"Project 2010 is a blueprint U.S. Soccer executives created in 1998 to ensure that the United States men's national team could become a legitimate threat to win the FIFA World Cup by the 2010 FIFA World Cup." Do you think the CIA planted this in wikipedia?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OF3ZjzPgdw"]YouTube - ?Yes Virginia..there IS a santa clause 2of2[/ame]
Seems a matter of perspective to me. Your view is from one side, his is from another. Both are reasonable.
That we have a "legit" chance of winning the WC?; I'll cover any and all bets, no problem. That's my perspective.
Yeah, I don't think anybody who's been paying attention this cycle thinks we're a "legit" contender to win the world cup. We're a contender to make the knockout phases.....and that depends on the draw. People can talk all about the Confederations Cup........but in 1999 we made the semifinal of a Confederations Cup. Before any of this project 2010 business was announced we made the 1995 Copa America semifinal (beating Mexico, Argentina, and Chile......before succumbing to Brazil 1-0.) Nothing's really changed in this regard. Being a legitimate contender to WIN a world cup is another matter entirely. I will say that a lot has been accomplished since they announced Project 2010 after the 98 World Cup. But we're only part of the way there. We threw money at some problems, but for instance.........Bradenton was a band-aid on a youth development broken arm. We're still generations away from competing with the Argentina's and Italy's of the world when it comes to youth development. And until we do that, it's going to be difficult to develop the depth required to be a legitimate world cup contender. We just lost a centerback and a forward to injury, and people are in "DOOM AND GLOOM" mode. Spain can replace Torres with Villa and not miss a beat.
I'd say that the natural evolution of the game in this country has had as much to do with this as anything. 2006 was a major set-back, at least to me, and Bradenton is a limited success; with about a 50/50 ratio.
I've posted this similiar response in the College Boards regarding the Academy Teams: the biggest benficiary of these 72 teams will be college soccer; the entity that it was designed to eventually replace. It will be at least a generation before by-passing college will be finacially acceptable to the American public at-large; and therefore, college will still be the choice for the majority of these players.
No they can't. And herein lies my point. A LARGE part of winning is expecting to win. Without said expectation, success is impossible. But I understand and respect your position. My preference is to expect to win and make the other teams beat me.
Coachspeak. In reality, "expecting to win" doesn't get you very far if you lack the talent. Stanford can expect to win the college football national championship all they want, but they're not going to.
That's because the other teams BEAT them. They don't go out there just trying to look respectable, i.e. faking it. (don't know anything about Stanford, just going with your analogy) I like our talent at all levels, except the last U17 (current U20). Once you get close enough to be competitive, the only way to grow is to try to win. Continuing to 'not lose' doesn't get you any closer to winning. We have proved at all levels that we are, in fact, good enough to compete, so why not go for the wins and make the other teams beat us. What we will find is that only the teams that are truly better than us will actually be able to do so. We will gain an advantage over the other sides that people think should be better than us, but really aren't, and we will gain a measuring stick against those teams that truly are better than us. At this point in our development, I would say that it is a better use of our effort to expect to win than to try to minimize losses.
One thing I miss when I come to BS is posters who are aware of other sports, and thus are grounded in reality when it comes to where the USMNT stands talent-wise compared to other national teams.
I don't get this argument at all. Of course, we got out trying to win. But if you watch world football, and you were to take odds on the most likely teams to win this 2010 World Cup.............we'd be relatively far down the list. I'm guessing we'd be in there at ~15th or something like that. So we can have all this happy speak about winning the World Cup, but still be based in some semblance of reality. I bet if we took an age quiz on the "happy speak" crowd versus the "realism" crowd........we'd find the "realism" crowd is older. We've been thru so much nonsense "happy speak" over the years that we no longer listen to it. We are Boise State when it comes to international football right now..........not Ohio State. Are the coaches of Boise State coaching their guts out, telling their players they can win the national title, etc. etc. Of course. Everybody respects them, everybody thinks they've got a good team........but would anybody in their right mind actually pick them to win the national title? No, they wouldn't. They'd pick Alabama, Florida, or Texas. So when it comes to the world cup you pick Argentina, Brazil, and Spain........not the US. We've got slim to no chance to win the world cup.......and that's realism.......and everybody knows it. We've got the talent to beat Spain........but we also have the talent to get routed by Costa Rica. It boggles the mind that this is even a topic for debate.
Actually, we're more like BYU: good enough to defeat a traditional power but also bad enough to be pounded by slightly-above-average clubs from big confederations or rivals in our own region.
i prefer to use college basketball, as the ncaa tourney is more like a wc final, it's elimination play... the bcs garbage, opinion drives things way too much, and the fifa system does have a valid approach, not the opinion of voters... usa is like gonzaga, nice squad, can win, but when it comes to the big games, sheer talent isn't there...
Exactly, the probability of our squad of largely inferior players putting together a run of improbable victories necessary to win the WC is practically nil. Our starters aren't of sufficient quality and there is no depth. Bob Bradley would have to work a miracle. It doesn't help our cause in that we play poor possession football and really rely mostly on our spirit & determination to make up for our lack of ability, which catches up with you eventually in a tournament (especially when you have as little depth as we have). Might as well talk about Wigan or Hull winning the EPL. Sure upsets can happen but over the long run the cream rises to the top. Part of the beauty of sport is the improbable can happen but this is an incredible long shot.
38 matches vs 7? No. The USA will win the WC before Hull or Wigan (failing a Russian bazillionaire sugar daddy pumping a huge portion of his personal wealth into the squad) ever win the EPL.
And so, after all these posts, we still have the same conclusions: 1. No, we aren't getting a seed. 2. Thinking about the USA getting a seed MISSES THE REAL ISSUE AT STAKE!!!!!! For pete's sake-- what matters for the USA is how the pots are allocated. If we are grouped with AFC, we: (a) have a 7-in-8 chance of drawing a very tough team out of Pot A, (b) will have a Top-30 (maybe Top -10) UEFA team from Pot B and (c) have a roughly 6-in-8 chance of drawing a Top 30 side from CONMEBAL/CAF (assuming that Nigeria doesn't catch Tunesia). (b) and (c) are still not fully set, but these are the most likely outcomes. Based on these odds above, that gives us a Group of Death outcome over 65% of the time. A "Group of Life" type outcome is debatable, but only occurs on my metric in 3 draws out of 64-- that's under 5%. Them's shitty odds, folks. If we are grouped with CAF, life is better- we: (a) have a 1-in-3 chance of drawing S. Africa out of Pot A, (b) will have a Top-30 (maybe Top -10) UEFA team from Pot B and (c) have a 1-in-2 chance of drawing a weak Asian/OFC side. Based on these odds, we have only a 33% chance of a Group of Death type outcome and a Group of Life type outcome jumps to close to 17%. Still not great, but I like those odds a LOT more. Sure, to be the best you have to beat the best, but take a look at Mexico vs the USA in WCF results-- neither team has recently defeated any of the big names that you have to in order to really go far in the tournement, but they always make the round of 16-- BECAUSE THEY ARE SEEDED. Until FIFA changes its seeding formula, winning in the past will make it easier to win in the future. I'll take a lucky break or two to help us get over the hump.