great article on MLS & Garber....

Well..I suppose we differ on terms like "rigorous club schedule" and "fitness."

Secondly, no-one, not even the Europeans deny the point about being poorly prepared-but part of being "prepared" is being properly rested. That they have only themsleves and their greed to blame...you're 100% right. They did a bad job. But that doesn't change the fact that many of these players were running on low tanks.

As someone who knows a lot about the subject of distance running and training...this is just silly. It has zero to do with world class sport.

I agree with you on one large point: there are several reasons why some teams failed-France was without Pires and a healthy Zidane; they went too long with some of the '98 players. Portugal indeed were a cocky bunch who showed the US no respect and got what they deserved. And more than a dose of luck, Argentina might have been better with the fresh, young energy of Saviola. All fair. But to dismiss the idea that some of the top European players-a player like Figo-were gassed, is equally arrogant. We can bask in the US glory, give them credit for playing well and still understand/accept that a lot of things broke our way. IMO it doesn't cheapen what the USMNT did; there is no contradiction in holding both views at once.

To bring this all around to your argument and the theme of the thread, here is a reponse to an e-mail by Gavin Hamilton of "World Soccer," that IMO speaks to both your points and the shot taken at Garber:

For those taking issue with Mr. Hamilton's use of the word "ordinary": world_soccer@ipcmedia.com don't forget to mark your subject line as "Letters Page."

But I think it's closer to the truth than those who think this points to the progress in MLS that Garber claims in his SOL address. MLS IS important to the USMNT. There is no question about that. But has it shown itself able to produce Reyna, Stewart, O' Brien class players? Yes, several MLS-based players did shine in the WC, but again, knockout football is the perfect stage to surround young, fresh players, with smart, polished Euro-based vets. When we look at those key positions, you should remember that in the first stage of WCQ Arena called up Tab Ramos, for goodness sake! And was Preki called up for an actual WCQ match or was it a friendly-can't recall. Regardless, that tells us something about the depth in MLS this past WC phase. Does that mean it's going to be that way forever? Of course not. But there are some big shoes to fill on the USMNT, and I'm not so sure MLS is capable of filling them just yet. Which goes back to Garber's remarks and why I feel they are fair game for media to hold up to light.

 

Was there an article about Don Garber in here somewhere?

 

Fatigue is total BS.

Figo in particular, was not fatigued, he was hurt.

Same as Reyna was hurt and not fatigued.

If one is going to talk about depth of national teams and their perspective home country leagues, I think stronger questions should be asked of the European countries than of the US.

The US is suppose to have little to no depth.
As such the US must have a higher reliance on a few players than european countries.

European teams are suppose to have have large depth and as such have a smaller reliance on a few players.

Of course the World Cup proved this theory to be null and void.

The US had as many players injured and "fatigued" as any other side.

I was wondering when the last excuse was going to come out in this thread.

First we have luck.
Then we have fatigue.

Now we finish the trilogy of excuses with "If the US did well and I really can't claim luck without looking like a tool, I can always say "it was not skill, it was only because they run more and have more stamina""

This excuse is as sad as the other two. Of course this coming from Mr. Hamilton, who has been taking pot shots at the US for years, is hardly a surprise.

We had no more luck than any other side.

Andy

 

Of course.

Donovan. McBride. Mastroenni. Pope. 1/2 of Sanneh.

I thought the US had 5 standout players at the WC...Pope, JOB, Reyna, Sanneh, and Donovan.

Nicely, that's half MLS and half Europe.

 

I think it is fair to say without MLS, Sanneh is still playing in the A-League, as he was when Arena foudn him.

MLS and Garber have every right to brag on what they have accomplished on the field because it is more than anyone in their right mind could rightly expect from a league not even 7 seasons old.

Andy

 

This might sound phony, but I actually agree with everything that was said since I made my most recent post.

(Well, maybe not the "running on a low tank" bit, which I would replace with "somewhat injured." Still, as others have also pointed out, Reyna, Stewart, Armas, Beasely, and Agoos all sufferred detrimental injuries either just before or during the WC. These things happen, rigorous club play or not.)

Sure, my points about fitness were pretty silly.

Absolutely, I have no problem with admitting that the USMNT had more good breaks than bad ones during its run, and I in no way feel that takes away from their achievement.

Also, absolutely, I feel that it is important for the nats to have both a core group of MLS players surrounded by a group of players from not just one or two top European leagues, but from a wide variety of European leagues. Garber's words, overly optimistic as they were, point to the fact that MLS has developed a core group of (let's use a compromise term here) "internationally capable players" that can mix well with the internationally capable US players overseas.

Also, it is correct to say that France and Portugal, the two favorites clearly not undone by bad luck, both have blaimed themselves, and hven't tossed up the fatigue and climate arguments. Its not them I am worried about--its their Eurosnob (we need a mroe accurate term) bigsoccer supporters.

