I decided to break off this from another thread where i was going to post this, but i thought it made for a good topic...It deals with preparation, the increasing deal of pressure and our hopes for teh USMNT in a given 4 year cycle.....Warning: long post..... i'd like to break this down even further -the 2 games vs. Grenada did not help us improve, or learn anything whatsoever... -of the first 5 games in the group we we just went through, we played twice vs. el Salvador, twice vs. Panama...hardly a way to test our strength..... So we are down to 13 games we took seriously and HELP show what kind of team we are /could be .... Now we'll be playing Panama, T& T and Guatemala twice each.... If we go from the premise that win/lose or tie to these teams do not make us necessarily a better team or teach us much about our potential, we are down to very few games every four years that we BOTH take extremely seriously and actually MEAN something to our improvement Friendlies after all can be poor indicators, when a lot of the opponents, and the US itself: -Won't bring their best players.... -Many players won't risk their legs due to the closeness of a given competition - Coaches will make a thousand subs throughout the games -Often teams visiting teams show up with very little rest in order to play in optimal conditions...they come at times only to make cash, hours, or a day or two before the game..... I'll posit a theory that perhaps should be made into a new thread (edit: just did ): -many people truly feel a performance such as that in WC02 can be easily repeated replicating the same way we had the preparations done last time... -People forget that despite our great performance, other factors that played small parts in our success include (and must be given a modicum of credit as well): +Korea: thanks for scoring vs. Portugal in the last group game when not really in need of +Surprise factor: people abroad thought the US would play a bit like, or at best a slightly improved version of, the dismal 98 Cup side + euros nor SA team having great home field advantage, made for more comfortable atmosphere than usual, especially in favor of the case of most "nonelite" elite team, which at one time or another, tend to feel pressure and their play suffers as a result +Getting a team like Mexico in the quarters, a rival we knew quite well + Tired legs in the case of many of the "star" Euro league players (most of whom quite honestly stunk) which sort of contrasted quite nicely with Arena and a hungry, youthful, malleable US side.. What i'm trying to get at is, it won't get any easier now: The friendlies we had before Japorea were greatly benefitial, but might not be nearly as helpful come 06...With higher expectations, improvement might not be as easily achievable through the old means (playing friendlies in Rome, Germany, or here at home vs. Holland)... A different sort of preparation is needed, IMO, as the standard, expectations, and objectives get higher.... I think we need something else, whether Copa America, Gold Cup, Confederations Cup, something/anything OTHER than qualifiers to TAKE SERIOUSLY.... The type of pressure/learning expereriece IMO would be higher than those friendlies we usually play to improve/gel better as a team before WC... As our team gets better and wants to show that it can take on an increasing number/more complex challenges in WCs, the way the team prepares/gets "battle-ready" also ought to change to become more challenging and push us higher, no? I hope i am truly wrong, because i sure as hell would not like to be right and find out about it in Germany 06....Judging by the dismissal given by our coach to Copa Oro, i guess Arena feels the exact same preparation will be as useful/effective.... i don't know about that... Opinions? Thoughts?
In WC'02, the US also benefited from the hot muggy weather that took away the legs of its opponents who were less fit, so in reality if the US was ahead, it played a 75 min game. This is not likely to be repeated in Germany where conditioning will lessen in importance. That factor alone will be huge.
