But he hasn't. Like the 'Dead always said, your cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay 'em down. Not a dime.
So if you don't play in Europe, your career doesn't mean anything? Are we gonna hold Eddie Pope's career to the same standard? Do we then rate Berhalter ahead of Pope?
American players of earlier years prior to 1990s were talented. However they were not trained and exposed to the higher level of the game played in other countries. Really the first real exposure for most was time with the national teams. Many quickly adapted. However it was a different time. It was prior to integration(integration of american players by foriegn clubs). Most foriegn clubs were not interested in american players at all, no matter what. But as with all integration one player given the chance opened the door for the next and another..... So the american player today is no more phyiscally able than the earlier version....the talent potential and natural ability may be the same in origin... But todays American player is being exposed to the real game at around 18 years old in their own country. Further the older American player is being accepted through integration into 2 or 3 countries in Europe. Integration takes time. It happens first with countries that maybe speaks the same language or feels some other form of common ground opening the door of resistance. However earlier players, just as with all other integrations, the earlier ostracised/excluded players still had tremendous talent. Talent that could have been brought along to become contributors at higher levels. However sadly/historically they were never to be given a chance by foriegn clubs. The doors began to open a little more after 1990. Therefore you current observers that feel current Yanks-Abroad are better players rembember that earlier players didn't have to look good while playing with better competition on a foriegn team. Many of them actually had to and did even better playing well and bieng diference makers AGAINST foriegn teams and better competition. That this is easily ignored, such is life. Hugo Perez was a difference maker playing against better players/better teams. Making many of them look silly and he started at 17 years old in the NASL. McBride could not start or even have made an MLS team at 17 years old. Eric knows Hugo... as one preceded the other. Anyhow...The big money earners of today always out shadow the minor earners of the past. There are actually young people even today who believe Kobe Bryant of the NBA is the best basketball player to play the game! Now that is just narrow vision. From a broader point of view in any graph or radar you will notice immediately a player named MICHAEL JORDAN. But with a more elevated view you will notice predecessors as well. Such is life. Ps. Wynalda has been elected as player of the decade from 1990s. Land Donovan will, barring catastrophic change in circumstances, be elected as player of the Decade from 2000-2010. Thise would seem to put to rest McBride the best debate. How many American Player of the Year Awards has McHead won any way?
Based on how badly he played in the 98/06 World Cups, I don't see how anyone can honestly say Eddie Pope isn't overrated as an international player
Not really. Players whose careers overlap decades get overlooked all the time in this sort of situation. By itself, that isn't enough to end the debate. As if we don't all know the US POY awards are a complete joke.
If you want to get technical, in terms of goals scored, Archie Stark is the most successful US forward ever. He once scored something like 67 goals in a single year in the ASL of the 1920's, which was actually a really good league for that time. In the modern era of national team scoring there's really just 4... Bruce Murray, Eric Wynalda, Joe Max Moore, and Brian McBride. Given his WC scoring record I've no problem handing the title of "best" to McBride, at least from the national team perspective. Wynalda was great but didnt do as much at the World Cup, which in the end is the most important thing. In terms of international club career, Wynalda and Moore both had some success, particularly Wynalda in Germany, but again I've no problem saying McBride is best in that category too, I dont think either Moore or Wynalda was ever POY for their club, nor scored as regularly. In terms of attitude, workrate, etc, McBride, Moore and Murray all worked their asses off, not sure I'd give a nod to one over the others, though certainly the popular choice right now would be McBride based on what the furriners say about the guy (which always seems to count more for some reason among some people). Im no fanboy but ill say it's McBride. No sense in overcompensating, the truth is the truth.
On a more serious note now... The original assertion was that Landon Donovan was the most accomplished American striker. Furthermore, it was said that he clearly has the ability to help a mid-table premership team (like McBride is doing), so we can't lose perspective while comparing McBride and Donovan's accomplishments. My point was that even if Donovan is the best striker in the world, we'll never know, because he hasn't challenged himself at a higher level (for more than a month or so anyway). McBride has, and has succeeded, so I rate him higher. Does that mean that Landon's career means nothing? Certainly not. But, as of now, McBride's means more. He's succeeded at a higher level. Now that you understand my argument more clearly, would you still propose the same example? I would assume not, but I'll address it nonetheless. Eddie Pope's career means a lot. The guy played in 3 world cups and was a favorite of mine since the day he slammed home the winner in the '96 MLS cup. However, his career would have been even more important had he made that move to Milan back in his prime, and proved himself a top defender there. You can accuse me of snobbery all you'd like, but I'm right. And Berhalter never really proved himself a key player in a top Euro league, so I wouldn't rate him over Pope.