Finally, I would like to mention to Andy_B that if writers such as Hamilton are pointing out that some favorites lost because they hadn't placed as much emphasis on stamina as upstart soccer nations, I for one don't see it as an excuse. I view it as an admission of inferiority in one aspect of the game, and as a new aspect to analyze in future international competitions. The fact that Hamilton prefaced his comments with "Unfortunately," to me means that he doesn't look forward to the new world that Hiddink and his couragous Korean charges have laid down. Well boo-hoo to him. Maybe in 20 years he'll criticize the way the game is played, lament how stamina has become such an important aspect of the game (even though it clearly already is), and long for the days when a small cartel of nations controlled international competition.

 

Let's be honest.

MLS is not the best league in the region.

But, where was US soccer before MLS?

I rest my case...

 

so what does this clown make of the fact that a MLS team won the last CONCACAF cup? He seems to give a lot of credence to Mexican clubs beating mid to bottom level MLS clubs.

And most Costa Ricans and Hondurans will tellyou MLS is better than thier league, so I have no idea where he got that info. Actually Crew defender Torres said that MLS is faster and more physical than the Costa Rican league. Apparently this author knows more than anyone.

 

I agree-but I'm not using this particular point to explain why those teams flopped. My point is that the lack of depth is reflected in the players that made up the foundation of the team throughout the WC phase-that goes to my point about Arena having to call up Ramos and Preki. As some of the Euro-based/developed players age-out of international duty, the spotlight is going to fall even more on MLS-and that goes to the article questioning Garber's words. There are points you could raise that point in Garber's favor. And there are some that point the other way.

Obviously, I tend to lean towards the latter. Just the historical view points to nations-many w/better tradition-having down cycles; this was our best showing in the WC; our record of top exports to Europe-how well our players do overseas-does IMO measure growth and says something re: our ability to produce high quality players, players who will play on the USMNT. Now this doesn't leave me lying in the weeds waiting to blame the league for any future failures. But it does make me wonder are we at the point where the league is now up to the task of being the main pipeline for a USMNT that continues upward and onward. It doesn't have to be of course, but that brings me back to the article I why I tend to agree with a lot of its points

Is there sour grapes on the part of many Europeans? Of course. It's silly to deny that. But it's not all sour grapes this view point, and it actually has a larger historical context going back to the 1974 World Cup and many people's view of the way the game changed-especially when compared to the 1970 Brasil team. Your right the game has changed: it gets faster and more physical every generation. But I think there are many who don't like that aspect of the game, and wish we could see the style of 1970 Brasil. You could rightly say they are hopeless romantics. But I also think it's where a lot of the dissaproval of the emphasis on fitness and stamina lies. It's not all sour grapes.

 

In 1970, I wasn't even born. I've seen some highlights of the older, more "romantic" style, but it wasn't what I grew up with.

My comment wasn't meant to point out that I thought Hamilton and others were an example of "sour grapes," but instead that he and those like him need to be careful to avoid becoming dinosaurs. The game is changing--it always changes. It common that people long for certain styles of play they saw at an earlier period in their life. Still, anytime anyone speaks of a golden era in anything, that era was inevitably in the past, and is glorified in order to criticize the current era in ways it is believed to be lacking.

Despite their often inept finishing, I thought the South Korean style in this WC was very exciting. I look forward to a time when extremely fit players are on teams that attack more and finish better. I thought the group stage at this WC began to point in that direction.

As far as other questions are concerned, it is still true that Mexico is the best national team and pro league in CONCACAF. However, the USA is knocking on the door in both aspects, and the gap has closed considerably in just the last eight years.

In other words, I don't think Garber was that far off.

 

Check that: the USA is pounding on the door in both aspects.

 

And this is different from Brasil recalling Romario how?

And this is different from Mexico recalling Garcia Aspe how?

And this is different from England recalling Teddy Sheringham how?

I am not in the mood to research but instinct tells me that I could go to almost every country and do the same thing during some part of qualifying.

I know I sound like a broken record, but every time you bring up some point trying to focus on something negative towards US soccer, you always seem to choose things that nearly every soccer playing country in the world goes through from time to time.

Recalling grizzled vets to help qualifying has happened through out the decades and it will continue to happen into the future.

Garber deserves to brag for every on field item that he can, because he deserves to. No one in their right mind could have predicted better in such a short period of time.

I am extrodinarily happy with the progress made by soccer in the US on the field. I am still troubled by the lack of any movement off the field.