I agree with your identification of the problem. Other than Holland and Mexico and maybe Denmark (who sent their second string, lets be honest), we didn't face any sides currently in the top 25, according to FIFA. The other CONCACAF sides we have faced were Jamaica (#53), Honduras (#58), Haiti (#98) and we almost lost that one, Panama (#101), El Salvador (#102) and Grenada (#145). Only 3 CONCACAF sides are in FIFA's top 50. Meanwhile, a side like England can friendly against Spain, Holland, and any other European power. 23 UEFA sides are in the top 50. I think we need to play more friendlies against European sides in Europe, especially during winter international dates, when our MLS players are off and its an easier trip for the Yanks Abroad. There are several international dates in December, and many countries do have friendlies, but we do not. I wonder why. We also didn't play any South American sides this year, IIRC. Perhaps we should lobby to play in Copa America. Last year Mexico and one other C. American side participated; we clearly would be as competitive or more competitive than any of them. Another idea would be to insist on allowing the MNT or the U-23s to play in that Champions series where Euro clubs come and play a few games in July. Then, the YA's are off, and its an easier trip for the MLS'ers. We also could try to schedule more friendlies away to C. American sides, where the virulent crowds are a 12th man against us and make the matches more challenging, see, e.g. our WCQ to Panama and the U23's defeat in the Olympic qualifiers in Mexico. Playing Panama in DC and Honduras in New England this year were fun games to watch but hardly challenged us. Finally, I wonder if having MLS teams play more friendlies during the offseason would help raise the talent level of the MNT players in MLS as well as the general quality of MLS. The Galaxy are home to Nexaca this week, but AFAIK, MLS clubs typically play friendlies only in the 2 weeks or so before the season starts. Doesn't the Bundesliga take 6 weeks off in the dead of winter? Don't some leagues, like Ukraine, take most of the winter off? Why not have them come friendly in US venues?
As much as i'd like us to play "meaningful" friendlies (so often an oxymoron), it's not like we can put a gun to their heads and say: "bring your best or something near it" Since almost of these events only ask to bring players that can conceivably represent a given nation, it does not take much not to send anything but a second or even third rate team.... Good FIFA rankings or not notwithstanding My beef is more to the effect that those in power do not seem to think our preparation for future WCs ought to differ in any tangible manner from the past....Breaking it down into a four year cycle, it would seem that Arena has the US plays too few games in which both the opponent play to their fullest and we get an unquestionable learning experience that will help us into the future...When we were developing players like Beasley, Donovan, Bocanegra, and the team was not all that solid at times, it seemed the most appropriate way....Now, for upcoming WCs, i'm not convinced..... As a fan, i surely at times enjoy seeing threads full of optimistic views "look how much better our players are getting", already thinking of 2010, and such.. I certainly agree the pool of players to choose from will be better, and yet it is hard to see even as a devoted fan how helpful a very similar preparation to the one we had for 2002 (ie most emphasis on friendlies, not really on non WC tourneys) will be... So at the risk of overanalyzing, dampening the mood, and not being nearly as cheerful or full of the positivism i see around the forum, i want to see people's views on whether this issue might constitute a negative or not....
Well we also played the confederations cup I say the best preparation realistically available would have been to play copa america this year (which was an available option), gold cup next year, and some friendlies in europe in early 06. Hopefully we'll try more next cycle.
Winter friendlies are hard because outside of Germany, all fall-to-spring leagues are in full session. That makes all players employed in England, France, Spain and Italy busy with their pro clubs. Thus the best the US could do is play an "All-Star" team from the spring-to-fall leagues such as Denmark, Sweden or Norway and even those countries' top clubs are involved in the new Royal League. IIRC, the winter schedule has very few international windows either. I'd consider scheduling some Mexican clubs that are in their offseason. The talent level on their top tier clubs is pretty decent and it'd make for a solid work out. The other option is to look for top Asian or African teams.
Also, the time difference to play in Europe would mean awful TV ratings multiple times a year. By awful, I mean below 250,000 viewers, whereas prime-time games can get 2-3 times that. Not to mention the fact that the USSF would lose money on games in Europe because they pretty much can't sell more than 500 or so "away tickets."
The confederation cup we played as if we did not care about it...For proof, i wish i could produce Arena's quotes at the time.....Now, we don't have to, since Mexico won Copa Oro and they will be the ones playing it.... Gold Cup next year will be, again by reading Arena's views on the subject, another one of those "we'll play it, but not take it seriously" affair...Doesn't even matter that our biggest rival s holding it as we speak.... The friendlies in europe will be much like what we did prior to 02....it helped a lot back then.....my concern being, will it help us as much now with a more established, more mature bunch of players who are not going to show up to the WC as surprise anymore, but as team to be respected? that i really don't know, and i lean towards the "maybe a few (or one!) tourney(s) to be taken seriously (besides WCQ) would help" point of view.....
