ANF, I'm not sure why the question triggers you. The last head coach of our USMNT, perhaps our best field player of all time and one of the best-known USWNT players of all time have espoused nakedly nativist sentiments and I'm not sure at all that 99% agree with one side. Quite frankly, I'm shocked that no one has voiced support for what AW and BA stated because there have been plenty of posts on BS that support this sentiment. As an aside, given that I clearly stated that I fall strongly in the American no matter what camp, how in the world is that supporting xenophobia?
trigger me? nativist lol, you do understand...we are almost all immigrants people like wambach don't even know what they are talking about forget trying to have a deep thought. Donovan was just trying to stick up for mls as was arena. I am sorry their opinions troubled you so much..if the thought bothers you so much then I would suggest you don't start a thread about it lol. I should add that nativist isn't the right word, I mean that could also mean that they believe we should go back to the culture of the american native americans and really deny everything european lol.
Outsiders are always good, why? Entitlement, once you are settle you think you don’t have to work hard because your dad is friends with the owner and they won’t fire you. In any institution outsiders are always a good idea, they bring a different point of view and for the most part they are almost always more qualified than the local guy who was hired because of his connections.
I want players who will give their all, all the time. I think the only thing about this whole argument is how we come to our conclusions as to why someone does or does not give 100%. Did they not give 100% because they were born and raised in a European country and their only US connection is a US serviceman dad? Are they only in it to hopefully go to the World Cup and gain fame? Or are they the type of person that often gives less than 100%, regardless. It's very difficult to judge motives. But it's probably not so hard for a coach to judge effort and commitment. As an example, Bruce called in and played Fabian Johnson. FJ did not play well. Reportedly he also doesn't want to play on the backline for us. Is that because he is not willing to do that for the US because he's not a "real" American? Or is he just selfish and would he say the same thing if he was born and raised in the US to two 10th generation Americans? I don't know. But if he doesn't play well and is not willing to fill the needs of the US team, then he can go home. Whether home is Germany or New York City. I can't support playing Zusi at right back. However, I applaud the fact that he made that move without complaint and gave it his best. Did he do that because he's a "real" American or is it his nature as a competitor to do so? I don't know and I don't care. I can't judge motives, only results.
Perhaps unlike you, when I hear statements from our former head of the USMNT and two well known former players about being clearly nativist, I like to find out how many others feel like them and then have a discussion around it. Clearly, the question/discussion triggered some kind of reaction in you because first you question why CP falls into the second bucket (e.g., because he specifically stated that he disagrees with Arena) and then you switched to some random definition of what "nativism" means. If the only intent of Arena/LD was to defend MLS, why did you ask the question about CP - he has nothing to do with MLS.
Proud to say the result of the poll so far is 100% in favor of using players regardless of background. Much less xenophobia on these boards than I would have guessed. A great number of the foreign-based players that have suited up for the USMNT over the years were children of US military personnel anyway. I think the problem folks on these boards had during the Klinsmann era wasn't that Jurgen was calling up foreign-based players. It was that they didn't think the evaluation of foreign-based players versus domestic-based players was a fair one.
you don't even know what a 'nativist'. either does someone like wambach. you are trying to put ur politics into the sport where it doesn't belong. Arena was trying to promote mls and donovan goes that way because he takes so much heat about being a bust in germany. not to mention if you read what wambach/arena said is they weren't talking about people playing in europe. mls has nothing to do with being a nativist so my question about pulisic was why is he a non-nativist. I have not heard him talk about it at all. you want to have the discussion..so lets have it. so...that was fun lol any other dumb questions.
LOL. Is it fair to say you agree with the USMNT's coach intentionally promoting MLS over better leagues as being good for the USMNT? Is that defensible for a USMNT coach? FYI - there's a long thread in US Men's News & Analysis specifically devoted to Pulisic's comments but I'm guessing you knew that already.
he is free to like whatever league he wants. he could like whatever they call their league in china for all I care.
The way things are going, we should be worried about other countries poaching our own players. It has begun, you know.
Just to be clear, you think it's ok for the USMNT coach to favor minor leagues over major ones? That's good for the USMNT for BA to want our players to move to China over the Big 4?
yes that is fine coaches are allowed to have opinions as can the players. also playing in a certain league shouldn't make them unacceptable to be selected.
It's not that simple. (I would think it's obvious, but I guess not.) A star in Belgium is better than a bench player in England, for example.