Andy

 

You keep trying to argue something I'm not talking about. It's not about the mere use of old vets-it's about what their use says vis-a-vis MLS as a league that can develop players. MLS doesn't have these nation's history in soccer-which is the point behind much of the article, why he took issue with Garber. It's not really relevant even to try and compare the US situation with an England or Brasil. It's apples and oranges. We all agree it's a young league and has to be viewed in that light-which again, is what Snowden is getting at contrasting this reality with Garber's speech. It's not really any more complicated than that. And it's not about bringing up negatives to put down US soccer. It's simply trying to get a read on where we are August 2002, via this Snowden piece. That you feel it's mostly junk...there's not much I can do about that. We move on.

You may/may not not be happy with him in NE, but Sunil Gulati as one of the people who helped create Project 2010 (who's 2002 goal was to reach the Qtrs) might take you up on that.

Of course maybe Sunil wasn't in his right mind.

 

Fatigue had absolutely nothing to do with the "surprising" results. Please come up with something better. The USA is getting much better. That explains our being in the QFs. Had Italy and especially Spain not been victim to some dubious calls, this wouldn't have been that surprising of a WC. I fail to see why people are grasping for straws when there are clear explanations.

 

It's only grasping at straws if you are making the assumption that the person is unwilling to give the US its proper due. If you remove that bias, than the debate has a very different dynamic. Then it's about taking stock of the US performance-which IMO is an interesting and fun debate, hyberbole and all.

I've posted an Arena quote. Here is one from Ernie Stewart:

As I noted with another poster, yes to a large degree, they only have themselves to blame. But that doesn't remove it as one of the reasons why some of those teams crashed or strgggled; doesn't change the fact that as Arena also noted, their league structure over there can pose some disadvantges. Kudos to Arena and the USMNT for exploiting this. But it doesn't remove it as one (not the only) of the reasons WC 2002 went the way it
did.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/2002/world_cup/news/2002/06/13/us_quotes/

 

What does the use of Preki and Ramos say about MLS, as a league that can develop players, that the use of Sheringham does not ALSO say about the EPL as a league that can develop players?

As far as the fitness issue...IMO, if Spain had beaten SoKo (which they didn't because the ARs were an embarassment), there'd be alot less talk about this.

The 4 semifinalists then would have been Turkey, Germany, Brazil, and Spain. That doesn't look that strange, does it? The only remarkable things, then, would have been a) the elimination of France and Argentina, and b) the 5 continents represented in the quarterfinals.

But that's easy to explain. Argentina was in the toughest group, and France relied too much on Zidane (plus they didn't handle the pressure well.)

On the 2nd count...the US played Mexico, so you had to have one QF from TFC. Overall, Africa wasn't strong at all this WC, so to have one nation make the QF just balanced out a poor performance in the group stage. And SoKo was at home.

My personal opinion is that if the AR in the Spain-SoKo game hadn't blown it, after all the results were in, people would have looked for other explanations than fatigue. The number of players from Real Madrid and Bayer Leverkusen in the semifinals would have made that explanation weak.

 

Remember the period when you had "Arena needs tactical help" as a sig? Well, one of the refrains from Bruce during that time was, "show me the players-where are the players?" This was often in repsonse to people in the press suggesting MLS-developed players. Teddy Sheringham is in essence, a luxury for England; this is a country that can boast, Owen, Heskey, Fowler, Sheringham, Phillips, Cole, etc. We don't have that depth at midfield. The use of Preki and Ramos are not a luxury and they were not developed by MLS. Yes, thank goodness we HAD MLS to keep them playing, but they are not a product of the MLS system. And that's my point in the context of the article: The older generation of players-players like Ramos, Reyna, and Stewart-and newer players developed in Europe like O'Brien may still be ahead of the MLS curve in terms of the league's ability to produce world class players-players to fill Reyna and Stewart's boots.

As I already said you can't compare MLS' relationship with the USMNT to the EPL's relationship with England. It's simply not fair to MLS or US soccer to make that comparison. The league is still very, very young compared to the rest of the world.

But what I think is fair to ask, is in the heat of all of the headlines and talk: is MLS capapble of producing players to sustain this progress, or as I noted above, is that older generation maybe a little ahead of the curve; maybe we take a step back in 2006, to go two or three steps forward in 2010? Maybe we do need to season another generation in Europe? It's all crystal ball stuff, but that IMO is the interesting and fun part-what I look forward to in the next four years.

 

Here's an interesting perspective on the fatigue argument, heavily slanted as it may be (its from the chairs of EPL clubs):

"The chairmen responded to the issue of fatigue by saying that with the top clubs now employing bigger squads, some players were actually playing less club football than they used to. The clubs' attitude was also partly fuelled by their belief that the FA does very well out of the Premiership clubs. It receives around £180million a year in revenue from internationals and FA Cup matches using players 'borrowed' from the clubs."

Hey, all the articles on this board are slanted.

Here's a link to the entire article:

http://www.soccernet.com/england/news/2002/0823/20020823engsvenbreak.html