There really isn't any way for the national team to compete in more meaningful matches than it already does. The international calander is complicated enough. What is more important is for the players to increase the number of meaningful games they play for their clubs. Which is why it is essential for MLS to continue to raise the bar, and find a way to make the regular season games more intense. That is going to take time. It is also essential for national teamers to hone their games in Europe, where 80% of the games they play have a pretty high level of intensity. The national team is no longer the primary tool for the development of international players, clubs are.
I'm of the view, A-team level member should only be playing 8-12 national squad matches per year... So, basically, if you're in a hex year, then the hex itself represents the full quota for that year....so 2005 is counted... the two previous years are different... I'd treat 2003 as a breather year, so 5 or 6 matches in a gold cup or confed cup would act as a transitioning forward... and 2004 has the semis (6 matches) so you might want 2-3 serious friendlies or small tourney with a high level of quality... 2006....well if you take the finals being 6 matches...you want to be in a preparation phase prior to it.... so 2 or 3 high quality May friendlies with possibly 2 go to europe friendlies in feb and march..... that's my regimen for the 4 year cycle... year 1 is basically and off year... year 2 semis with a lower number of matches say 8... year 3 the hex itself 10 matches year 4 the finals .....simulate your group members in friendlies...than peak for the finals... TOO MUCH soccer will leave you playing like FRANCE...!!
But will the teams not named Costa Rica nor Mexico really push us, regardless of the results, to test/improve on our potential? Especially as this hex looks comparatively weak to previous ones, just when we have more to show, or even, a more difficult leap we want to make in the near future (2006-2010) if we take it at least somewhat seriously, like we did not last time, sure Again, how many of these...(Grenada?El Salvador?Panama?) really helped us in discovering/improve our potential, what we can do, now that we have an arguably stronger team than we did in 1998, 1999,, 2000, or 2001, and even 2002 I think the closest we get to complete agreement comes only in year 4 of the cycle BTW, did you mean the US in France 98 or the present French NT, a shadow of its former self?
Thinking long and hard of taking Gold Cup, or a possible future Copa America, seriously......Neither has happened, particularly the first option, which seems so attainable, and with little risk.... Sure, but we should not have to wait until more MLS teams (say 16) come into existence in order to improve the level of competitiveness of the USMNT members (or potential member)....It might take time, and yet 2006 is just around the corner If this was the case, i still like to see why teams like France or Italy are not doing better....Their players usually play back in their clubs the style that the use in their NTs, and yet, something seems to be missing.....
I don't think we need to play more high-level friendlies than we do. Here's what we did leading into WC2002: South Korea away (semifinalist) Italy away (perennial power, made 2nd round) Honduras home (just missed WC) Ecuador home (qualified for WC) Germany away (finalist) Mexico home (other CONCACAF giant, made 2nd round) Ireland away (made 2nd round) Uruguay home (qualified for WC) Jamaica home (decent CONCACAF team) Netherlands home (didn't qualify, but major European power) We probably played a far stronger slate of friendlies leading into WC2002 than any other country in the tournament. If that's "not enough friendlies against European and South American opponents", I don't know what is. Incidentally, I don't think we need more friendlies against South American teams. We've done extremely well in recent years against South American team not named Brazil.
Just wanted to add that I feel that the performance of the national team is more of an indicator of the improving quality of soccer in the US than a means to improve. For selfish reasons, I would like to see the US in Copa America in the future, but only because I'd love a few more games to watch, not because I think it will particularly improve the team. Team improvement will come as the MLS continues to improve and as more and more Americans compete in the top leagues overseas.
purojogo...playing like FRANCE... actually BOTH would be relevant, although I was more thinking of FRANCE the team..lots of stars who play too many matches... personally, I think the NATIONAL SIDE needs to limit how much it uses it's best players...and if you want to agrressively schedule, then players in the pool form 20-50 should be used... I'd want to expose my players to a better caliber of play... I think pool members in the TOP 20, should be exposed to a superior caliber of play at the CLUB level ... when your TOP players end up playing 50 matches per year, I think the overall qualiity of play starts to decline.... MLS with it's extended off season just doesn't FATIGUE players, yet it doesn't offer an MORE difficult level of play...hence usmnt gold cup becomes valueable.... but for beasley and donovan....during the hex, I do question their ability to be 100% for country, given the amount of PT they'll see in 2005..
