Am I reading this schedule right? If the US beats New Zealand they play against Venezuela Sunday morning? Who designed this schedule? Why is a team playing against another team with 2 days less rest? The US would have got more rest having taken second in their group...? Dafuq
Possibly, but the German U20 team isn't anywhere close to the senior team. Last U20 cup they lost to soccer powerhouse Mali in the quarters and haven't won the tournament since 1981.
different definitions of success. At the annual NSCAA conference a few years back they had a guest talk about the differences of countries expectations for youth development/winning. They told a story of how the USA would send their youth teams to Croatia (I believe) at all levels from U10-U20. The US would always win below U15. Then at the next years level, Croatia would kill the US consistently. It's something I always find interesting to watch at these tournaments. I think it's unfair to say that the countries participating don't "rate" them. I think what you have is different set of expectations and definitions of success. For this U20 German team, for example, winning at this level isn't how they define success. It's about familiarity with each other and building towards a system that dominates in a few years time. It's hard to say it doesn't work, either, given how successful that federation is at the top level (men and women). It's something I wish the US would be more analytical towards. Instead of getting so hyped up about the US winning the U20 CONCACAF group, maybe examine more deeply what will make this group good in years coming. You can win now at the expense of future years. We see this a lot, in fact.
Very good showing again this morning/evening from the kids. The RSL contingent is certainly helping to get things done.
Yeah, so much for Lennon having a quiet tournament... Drumroll please.... 🥁Today's Man of the Match is @brookslennon! 🙌⚽️ pic.twitter.com/LG6IOxWgwU— U.S. Soccer YNT (@USYNT) June 1, 2017 Glad had an assist and a goal. Not bad for second game back.
I will go back shortly and watch some of the goals, but I think Glad should have been credited with two goals. Dominance by the US.
Well, since we are talking about goals and man of the match, SPOILER ALERT!!, the US won against the Kiwis, 6-0. Goals by Sargent (off a shot by Glad),Lennon, Glad and three other players who play for MLS teams not named RSL. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2017...-world-cup-usa-6-new-zealand-0-round-16-recap Good thing we played the Kiwis in soccer. If it had been rugby, they would have destroyed the US. http://en.espn.co.uk/newzealand/rugby/story/246331.html
Don't forget Lennon assisting on Glad's goal and Saucedo assisting on the US's 5th goal. The boxscore reads like an RSL roster, pretty much every goal that happened had an RSL player involved. Ridiculous.
Once these kids are back, our lineups in the summer better feature them HEAVILY and all other young promising players.
I couldn't find the entire box score to find out who got the assists and who played the entire game. We should rename the team the U-20 RSL Men's National Team.
WC 2022. Seemed like the Teflon tournament to me - they could not do wrong enough to get the thing taken away. But maybe they can still.
Re the final game for this group, Venezuela was better in every way. Glad at outside back against quality competition was not up to the task, as was Acosta for that matter. Mostly I found myself hoping (both in the USNT and U20 games) that our FO is scouting some of Savarino's teammates because there is some real quality there, and probably more cheaply available than other places.
That Qatar thing may make FIFA realllllllly scramble now. The question I have, is where would it go? The US could host.
Outside of some Euro countries and the US it'd be pretty hard to do a last minute switch of hosting duties. The US could host the tournament tomorrow if need be, it wouldn't be the best, but it could happen. It's probably one of a handful of countries that has the infrastructure, monetary support, population, and number of stadiums currently suited to put on a major tournament with little notice.
England/UK France Germany Japan? I think it wouldn't be dire if they said "we have to switch this tomorrow". There are a good handful of locations that could do it that quickly.
Actually, I think only the US could put the World Cup on without any problems. We have the stadiums which would be empty during the summer. You just use the same ones that we used in 1994 and bingo! Instant World Cup!
Since it's not yet last minute, there are plenty of countries which could be ready in time for 2022 without any troubles at all. If we were talking about next year's Cup, the list would be quite short.
If they just said, hell, we'll use what we got, then, sure, there might be a few other countries that could pull it off. But the way other countries love, love, LOVE to spend money on nice, new, shiny stadiums for the World Cup kind of precludes that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the 1994 World Cup, I don't think any of the stadiums were renovated or anything done to them other than maybe replacing the field because we used football stadiums that all seat >60,000 fans. The US is the only country in the world (ok, maybe China also) that has a preponderance of stadiums that can easily handle crowds greater than 60,000 fans. A few years back, when RSL was trying to get a stadium, I remember looking up the size of the stadiums of the teams that were currently playing in the top European leagues. I was surprised to find that in most leagues, you have a few stadiums that will seat 60,000 to 80,000 fans, but most of them are in the 25,000 to 30,000 range. So, unless FIFA wants to play all their games in one or two stadiums, then the US is the only country that can host a World Cup with a minimum of problems.
It's not just available stadiums, but also the infrastructure to support all the traveling fans. Between travel (airports, roads, bus/rail/subway) and hotels alone makes it hard for a lot of places to handle it on short notice. The US wouldn't have a problem doing things last minute, as most places it would be held at already have enough infrastructure. England might be able to pull it off, and I think the rest of the bigger Euro countries could handle it if they made it a two country affair.
You also have the terrorism problem that you have to think about besides stadium and infrastructure. Again, the US, although we are not perfect, would have a better chance of pulling off a last minute World Cup than anywhere else in the West.
There are 78 stadiums in the US that hold 60,000 or more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._stadiums_by_capacity The only states that don't have a stadium 60k or larger are: Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North and South Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wyoming (and District of Columbia). So 37 out of the 50 states have at least 1 stadium 60k or larger. No other country in the world comes even remotely close to this, China is next with 14 stadiums that hold 60k or more. Most developed countries have a reasonable number of stadiums 40k or larger, usually on the order of 10-30, the US has 133. Like was also said, very few places also have the total infrastructure (in terms of ability to host an international event, including transport, lodging, and services) to host the World Cup on short notice. Not to mention the logistics of bringing 32+ teams here and the tens or hundreds of thousands of foreign visitors (with reasonable costs). Obviously the Qatar world cup is a ways away and there are plenty of countries that could host given the 5 years until then, but if we're talking moving that world cup to another host in 1-3 years I don't see how anyone could reasonable give it any other country besides the US.
France has 14 stadiums of 30k or larger, Japan has 21 (5 of which are baseball). There are 64 games in a World Cup, if you wanted to maximize attendance and use I don't think either of those countries would work. The smallest venue for Brazil was ~40k, Japan has 14 non-baseball stadiums that big or larger, France has 8. Realistically you're limited to: USA, UK/England, Germany, Brazil, and China. I think given the diversity in the US and the overall population (and its love for sport) the US would have no problem selling out most games in 60k+ stadiums on short notice.