I can't tell who you're directing this comment at because you were too much of a coward to quote anyone. Regardless, it's nice to have yet another piece of evidence that once again that while courage is an admirable and important quality of character, it's by no means the unique province of men.
This comment sounds like the reference to the loss of masculinity. As a man, there has been a historic connection that meant to possess characteristics of strength, confidence, assertiveness, boldness, fortitude. Does it mean that women do not possess these characteristics? Of course not. As men are also capable of being nurturing, sympathetic, and tolerant of others. Rather, it is the traits which are more prominent. Nonetheless, there’s a reason why men are meant to be the ones to respond when something goes bump in the night. Because men are naturally hard wired to fantasize about driving their enemies beneath them through the use of brute force. Every man dreams about some intruder trying to break into their house, and to be free to put a .45 hole in that person’s skull. Just as it is natural for a man to see a beautiful woman and think, I’d like to have sex with her. Yet, a man’s discipline and code of honor is what prevents him from acting against the forces of his civilization. Furthermore, it is relatively new to modern society to social engineer boys to become more feminine and girls to become more masculine. Some will argue this is progress. I would argue it is negative progress. The consequences of this social agenda has done little more than create absenteeism among fathers, beta males who women don’t want to have sex with, and men who exist in the shadow of their masculinity by becoming oppressive, opportunistic, dysfunctional, and cowardly. This is due to the fact that society has forsaken the role of elderly authentic men who know how to guide younger men through the journey of their own masculinity in a positive and productive way. Therefore, we have become a society of Mama’s Boys and Peter Pans. Neither of which, are the Authentic Man.
michelle akers would put her foot all the way through your ass, i dont think this is a masculinity issue. i think we have a young, inexperienced team, split into 3 tiers: auto starters on merit (ie pulisic), auto starters on...not merit (ie zardes), and then guys trying to do what berhalter wants them to do to more than just playing. we have leadership- its just shitty leadership. ill never understand the criticsm mckennie gets about being "out of control" when he goes after players who literally just took a shot at a teammate. michael bradley could be standing five feet from pulisic getting cleaned out by a mex tackle and would turn and run back to his position. those are examples of a great teammate (mckennie) and a terrible one (bradley). which one wears the armband? thats an example of a terrible manager. who exactly is supposedly playing scared? trapp and zardes play inferior. boyd played (friday, at least) completely unsure of himself. steffen is going to unspool at some point with the ball intentionally funneled back to his feet over and over and over. i dont see scared, i see rudderless and frustrated.
Maybe playing "home" matches when 95% of the crowd is for the visitors contributes to playing scared.
Someone needs to tell him the lion isn't afraid of the sheep. And that's why Mexico is whooping the US. Dude, I'd play scared too if I had to carry WTF90 and Butt-ass-ist Zardes.
Getting back on track though with the thread, there is a reflection of cultural attitude, perhaps maybe less with the players, than the general fan population that seems to tolerate playing less than the sum of one’s parts.
Honestly I think this was just Pulisic trying to indirectly take a shot at 3G. I think he’s aware that he can’t outright call him and the Fed out without going to war and potentially damaging his career. I think it’s part of the reason he wanted Sarge to take the PK. A goal next to his name potentially puts more media pressure on 3G to play Sarge over Zardes. I think he’s frustrated by some of 3Gs decisions as are many of us and he’s taking shots the only way he can right now... indirectly. Lot of speculation on my part but just my two cents.
Worth noting that Chesty Puller was talking about the young men of the early 1950s there. It's a long history of every generation calling the next soft. I'm not saying he's wrong, but just maybe it's not the most relevant quote in 2019. For all the weird attempts to make this something large and cultural (and anyone who ever writes the words "beta male" should just be embarrassed in general), the team played tentative. They were slow to the ball. They hesitated on attacking passes. They pulled it back on every chance. I know what Pulisic is talking about. Those that hate Berhalter will pin it on him. Those who question their own masculinity make it a cultural thing. But I'm going to expect that Christian, who was on the pitch and in the locker room, might have a better idea of what and why.
I don’t think the players are scared. It’s just the coach not putting the players in the best position to succeed (and of course, USSF’s well documented problems). If people want to embrace their inner Roosh, please go elsewhere...
I hope this quote was just for the media and he recognizes the difference between playing scared and playing stupid.
This thread has it all, a little misogyny, a little discrimination, a touch of racism, only thing missing is some fedoras.
Yes, of course. Exactly like Donovan who was scaring Mexicans to death, but didn't have enough masculinity for keyboards machos.
It has to do with coaching. Belhalter chooses the tactics, not the players. If Belhalter's tactics are on the conservative side..well, the team will look "scared" when moving forward. I don't think "playing scared" was literally what Pulisic was trying to get across.
...and when it's all said and done, this new bunch is going to have the same basic record overall as the guys listed: a few second-round exits sandwiched between a QF appearance and a couple of GS exits. Everybody seems to have gotten bent out of shape because the USNT did what every freaking nation on the planet except Brazil has done- miss out on a World Cup. They had a bad Hex. No nation is above the law of averages. The USMNT just earned silver in the Gold Cup, losing to one of the most complete footballing nations (League stability and football culture and NT) in North or South America. I don't know that anyone associated with USSoccer believes that everyone is better. But better teams exist. What's potentially damaging is continuing to ask "What happened?" when the better team is Mexico. 'Cause that's what this is really about- Mexico. I remember when a lot of people kind of laughed at (Clint Mathis?) for saying he expected to win the World Cup in 2002. The US reached the QF, three wins short of his expectations. That was a golden generation by US standards, and they needed a bit of good fortune to get out of the group stage. They played honorably and lost to a better team with the same expectations. That team, in turn, lost to the champion. Everybody's got expectations, and I believe he said what he was supposed to say. But the better team is still going to win most of the time. Having two passports doesn't invalidate either one. These are your own people. In many cases, their folks are overseas defending this country. ummm... okay. No, they aren't, and no, they shouldn't. You're selling Mexico short, and I think it's a factor with the fanbase overall. Oh, it absolutely IS a cultural thing. This team plays for a country whose top four sports have only moderate international appeal (compared to soccer), and where the league here is the best in the world. One of them --the one in which we seem to take the most pride-- has practically no international appeal. Basically, the USMNT has to listen to idiots whose idea of success is shaped by the bubble of American sports culture- being the world's best in one sport nobody else cares about and three other sports that lag way behind soccer as a global institution. Same with MLS- it's our lack of humility that keeps us from supporting our own league like the rest of the world supports their own leagues. How many other countries have qualified for seven straight World Cups immediately after taking the sport seriously (again)? How many have qualified for seven straight, period? Probably fewer than fifteen. But when the NT fails to dominate a sport they didn't invent and that everybody else cases about more, there's a problem. There shouldn't be.
Look at it like this... 3-0 is one goal more than all the dos a ceros the US put on Mexico in the early 2000s. The US was the better team at the time, but that many wins in a row seemed an aberration to me. IMO, Mexico is better atm, but it shouldn't be any sort of alarm for either team to beat the other.