my memory of 1990 was: Italy aren't that good. we aren't that bad. soccer is a game that depends a lot on luck.
many of the guys were college players. I can't imagine the talent was all that good to begin with. And the rest being indoor soccer players and a few playing for small clubs in small leagues/second divisions.
We actually played our best match against Italy. Lost 1-0 but almost tied it in the last fifteen minutes except for a ricochet butt save by Zenga. The Italian fans were booing their own team as the expectation was them to destroy us, just as the Czechs had done. Now, Italy was a much better team but we almost squeezed one out. It was simiarl to teh 1994 match against Brazil (except we were much better in 1994 and more experienced).
good messaGE I played against a few guys on the team in 1990 i think. They were fast strong and could run all day. Yeagley with Indiana was the prototype IMHO.
PS: college boys and librarians beat the mighty England in 1950. Great powers simply ain't that great.
It was such a weird thing to think that we essentially had the national team as our professional team, paid full salaries and training together all the time like a club team. It was a smart move. Operating as a team, they were better as a collective unit than individual parts. (Like Game of Thrones: which is stronger 5 or 1; five fingers or one fist). I still remember losing it with this bicycle kick. Oh god if it would have gone in.
In 1990 I had just graduated from college and, always a soccer fan and player, decided to go to Italy to watch the World Cup. The most impressive difference between then and now to me is not so much the team, but in how much the support for our team has grown since then. The only USA game I saw in person was at Stadio Comunale in Florence against Austria, and if there were even a couple hundred US fans scattered about the stadium I would be shocked. It was the first time we'd been to a World Cup in 40 years, so there just was no culture. I've been fortunate enough to attend every World Cup since, and it's really amazing to see the explosion of enthusiasm and the numbers of Americans traveling and supporting the team ever since then. It's been awesome to watch the younger generations grown into supporting US soccer.
One thing I can tell you is lots of the games were dang early on the west coast. It was kind of great to wake up and watch it in bed before work every monrning.
The 1994 team was definitely not college kids. It was significantly older. That was a professional team. Key players like Ramos, Dooley, Harkes, Stewart, and Wegerle were playing in Europe. Those who were not played more or less as a pro club team. The only college kid who came in was Reyna and he didn't get any minutes. However, he did go on to have a rather successful career...
think of the flip side: Italy were pampered over-confident millionaires in 1990 (now)....ie: ripe for the picking
Dude, they were pros once the 1990 WC ended. Every US team has had players who played college soccer. Harkes played for Sheffield Wednesday and Ramos played in Spain. I guess Dempsey is a college boy too? Come on.
Wasn't much different in France in 1998 for US support. The only difference was the existence of Sam's Army. Still only a few hundred US fans on hand (at most) to see the US lose every game and score 1 goal during its 3 games. I agree with your second paragraph, except I missed 2002, which motivated me to go to every WC since then, until FIFA decided to put them in Russia and Qatar.
Dempsey is indeed a college boy. So is McBride. Forza Furman. Go Bilikins! C'mon UCLA! Get in Maryland.
If our two most polished central midfielders ever spent their formative 17-20 years at NC State (Ramos) and UVa. (Reyna) who needs Borussia Dortmund?
If our two greatest strikers ever spent their formative 17-20 year old years at Furman and St. Louis U. (followed by a healthy dose of MLS) who needs Liverpool's academy or Leeds' bench?