Then I suggest you start following it. More people who support it and follow it, the better players it can bring in and the more money it can put towards youth development etc. For your interests specifically, look at our youth national teams and look for any Home Grown Players. Find what teams they are on and seek out their games to watch. Also, follow that thread in USA Men N&A about MLS players to watch. People are usually keeping an eye on players doing well within the league and showing promise.
If you check the comment threads at places like the Daily Mail, the actual English fans are being a bit more complimentary of the USA team, and seem to have accepted the fact that the yanks are finally genuine contenders on the world stage. To be sure, some of it is just a vehicle for criticizing the FA ("ffs, if the Americans can advance, what's wrong with us"), but most of it seems to be a sincere appreciation, and many of these English commenters are saying the US is now their team to support in this World Cup. That said, I agree with posters above that the BBC panel was not unduly harsh on the US team, particularly the Thursday performance.
I don't understand why they would. This is the World Cup and these are professional athletes. They stay in shape for a living and this is the pinnacle of their careers, a stage they are lucky to reach once. If they can't get their bodies in peak performance so they can compete in these games, even on less than ideal days' rest, then I'm not sure why they would have progressed to this level in the first place (unless of course they were/are injured). And it's not like Germany somehow had an extra week to rest.
1) USA had just played in Manaus, a notoriously draining venue. 2) Germany had one more day's rest than the USA. Have you ever pushed yourself to your physical limit on a consistent basis? If you have, you will understand how much one extra day of rest can affect your energy and explosiveness. You'll also know how much worse you are in intense heat and humidity than in milder climates, and how much the taxation of performing in those circumstances stunts your recovery. It has a discernible affect. I know, I've experienced the sensation.
Well neither of us (I don't think) are professional athletes. I don't see how one day's rest should make a difference at this level. I mean fine, if the US had played in Manaus the previous night and Germany had had that day to rest then I might accept that it had an impact. But three days vs four days? Don't see it
I do see it. I've experienced it. You don't have to be a pro-athlete to push yourself, since the experience is really just relative to your level of athletic ability, assuming you're in pretty good shape. You reach a threshold and you need time to recover. There's a reason marathoners taper a month from the race. There's a reason they don't really run a week out from competition. Usually you need a full week to really recover, and every extra day of rest you get up to six or seven days really makes a huge difference.
That's a marathon. 26 miles. These guys run maybe 10 in a game. And the World Cup is a different cycle than training for one event. You have to maintain a level of relative peak fitness for at least two weeks (more if your team advances to the elimination round) allowing for maximum performance on game days. If you can't do that you are either handicapped due to injury or have no business on the team in the first place.
The question is not whether they CAN do it. They obviously CAN do it. Germany won by one goal, not by nine. It's a question of how well they can do it. A day's deficit, from three to four days, after playing in torturous conditions like those in Manaus, will put you at a disadvantage It just will.
Have you listened to ANY of the analysis from professional athletes and trainers who specifically talk about what a huge difference one extra days rest can make in a tournament like this? Seriously. Read an article. Watch a broadcast. It is being said OVER and OVER again. Of course, just because it's being said over and over again doesn't make it right, but when your only argument is that you don't think it should matter, that puts you on pretty shaky ground.
Right, I've read those (admittedly not all of them) and I think it's a copout for all the reasons I mentioned. These are professional athletes who can and should be able to get their bodies to produce at a peak level, whether on three days' rest or four. I'm not just saying I don't think it should matter, I'm trying to have common sense about it. And by the same token, the line "all the experts are saying it, it must be true" is just as shaky. Experts were telling people to buy tech stocks in 2000 and real estate in 2007. Hell, they were saying the US had no chance advancing out of its group (hello Alexi Lalas and Taylor Twellman). Talking heads are often exactly that: talking heads. They are on TV and in the press talking stuff up usually after an elaborate PR campaign and with the ultimate goal of selling themselves, their product or their service. I'll honor their opinions to a point, especially if they have proper credentials (which few of them do, upon close inspection, at least in my experience) but I'll also take them with several grains of salt.
There is no question that experts can be wrong. However, unless you have a clearly reasoned evidence-based argument to outline why you disagree with the consensus of a professional community, then it seems both ignorant and stupid to discount their opinions. I've never participated in competitive sport at the level of professional athletes, but I have experienced college-level soccer, and know what a difference one extra day's made for me personally. So my personal experience corresponds with the experts opinions, and human physiology is pretty much the same across the spectrum, so I don't see any reason to doubt that 3 vs 4 days of rest would have a significant impact on sharpness and fitness.
26 miles at an even pace, while soccer players sprint and use a lot of different muscles to fight for the ball, etc... I get what you're saying, that fatigue shouldn't be an outright excuse for a poor result but if a coach doesn't recognize it as potentially playing a factor and adjusting then he is not being smart. I have had experience in heat like Manaus and having to run 30-40 miles in a day and it does take more than 3 days to fully recover from the experience. Sure, you could get out and make yourself do it again but it's not going to be as fast or as easy. In the context of a professional sport it would absolutely make a difference.
Clearly you haven't been around bigsoccer long. Evidence-based argument? This is a freakin internet board, not a constitutional law seminar. People are here to post their opinions. I just gave you mine Fair enough. This is a much more compelling argument than telling me to read some analyst's opinion.