I don't really think it matters if he's the best or not, but for what it's worth I think he's the model citizen for an athlete. Kind of the Cal Ripken of American Soccer.
Neither did Pele. It's great that McBride is having a great season at lower-mid tier club, but how does that trump Donovan's superior accomplishments in MLS(McBride played in the same league) and at the international level(McBride played on the same team)?
Because success with a "lower mid tier team" in the EPL will always trump any success with (relatively speaking) the second-rate MLS. It's like saying the guy who led AAA baseball in home runs is better than the guy that only got 20 homers in the majors, and then *only* with the Orioles. It's patently silly.
So prior to McBride's run with Fulham the previous most accomplished forward would have been Joe Max Moore?
This is a good post. While McBride isn't the greatest forward we've ever had (Wynalda), he's is an absolute role model. Here's the USMNT stats for McBride and Wynalda seeing how everyone wants to keep comparing them. (Some of you are talking about their club careers, but I really couldn't care less about that when evaluating them for the USMNT......all I care about is what they do in a US shirt.) I haven't compiled Donovan's numbers yet......as great as he has been, I'll wait a little while longer to start comparing him to Wynalda or McBride (As far as his place in history).
I can appreciate that, mostly because I'm the exact opposite. Real football is club football. National play is dessert, a treat, but not necessary, IMO. I rate McBride higher than Wynalda because I see him as being a better professional.
If you say so.... For me, I never would have ever started watching soccer if there was no National team. I never really watched sports growing up, except for the Olympics or occasional big event (Superbowl). I played AYSO soccer for a couple of years and played sports with friends, but that was about it as far as sports were concerned until my late teens. I watched college basketball (UNLV Runnin' Rebels) from 90-94. I watched the NFL for a time between 91 or so and 94. Since 1994, when I discovered the WC, it's been nothing but soccer.....USMNT matches and the club matches that involved US players. I never really got into sports except for the nationalism angle. Growing up in Vegas, UNLV was the only thing around to really represent the community. I also didn't like the way I saw players moving around in the pro leagues. I like loyalty. I don't have to worry about one of the US players moving to another national team.....at least not after they've been cap-tied anyway. As much as I've never really watched sports (except soccer for the last 13 years), I can watch just about anything that involves the USA vs someone else.
No matter what else he did that was good, this is the defining Waldo moment: June 10 Czechoslovakia Florence, Italy L, 1-5
Re: McBride better than Wynalda? Did you bother to check out the breakdown of their careers for the US that I posted? Your memory must be fuzzy. McBride was the tougher, more professional player....but Wynalda was better. Anyway, I like 'em both.....as stated before, they'd be up top together in my US All-Time XI.
* No......the defining Waldo moment was USA vs Switzerland, WC 1994**....or how about USA vs Chile, Copa America 1995 (he scored almost the exact same goal as in the Swiss game but added another as well for two on the day). * He was a first year US player who wasn't even a pro yet.....you're gonna' hold that red card against him? (The way I understand it, the Czechs were playing rough with us and weren't getting called for it....he retaliated and got carded.) **This was the first match I ever watched the US play...the first soccer match I had ever seen on tv for that matter....I became a fan of our team and Wynalda on that day.
That's where and why we differ, that was nowhere near the first US game I watched. I became a soccer fan in the early 70s,and 20 years later when I finally get to see my national team at the WC, their first WC game in 40 years gets ruined by a petulant unprofessional crybaby. And you understand it wrong,the Czechs did nothing more than any WC team would against a hothead,and Waldo fell for it hook,line,and sinker. Stupid red cards bother me,it's going to take awhile to get Mastro back in my good graces.
It was hardly "ruined" by Wynalda's ejection.....his ejection wasn't what caused us to lose 1-5. How do I understand it wrong? You just went on to say the same thing as me in other words. Stupid red cards are hardly anything to be proud of, but by your way of thinking then Zidane's defining moment was his red against Italy. (It'll be a lasting image, but hardly a moment that defines his career.)