News: Bruce Arena says the United States will be in a position to win the World Cup by 2026

The LA Times does not have a section on the Galaxy because outside of diehards, no one in LA follows the Galaxy.

It's not LAG's fault because they have to compete with the likes of the Dodgers, Clippers and Lakers, all of whom have legions of fans. Not even the LA Rams can compete with the Dodgers and Lakers in terms of fan support and they are an NFL team.

It also doesn't help that LAG doesn't take the CCL seriously nor that their stadium is out in the middle of nowhere.

 

People want to watch the highest level of play and there is nothing wrong with that.

You don't ask a basketball fan to watch the EuroLeague or the Chinese Basketball league because the play in those leagues is terrible.

 

I'm not asking anybody anything.

I just don't have any respect for somebody who knows nothing about soccer, never been to Europe and "supports" Chelsea.

 

Two points:

First, people all over the world support their local league/club while also watching teams in the top leagues. It's part of the world-wide soccer culture and I think it speaks to a lack of sophistication that too many Americans want to prove their credentials by following only "(insert top team name here)"

Second, I've followed Arsenal since long before there was an MLS. I watch their games at 7:00 AM Saturday morning. Then I watch the Timbers at 7:00 PM Saturday night. There is no choice to be made - they games don't interfere with each other. So why not watch your top league game in the morning and then support your local club (MLS or whatever) at night? Go to the game, turn it on in the bar. Cause, you know, games are fun.

Back to the thread topic ...Ideally, if I guy can play (and I do mean play) at a top four league, and it's what he wants to do, go ahead and do it. The days of guys going to second and third tier leagues should be over. By staying here (or returning here) they improve the league and that helps build the US program.

 

You raise good points, but with respect to supporting local league/club, the comparison is different because in most situations, the local league/club is literally the only sporting event in town.

The local soccer clubs in many European cities don't have other significant professional leagues to compete with for eyeballs so it's natural for sport fans to simply follow their local team because they literally have not other options.

I love soccer, but there are only so many hours of the day that one can follow the sport without cutting into other fandom for sport. As mentioned earlier, many local clubs don't have to compete with other sports so one can easily follow their local team.

However, I live in LA and I am a big fan of other sports as well so in the evening, the Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers, Kings, etc. compete for my attention. If the Galaxy are not interested in putting the best product they can on the field (see Steven Gerrard), then why I should I turn over my hard earned cash to them rather than to another sporting team in the evenings?

 

The lakers suck.

I think the dodgers are ok, the angels idk, this comes from somebody who used to live a few minutes from Staple center.

Nobody is telling you not to support other teams or sports but trashing MLS is nonsense. We (Americans) should be promoting the league more than anybody else.

 

Ok with those, so far they come to play and not for an easy check.

 

There are people who prefer and even donate money to college football teams and it's definitely not because of the quality, but they feel a connection to the team.

 

You don't consider a blown call by the ref away from playing a team in the semi's we already had a 1-0 lead on and drew in the tournament (team that only lost once in six games in the '02 Cup) close?

I DO.

That US team beat a dark horse favorite (I think Portugal had the fourth or fifth longest odds going in, and had been a dominant side at Euro '00 coming close to winning the tourney before falling to host France in the semi's on a disputed (but legit) penalty, drew the host who didn't lose a game until the semi-finals, and outplayed the finalist (and loser) Germany in a game where it took a dramatic screw job by the refs to leave us the loser.

That's close.

I'll grant that I'm thinking more making a final rather than winning it, but during that tournament we were playing as well as any team in that tournament pretty much throughout.

We aren't going to be winning a tournament w/o breaks and luck for a long while. We're still in that netherworld between 12-25 overall, not really a top 10 side, have to climb quite a bit more to get there but we're making progress. The issue right now to me is that after some down periods periodically it looks like France, and Brazil are waking up again, we'll see if Germany has staying power, while the Dutch, Italians and Spainards seem to be falling off.

Most interesting way of keeping an eye on it is to look at how many quality players nations are producing between the birth years of say 1996-2000, because that's going to be the players hitting their prime or just at the pinnacle of it when/if we host. To me, we seem to be doing a nice job after a rather large dip between around say 1988-1994 or thereabouts (very, very rough). I feel like we are producing quite a few interesting prospects now that will be between age 25-30ish around that time especially when compared to the previous six or seven years where we had a lot of problems until around 2015ish. Superficially France looks like it is producing an absolute ton of talent that will be right around their prime circa 2022-2028. Will be interesting to see what kinds of results they generate in Euro '20, WC '22, Euro '24, WC '26, and Euro '28. Kind of a shame they hosted last year, as they probably would have had a grand time a decade later.

 

When you watch their games and buy jerseys, you are "donating" money to them in a way...

We go back to the same thing that started the argument, the media has a lot to do with this... advertising EPL as the best in the world when they are clearly not.

You are right, as sport fans, we are behind college football and probably college basketball too. That's sad, the mentality of some soccer fans towards MLS...

 

I will have to watch videos but in reality, we have never been close to anything great. Other than a few good players, lucky rebound goals and set pieces, we are far from making serious noise in the world cups.

Can we win it soon? There is always a chance but it will have to be ugly wins with ugly football, parking the bus and rebounds, all that Mourinho stuff.

Majority of our players still lack basic ball skills, they panic with the ball at their feet.

I never understood why MLS never brought Ronaldinho as a dp, that would have been huge for the fans and young players, Riquelme too. These are old players that never relied on the physical game, heck, I don't ever remember watching Riquelme running, he was slow but with great great skills...

 

The basic fallacy is assuming a static state of the world.

