I just got through a conversation with a Eurosnob who told me that if I wanted to see real soccer I had to go to Europe. The guy tried to tell me that McBride had absolutely no affilliation with the Crew at all, anymore. He said MLS is only a shell of what Europe is, and I'm ready to bust this computer. Who's with me?
Perhaps it is a shell. But he is wrong saying that all the good players leave for Europe and that all of the US' good players play in Europe. I still want to beat his face in.
Its true that the European leagues are better. But its extremely annoying when eursnobs say things like that, especially since they usually live in the U.S.
LMAO a yank who hates foreigners and promotes hatred of foreigners...i aint ever seen that before.. You should start up some kind of KKK style lynch mob... After you've done with europe you can deal with those nasty south americans who keep saying that MLS cant cut the mustard in the south american club competitions..
jesus, get off it.we are always the ignorant, violent, war-mongoring yanks aren't we? kkk lynch mob?... yeah, the english have never oppressed anyone... no... never... *cough*imperialism*cough*...*cough*africa*cough*.... *cough*india*cough*... *cough*irish*cough*... *cough*native americans*cough*... *cough*aborigines*cough*... *cough*asian race riots last year*cough*... you guys love foreigners.
I have to agree with those who laugh at Eurosnobs. USA Soccer announced project 2010 where we'd develop soccer to the point that we'd contend for a World Cup by 2010. They had to back away from the goal because it offended so many Eurosnobs. Guess what? We're there now. Facts: 1. USA teams get consistantly good results in club matches against Europe and SA. Eurosnob says is doesn't matter because games weren't important. 2. National team gets consistantly good results against the best teams in Europe and SA. Eurosnob says it doesn't matter because it wasn't the world cup. 3. USA makes the quaterfinals of the world cup advancing farther than all but 3 of the 50 European teams. Haven't heard yet why it doesn't matter but I'm sure there's a reason. What it comes down to is that Europeans think that if you make more money that means you're better no matter what the other evidence may suggest.
Because Brad Friedel, Claudio Reyna, John O'Brien and Tony Sanneh are not some of the best players for the US? Saying they are the best players just because they play in Europe is where I would disagree. However, I don't think you can deny that some of the top US players do indeed play in Europe
Wasn't the original statement that the US would be in a position to win the World Cup by 2010? I'm sorry you're not there yet. What bothers Europeans, South Americans (maybe a few Canadians) about this comment is that it does not recognize how difficult it is to win the competition. Look at the countries with much more soccer tradition than the US that have never won a World Cup -- Holland, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Hungary, etc. There is no doubt that WC2002 was very successful for Arena's crew, but even if you have a better team in 2006 there is no guarantee that the results will be the same. Look at the recent countries that matched your success only to fall back to the pack (at least in terms of results)-- Bulgaria, Romania, Sweden, France, Nigeria, Holland, Argentina, Italy, etc.
I hate Europe, too! What, with all the dogshit on the sidewalks and all. That and its hard to have a few beers and walk on that freakin' cobblestone.
All very true, but I think part of the mindset with this team (starting with Arena) is that they are not complacent. While the general public may not realize how difficult reaching (much less doing well or winning) the World Cup is, I am certain Arena and the team do.
It's not 2010 yet. Sorry if it bothers you, but if you don't set the goal as winning the whole thing, then what's the point. I expect us to win in 2006. I'm not content with just showing up and playing well. The point of the game is to win. Second place is first loser. Sachin
Yeah, well, as an American I thought that quote was a little strange. Nobody worships money like we do. But I am down with the Eurosnob bashing for the knee jerk reaction they have to our aspirations. Although our country was made in part by wanton avarice, shooting for the stars had a lot to do with it, too.
When i lived in the UK I didn't think one thing about US soccer. I follow it in a big way now. To be honest I hardly knew soccer existed in the US. Europe love their soccer and they are good at it. One day hopefully the US wins the World Cup but it won't be until they get more respect in their own country. I mean nobody was giving much coverage to the US team before the World Cup games, it was a disgrace. People jumped onto the bandwagon when they started to win. Sadly they were mostly ignored up until then. This would never happen in Europe, I think Europeans are cynical because the country doesn't care enough about it's national team(hopefully that's changing) Actually with Bush in the White House I often feel like supporting Mexico.
First off, I love Europe. I really want to get my family abroad for a year (probably in Germany) before too long. Second, it's just plain undeniable fact that MOST of the best American players are based in MLS, not Europe. What was that original statement about McBride not being affiliated with the Crew? I don't get it. MLS may be a shell of the EPL, Bundesliga, Serie A, La Liga.... But aren't most Euro leagues just shells of those top leagues, as well? Regardless, a US mens national team made up largely of MLS players (and alums) made it to the WC final 8. Doesn't make MLS a top league, but it ain't chopped liver, either.
The leagues there are better. Why? They've been around for many more years. Over time, MLS will improve. Obviously, the good news to MLS is that Donovan is not going back to Leverkusen for the 2003 season. McBride is staying with MLS through at least 2005. 2002 World Cup - finished in top eight. 2006 WC 2010 WC MLS will improve greatly between 2003 and 2010. The US may not win the WC in 2010, but we have a chance, especially if we see more people staying and less jumping over. And to go from only one goal scored in 1998 and a last place finish, to the top eight and more goals in 2002 is just awesome and a statement of how much MLS has improved.
What even bothers many Americans who have actually watched the game closely is that some fans and journalists assume, wrongly, as you point out, that there will be a simple mathematical progression toward US World Cup domination. If we finish last with one goal in '98, then eighth with with 7 goals in '02, then it follows we will make the semis with 10 goals in '06 and the Finals in '10. That's an insult to the sport, really, given that there are so many variables that come into play. PS: You left Croatia off your list
I don't think this really has an impact on their performance. It might actually be an advantage when compared to other countries where unrealistic expectations are put on the team by fans, media, politicians, etc. There are obviously things that can get better but the US national team has things in their favour that other national federations must envy. 1. The national team is more powerful/popular than the domestic league. Arena seems to be able dictate whenever he wants his players. 2. Short domestic season. Gives long periods for national team camps. 3. Domestic league has very few foreigners. Allows young American players lots of opportunites. A big issue in many European leagues. If the MLS ever does rival the top European leagues it won't necessarily be a good thing for the national team.