"Whether it is done earlier than later doesn't really matter. Clearly our goal for this team is going to be putting ourselves into a position where we will play in Germany 2006." Bruce Arena taken from http://www.ussocceruk.com/modules.p...e=article&sid=193&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 Anyway, we know that Bora was fired from Mexico even though he qualified and even other countries have fired coaches that were doing well after a couple bad results. Was it Paraguay that got rid of their coach because they lost all their qualifying matches after they had secured qualification? Is the next step in US soccer to require that our coaches qualify us with a good showing or will just qualifying for the world cup be enough for US coaches?
I do not think that it will come to that...I think here in the US things happen, and we understand...in that case you are saying BA may have been fired after that Phantom handball a while back...and a string of bad games....I think after following this summer....BA is the best coach weve ever had and I have learned to trust him because he gets the job done...against Mexico I was like whats that lineup??? But we won and I ve learned to trust him...he'll be fine and isnt going anwhere.... -PB20
The answer is "yes." That is, if you want the next step to be a backwards step. The USA had a rough time in qualifying. So did Germany. So did Brazil. Conversely, Argentina sailed through qualifying only to crap out with one goal in Asia. Look, anyone in any nation on this planet who ever again argues that "qualifying with a good showing" has any bearing on the results in the World Cup itself needs to have "2002" tattooed on their foreheads with something sharp, painful and infection-causing.
Re: Re: Doesn't matter how we qualify I agree completely. I think that the next step is to learn how to win during the difficult knock out rounds of the cup. The one game that we did win, although well deserved, was against a very familiar opponent. I would love to see us beat a world class opponent in a critical knockout game that we don't already play against one or twice a year. I don't see us doing this until 2010, at the earliest. Could be wrong. I guess time we tell.
The real issue isn't how we qualify for the World Cup, but if we can continue to at least equal, and then excell our previous performances there. As any poster here now if they would accept a similar result, a QF loss to a good team after acquiting ourselves well, against good teams like Italy or Spain or England or Deutschland again, and they'd gladly take it. Because it would show that the US' results in 02 wern't just dumb luck, (as in only did what we did based on luck) but we have grown and can now put some consistent results together as far as when it matters on the international stage.
Exactly. There are lots of fluke Q-finalists like Cameroon, Nigeria and England (kidding, mostly) that disappear again for a decade. If we reached the Q-final in 2006 and played great again I'd be happy win or lose. 2010 might be a different story.
just get in, baby who cares how we qualify? just get in. we only made it to the qtrs. thanks to an overacheiving south korea team, and nobody mentions that too much. here's a better question, would you rather have beaten germany on the uncalled penalty kick, or lost gallantly like we did? in 2006, do you care how we get there, so long as we are there? and wouldn't you rather advance than "have a good showing" and bow out in the qtrs? say we are grouped with brazil, italy, and england. if we went o-3 but "showed well", would anyone be happy with that? what d' ya think? i know my answer would be -NO.
Re: just get in, baby No. No. No. We made it to que qtrs because we were the only team to get a point against Korea. Poland couldn't do it, Portugal couldn't do it.
Re: Re: just get in, baby my point was that they(sk)didn't need to beat portugal to get in, but we did. nobody told sk to play for the draw, thank god.
I think we were lucky in 2002. Anything can happen in 2006. Just because the talent pool is greater doesn't imply that the US will get better results. 1/4 finals would be absolutely outstanding in 2006. I would be thankful for the team to get out of group play.
Just so everyone is clear on ONE thing: Qualifying in CONCACAF is HARD For everybody, not just us. Just ask the Mexicans. --You've got hellish venues (Saprissa, Azteca, Columbus Ohio in February, ). Fields/stadiums that are too cold, too high, too wide, too smog-ridden, too torn up/bumpy. --You've got opponent fans that scream at you in the hotel, throw feces and junk food at you in the stadium. It's lovely. --You've got teams who hate each other. --You've got extremely variable officiating. Mix it all together and you've got one very very nasty cocktail. Me, I don't care how we do it. Just qualify -- any way, as fast as possible. This is not figure skating; there are no style points, but rather win and tie points. Those are the points I want, and I don't care how we get them.