Coaches tend to favor players, not leagues. That's how you get Klinsmann starting Beckerman in a World Cup even though he was a C team player under Bradley. That's how you get Arena with Wood as a guaranteed starter even though his club situation is not that great. That's also why the allegedly nationalistic Arena preferred a Mexican-American who plays in Mexico over his Trump-endorsing competition in Stoke City.
Superdave, First, you're jumping in the middle of a back-and-forth and addressing a single point. Second, the point isn't that there aren't instances where a minor league player is a better fit than a major leaguer but rather that our USMNT coach clearly inferred that he preferred minor leaguers to major leaguers despite the fact that it wasn't a bench player in the major league vs. a star minor leaguer but rather a starter vs. startesr situation that he simply stated,"we have minor leaguers at that position." what would we say if the US Olympic coach in basketball stated that he didn't look at a starting NBA player because we have "NCAA players at that position" which is of course different than saying "I think that while [Ben Simmons] is an NCAA player right now, he's better than most NBA players?"
So? It’s a discussion. That’s what I want to discuss. In this analogy, EPL is to MLS as the NBA is to the NCAA. I think that speaks for itself.
Yes - that's the analogy. Given all your laughter GIFs, I assume you understand that MLS is a minor league compared to the Big 4 just as the NCAA is to the NBA. If i must be more specific, I'll use the the teams that make the Sweet sixteen as my definition of the NCAA so no one get hung up on what I mean by major vs. minor leagues
But you are comparing the best single league on the planet to an AMATEUR league. The gap between a random mid table team in a top 4 league and a random midtable team in MLS is not even close to the gap between the Milwaukee Bucks and the University of Wisconsin or the New Orleans Pelicans and LSU. You are fooling yourself if you don't think so. You are simply overstating the case.
onefineesq, You're probably right that it's not a perfect comparison but it's a moot, unprovable argument on either side. That being said, I'll lay out some thoughts: I don't believe for a second that NCAA basketball and football are anything other than professional developmental leagues given the monies involved and the laughably poor graduation rates. The training facilities that these programs has are equal to, if not in excess of, MLS facilities. Furthermore, top college coaches and assistants get paid substantially higher than their MLS peers - it's not even close. As to whether basketball/football athletes are getting paid, I think it's pretty clear they're not amateurs. According to 538's Global Club Ranking (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/global-club-soccer-rankings/), the average MLS club is ranked around 350-400 in the world). There's no way I'd believe that there are 400 basketball teams in the world that are better than the Sweet 16 teams in each year's tournament I'd guess that the percentage of Sweet Sixteen NCAA players who go on to become professional basketball players is around 10-20% and many of these players become long-term starters in the best league in the world, if not All-Stars. I'd argue that the top talent in NCAA relative to the NBA is actually higher than MLS to UCL in that there are certainly players who belong at the highest level of the game and I don't think many think that about MLS. In any event, the gap between the Big 4 and MLS is sizeable. I think the current consensus is that MLS is a bit below the championship league. I'd note that when teams get promoted to the EPL, they immediately upgrade their roster as they're knowledgeable that without a meaningful increase in talent, they're going to get relegated. To that end, it would be crazy for an English coach to say that he didn't call an EPL starter because there "are people who play that position in the Championship" but that's exactly what BA did.
You don't understand that MLS is a minor league vs. the Big 4 at all? or you agree that it's a minor league but don't think that the gap between NCAA vs NBA is equivalent to MLS/Big 4 (e.g., onefineesq)?
I'm happy to discuss but I was pointing out the context of the discussion. It's fair to say that I think that a minor league player is better than major leaguers (i.e., he deserves to be/will soon be playing at a higher level) but that's not the same thing as BA saying he didn't call in a major league starter because we have minor leaguers playing that position. Originally, I thought BA was just coach-speaking* when he said this but given his comments after the Portugal game, I think it's actually how he feels. * for example, I didn't believe for one second that JK thought that there were players ahead of LD or that DeSean Jackson was cut from the Eagles for football reasons.
Even there, there's a quibble. So far as I know, the US is the only place where "minor leagues" are a concept. And, of course, the most precise definition is that minor leagues are where MLB teams develop their players. Almost every minor leaguer is paid by and owned by an MLB team. That's not the case with the NBA and NCAA, and it's even less the case with MLS and the big Euro leagues. Well, you're completely wrong, since college football was corrupt in the 19th century, and there was no pro football at the time. Kentucky got the death penalty for a year for corruption around 1950, and the NBA had just formed. College sports exist for their own sake. You have very strong opinions about things you don't know about.