This is sort of nitpicking, because I agree with most of your points, but there's no reason that making the regular season games more intense needs to take more time. MLS could simply change the rules in the offseason to lower the number of playoff teams to 6 or 4. Problem solved. I know Bruce said he thinks it should be 4 in some interview a while back. Although I suppose at the bottom of the table this would actually make the games less intense, because no one is fighting relegation and their playoff chances would be dashed much sooner.
we should be participating in the Copa America... WC qualifiers and frendlies arent enough to prepare... all the European teams play in the Euros, playing in the Copa America would help our team get some experience and improve.
If Copa America is about selfish reason, objectively speaking, I don't know, as next one should come in 08, and we might be able to once again judge pro/cons in due time... MLS improving will a be a tad slow, especially considering our immediate next critical challenge is in Germany 06...So no, right now, i would not put so much stock (or pressure really) on MLS to significantly help our USMNT by virtue of its long, often meaningless regular season... MLS can help us with some special players who are standing out in teh crowd (whether that could be Gaven, Dempsey, Marshall, etc, we'll see), as long as they keep it up AND then called up to the Nats and keep showing good things..... Right now for example, as a Metro fan, i see Gaven being way too inconsistent...He's still young for sure, but need to be more reliable..... But he were to prove he is a good spark off teh bench for the Nats, i really would not put as much importance on whether he shined every single time with the Metro, at least not when evaluating his usefulness to the Nats.... So, really, we are just about on the same page
Since my focus right now is more short term (ie what happens between now and WC 06) it is our participation in the Gold Cup and just how seriously we take it that concerns me the most......yes, even with WCQ in the horizon.... and of course, figuring out the pro/cons of such a decision, as we try both looking a bit into the past (prior to WC 02) as some posters have done, and also into the future, taking into account what conditions might have changed TODAY when compared to the year prior to japorea.... And how that has (or should) change the way we prepare for Germany Gotcha....Your breakdown of player 'pools' in given situations makes lots of sense I am still a tad worried about the Bruce saying something along the lines that he might not take the Gold Cup all that seriously....On the other hand, i'd sure have not problem leaving LD and BEasley off the team if they are trying to keep asserting themselves in their clubs while not necessarily employing an all-MLS team in Copa Oro either......
what bruce says I ignore...what he does is what really counts... hopefully with mls up to 12 squads, the extra two will create MORE significant matches earlier in the season... I suspect when gold cup rolls around arena will have evaluated who has played TOO little and given them a chance to see PT....convey seems like a perfect candidate....perhaps Zak Witbread is another...with the pool depth, they're be 20 guys who deserve a look.....winning the gold cup at all costs is silly, but giving 2nd line guys a shot will advance you in the tourney and provide expereience for guys who could step in during the hex if needed the PRIMARY A squad guys would bypass the tourney....
Primary A? As in "the best of the best" "standouts" "cream of the crop"? Just wondering, if i got your point correctly, how many players (or who) would that include? (meaning those being left out until more "pressing" matches come up)...As for Convey i would not call him until he got some consistent PT with his club...... The exclusion of SA teams based on how we played vs. arguably the two weakest teams that showed up to the WC in 02 (out of the 5) is questionable IMO... We should, if able to, play friendlies with the likes of Paraguay, Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, particularly before a WC, if given the chance.... I do not recall the rosters of either Ecuador or Uruguay when we played them prior to Japorea.....And i know there are stats out there of games we played v. SA NTs, but most of them were not when a WC was approaching, and therefore one could see lots of unknowns on those team's rosters.... That's why i would not give up on playing SA teams just yet.....
right now, donovan and beasley and mcbride and pope and bocanegra are clear A stuff guys......throw reyna and job in that mix, assuming health then there's some interchangeability in personell, where there's sufficient competition.......