You mean the team that scored a late goal against us in the second half that prevented us from advancing after two games? If South Korea overachieved any less, we would have had 6 points going into the Poland game and been through to the second round. People who constantly harp on how close we were to not qualifying need to also harp on how close we were to making the third round of games irrelevant.
Re: just get in, baby To answer your first question, I would rather have won, even if it meant Tony Sanneh picking up the ball and running it into goal. It's all about winning. We're past the point where "moral victories" or "showing well" count for anything. As for your second point, I expect us to win every time we take the field. Sachin
How about if SK made a better PK, then we would lose 1:2? A poor PK effort is NOT overachieving. In fact Fridel is the one "overachieved," stopping not just PK but a few other great chances. Judging from the run of the play, we cannot complain SK "overachieved" in that 1:1 draw . On the other hand, SK had NO need to go for the win against Portugal in the second half. A draw or even 0:1 SK loss would be sufficient to put both through and shut US out. It's purely the pride in SK part, we should be thankful for that.
Re: Re: Doesn't matter how we qualify Did you watch that game? How do you explain South Korea not going for the kill? They were up two men, had several breakaways, and on each case after the 78th or 80th minute, their forwards just gave the ball away to one of the outnumbered defenders (or THE outnumbered lone Portuguese defender). Either they were taking it easy (certainly not something a proud team would do) or they were tired (which goes against the "gee these guys are fit" theory). So, no, we don't owe SK crap. Watch the end of that game again and see how they took their foot off the gas. Oh, and they didn't owe us crap, either. But why are we worrying about 2002. It's in the books and we can't change it anyway. Luck or skill? Both come into play in world cup soccer, for every team there.
Re: Re: Re: Doesn't matter how we qualify You're joking, right? The Koreans were playing out of their skins. They were going in waves, man. I don't know if we owe them anything or not, but the Koreans absolutely played their hearts out.
Re: Re: just get in, baby As for your second point, I expect us to win every time we take the field. Sachin [/B][/QUOTE] great minds.... i couldn't agree with you more, regardless of the team we field.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Doesn't matter how we qualify Get the game on tape. Watch the last 12 minutes or so. They killed their own attacks about 40 yards out on more than one occasion. The defending was INCREDIBLY shaky on the Portuguese shot that hit the post. I'm not saying the fix was in, but they were taking it easy.
Re: Re: Re: Doesn't matter how we qualify The ability to get the 2nd goal was a different matter, but no attack = no goal. If SK just wanted to take it easy, why did they even bother to attack at all?? With two men up and Poland three goals up at the 70th min, SK would win the group in all likelihood. Other than the pride to win the match, was there anything to gain for SK to continue to attack?? In fact, considering the risk of getting injury and yellow cards of their key players, one could hardly blame SK if they had taken out their best players and just killed the clock the last 20 min, but they didn't. By the way, have you ever heard of Germany - Austria in WC 82?? If there's ever a repeat of that disgrace, the last 20 min of SK - Portugal certainly had the all the ingredient for it. Portugal already packed in for defense (Pauletta for Jorge Andrade) with two men down, and if SK also put 10 men behind the ball, we would have Germany - Austria all over again.
Originally posted by Karl Keller "Just so everyone is clear on ONE thing: Qualifying in CONCACAF is HARD For everybody, not just us. Just ask the Mexicans. --You've got hellish venues (Saprissa, Azteca, Columbus Ohio in February, )." I couldn't even read the rest of the post without a HEELLLL YEAHHHH! (That's a Rebel Yell, y'all...) Ain't it grand to have the support, the environment and the weather all in one place to have an advantage like many of our competition. Geez, this might actually be the one true sign that we really are a permannet CONCAF power. Thanks Karl, back to the rest of the post...
I was always under the impression that a rebel yell went something more along the lines of YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAWWWW!!! You know, like at the end of the theme song for the Dukes of Hazard. And if you are a native Canadian, where did you get your info on a proper rebel yell?
Born in Texas, raised in the swamps of Eastern North Carolina, moved to Canada because of a girl. Back home when we agreed with with a statement, we sang out Hell Yeah, with, you know, proper spirit. The Yee Haw thing is for going over the falls in a barrel or charging dug-in Union Gattling Gun positions with only the bayonet. Or maybe just endemic to Georgia.