmund despite the heavy competition from Jaden Sancho, starts at Chelsea, would he qualify? The definition to me always seems to range somewhere between "capable of starting for a top Premier League team" to "Messi." So I'm not really sure what it means. The other question I'd have: Where were you facing high school and amateur teams with talent taken from elsewhere in the world? Anti-immigration propaganda aside, you don't see a lot of high schools with non-citizens and certainly none (aside from the occasional boarding school) with players who don't reside somewhere in the vicinity. College teams, on the other hand, recruit from overseas. MLS has become a destination league for Central America and has recruited pretty well from South America, and it attracts an odd assortment of European players, which makes it difficult to generalize about American players, many of whom are drifting overseas as soon as they turn 18.
Less than 25 years ago, the US had a very successful international team in 2002. Eventual World Cup runners up Germany needed the referee's help to beat them in the quarters.
Fair question. I'd define a World Class Player as a player who has achieved success consistently at the very highest level, e.g World Cup or Champions League. A player who could bid for a place in a World XI. I'm a fan of both Tim Howard and Landon Donovan, but IMHO it'd be way off the mark to consider either as world class players. When you consider that the US got knocked out the 2018 World Cup by Trinidad and Tobago, a country with a similar population to Rhode Island, there must be a reason why such a large country who throw money at a sport can't buy success. Sorry, my mistake I meant college teams. I played against Cocoa Beach (I believe an amateur club) and also a university team from Florida. The manager for Cocoa Beach was an ex-pro from Scotland, he told us that he spent the off-season scouring the islands looking for talent. The team we played was mainly made up of guys he'd brought over on trial and he was considering for the 1st team. The university team seemed to be made up of Americans, South Americans, guys from surroundings islands and Brits on college scholarships. The lad who was playing CM was on the books with Aston Villa who were paying for a portion of his education in the states.
Curious what your thoughts are on why the US basically suck at soccer. Its actually an interesting study even if you're not into soccer. How a country that sinks billions of dollars into soccer with millions of people playing basically stinks when compared to the rest of the world. How does something like that happen??? Anyway my opinion fwiw is that yes we spend billions on soccer and millions of kids play but they just aren't training 1) enough (twice a week with your team wont cut it) and 2) the right things (technical skills). I think its as simple as that. I also think that free play is a major issue as well and you cant force that issue. For example look around at the inner city playgrounds EVERYONE is playing basketball. I have yet to come across a playground where kids are just playing soccer. Now i'm sure that occurs but i'd venture to guess it is limited to areas of California. Here's the real question though. There have been some US kids who have had that passion and even moved to Europe to train and engulf themselves in that culture. So they are essentially putting themselves on an even playing field with the Euros, removing the US from the equation. Yet we still have not seen an American superstar that competes with the world class players of the past. That to me is truly baffling and i have no answers. You cant tell me that a Harry Kane is more athletic then your average US Kid coming over. So its not athleticism. They're now getting the same training that the Euros get yet no superstars.
There is my little analogy for what it’s worth… The US is the 13th leading rice producer in the world…we are small potatoes compared to the top rice producing countries… I am sure there are all kinds of cultural, geographic and agricultural reasons as to why that is… But in the most simplest terms, the reason the US doesn’t grow more rice, is because we are too busy growing corn and wheat….
“Some kids” is not a large enough sample…it takes a critical mass of the “best athletes” to product a handful of world class players, in any given [team based] sport…Soccer in the US has an uphill battle to achieve that critical mass…
Nearly 100 million people depend on the production of rice from rainfed upland regions to provide them with rice to eat as their daily staple food. Almost two-thirds of the world's total upland rice area is in Asia.Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India,Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam are important producers. Rice grows in water. There is generally more water sitting around in the rain producing upland areas near the equator. We grow wheat, corn, soybeans, and things that do well in our plains that have 15 feet of topsoil, sprinkled with hundreds of pounds per acre of good ol' 'merican Monsanto products.
Exactly, and given our academic-based sports environment, we grow some sports better then we grow others…
Maybe one of the reasons the US are so bad at football is that they are too busy talking about rice when they should be talking football?
Pretty sure we not going to fix soccer in the US regardless of how enlightening, clever or snarky our posts are…
Belgium which has a population of about a quarter of the state of California have, at this time, arguably produced 3 of the world's best players. Yet the states have NEVER produced one in the whole history of the sport. Why can the U.S produce so many world class female players under the same conditions? https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...100-best-female-footballers-in-the-world-2018
Not the same conditions…the women’s game is/was not as developed/entrenched as the men’s side globally…when the US decided to start competing international on the women’s side, it was relevantly new to everyone and a fairly even playing field, and as the US, we took every advantage of that… On the men’s side, we will always be playing catch up, at least for the foreseeable future…
Also, US college soccer was and is a global development system for women's soccer. Many top international women players attend and play for universities in the US. Men's US college soccer is generally not where you will find the top soccer talent of any country.
I think Howard in his prime could've bid for a place. Donovan was pretty consistent in the 2002 and 2010 World Cup. That may be all by the standard you're proposing. Beasley had a great Champions League run one year, but it was one year. There's a book coming out in November that will answer these questions.
That's not true at all. Women's football in the UK had already been immensely popular in the UK, Germany and many other European countries in the 1920s. US Women have played catch-up in the soccer stakes too, but are one of the strongest nations in the world in women's soccer.
Nobody is suggesting women’s soccer was created out of thin air in 1991… But, if so immensely popular, why did it take 60 odd years to get a Women’s WC, after the start of the Men’s? Thanks, in no small part, to Title IX (1972), US women were not playing catch-up by 1991…
And then England banned it for close to 50 years. Wolfsburg, now a massive power in Europe, still had players with supplemental jobs circa 2010. (I interviewed one of their players during the WWC.) Even today, a lot of European leagues have a couple of teams paying well and the rest paying squat. From 1989 to 2013, Germany played 36 games in the Women's Euros. They lost two. That's not exactly booming support throughout the continent.
You stated that women's soccer was "relevantly new to everyone" when the US started competing internationally. That is complete nonsense. Correct. However, it was still played through the years in certain countries. The US were fairly late to the women's game compared to Europe. The Ball is Round, pretty much the defining written word on the history of global football, has some good insights into the rise of women's soccer from its earliest origins. So, if women's football in the US can produce top level players, there still seems no reason to why men have been unable to emulate their success.
What do you mean "high" international level? International level is international level, what are you blabbering about?
There are levels of play even at the international level…Olympic soccer is international, but not nearly as “high” a level as World Cup, or even the EUROs… But in any case, more a verbose point of emphases then anything…
The first US academy opened in 2007. The US is just about to field entire teams of players who have trained in academies (US or abroad). We have finally committed to youth and now put players on the field based more on skill than height or muscle (Altidore and Morris as exceptions). I’m bullish, we may or may not have great success but the teams will play soccer and compete. We will no longer be the big, slow team that gets pulled apart by skill and tactics. Only when we put the right players on the field will the US money, facilities and off-field support make a difference. Then we’ll figure out if we have US based coaching that can get us to higher FIFA rankings ( as a measuring stick for success)
Are you being intentionally obtuse? There was no WWC until 1991. There was very little support for the organized game anywhere prior to then.