Everybody else is improving too, that's why I doubt we'll be winning the WC any time soon.

For now, getting our first win in Europe in a WC ever would be enough to make me happy.

 

The importance of having a legit coach...

This is somehow related, I was watching an interview of Ernesto Corti in Argentina, he was talking about El Salvador, this is why I watched the interview.

It has been very interesting to me that a small new team like Santa Tecla has won 3 tittles in the las few years, interesting because El Salvador has teams with bigger budgets.

Corti said he was coaching in Toluca inferiores before he went to El Salvador, he won Copa Libertadores as a River Plate player... that may be a reason why Santa Tecla is back
-to-back champion.

He also said that Santa Tecla won their first national championship with Escudero, another Argie that played next to Maradona in Argentina...

The point is, we have to be really really careful with our next coaches, we cannot hire anybody that think he can coach, it has to be a legit proven coach who has coached at the highest level possible, meaning Champions League or Libertadores, that if we want to be serious about winning a World Cup.

 

Well, USA is a divided country soccer-wise as well. We're in the middle of the respective spheres of influence of UEFA & CONMEBOL.

Mexico and Central America basically learned their fútbol from South America. Canada is still in England-worship mode.

The USA is torn, a bit like an unsolved equation. After the failure of the English style, we went for the second choice: Germany. The soccer elites in America are still very much in UEFA-love mode.

So far we go for the more physical aspect, most of our Latin players will be at best second violins in the concert. Hitting a middle ground is nearly impossible, and any transition is going to be painful.

At the youth level we're seeing some advance in such melding of styles, but at the main team level, I'm not sure it's ever going to happen. Beyond that, there's nothing wrong per se with a mainly physical style.

Except that it may be argued it marginalizes a large bunch of professional players. Why play for a team that emphasizes size & speed, when you're more the control & thinking type? In that case, it makes sense to rather play for the team of your parents.

 

I have played soccer my whole life, I was exposed to English style in college.

What I can tell you is that a great coach will use the players they have to make it happen without excuses...

Of course as a Latino, I will prefer tiki-taka style but look at Madrid, they don't play tiki-taka at all and Zidane understand this, he has the players to play a more physical vertical soccer and he is making the most of it, Anchelotti did the same at Madrid.

The point is, don't worry if the coach is from Argentina or Holland, don't worry about the style, worry about bringing a great coach, he will do his thing with what he has or what he can find.

As much as I hate-HATE Mourinho, his style is defensive, physical, ugly rebounds and set pieces, but he is a great great tactician and a great psicologist, he gets his players pumped up thinking they are the best in the world...

That being said, let's worry about bringing a great coach, with a winning record in Libertadores or Champions League, let's no worry if he likes Latino style or English style.

A great Latino coach will help in the sense that he may be able to find Latino players that aren't being noticed by our MLS coaches but if we bring an Italian for example, that's ok, as long as he is a great coach with a proven record...

 

Moreover, there's a subtle but strong antipathy from both sides regarding the others' footballing culture that's mixed with not a little bit of ethnocentrism. The mostly white Americans that had a strong influence on soccer in the US up till now also identified most closely with Northern/Western Europeans in general and inherited their chauvinism against Southern Europe (and Latin America, by proxy), including their approach to soccer. It's changing now, but lots of Americans found a kindred spirit in the Brits, who treat playing hard, fast and not really caring about tactics as a sign of footballing nobility. We've "evolved" into wanting to be like the Germans, but never really seemed interested in trying to duplicate the efforts of Spain, who were a much more dominant team when they won the WC.

The thing no one talks about is the influence of black players / culture on soccer in the US and the influence it will have in the long-term. A little shy of half the Americans called up for WCQ this week are of African descent. Black athletes will have a huge influence on the landscape of US soccer, as they have in other American sports. In the long-run I can see us being more like France or Brazil: a good mix of athleticism, flair and technique.

 

Not sure that Spain was more dominant than Germany was at the last WC as their dismantling of Brazil may be a once in a lifetime event. US is still in their sorting out period and some good points have been made regarding our different cultures and athletes. I also envision a hybrid style and I think we are starting to see it in the U20's. Because we are missing some of the more skillful U20's the full result isn't on display but the style seems to be two tall strong central defenders with decent ball skills, attacking outside backs, three athletic central midfielders that cover tons of ground, two skillful wingers and a good forward who can hold or shoot. Not sure exactly which other country it comes closest to but I see parts of Germany, Brazil, France, England and Mexico with sprinkles of others.

 

I live in Alabama, I can confirm. The rich fans are called "boosters" and they buy and sell 18 kids like they are cattle, and it's disgusting. Just google Albert Means, Nevin Shirpo, etc. if you would like to learn more.

 

Jesus Ferreira became the second youngest player to score in MLS the other day. He's an interesting future USMNT prospect. And the only reason he was here to begin with was because Dallas signed his 30 year old dad back in 2009.

Not saying I don't want young Americans to play more, but that's food for thought.

 

Similar to Gio dos Santos and his father. Do we know if the U.S is his choice, he'd be a nice addition in the next U20

 

College football and bk do better than MLS in ratings I beiieve... MLS needs to learn from them.

 

I have been hearing this same shit since I was 13 years old, and now I'm 60.

 

2050 we can win the World Cup.

I'd be happy if we reach the quarter-finals in 2018. It'd be a success for me.

Even more of a success if Mexico doesn't make it that far or if we actually have our strikers score some goals/have a cleansheet or 2 during the tournament.

 

That should be considered a success by any fan of the USMNT.

 

Especially as we showed consistency for the last 2 tournaments reaching the found of 16. If we achieve at least round of 16 we really prove that we have improved to a degree.