http://origin.skysports.com/football/world-cup-2010/story/0,27032,17277,00.html It's not a complete joke. But this is Trecker, so there's bullshit to be found, with lots of self-loathing, backhanded belittling of the US. Some of the more puzzling points he makes in the article: -That of the Donovan/Dempsey duo, Donovan is supposedly "more mercurial". -Portrays the most successful coach in national team history as some sort of incompetent. -Notes the US finished first in the hex, but because Bob Bradley was coaching, it was done in an "unconvincing fashion". -In his previous entries profiling the 32 teams, I have to give him credit for the paragraphs introducing the history and culture of each nation at the beginning. In this one, he just retells the Revolutionary War, and mentions the Civil War and Great Depression. That's American history to Jamie Trecker, I guess. Nothing too awful in this profile, but it's still just poorly-written and obviously a product of his own half-empty perspective on American soccer. My biggest gripe is that many people will educate themselves about the USMNT reading this drivel.
Well as much as I think Jamie is a hack, I have to agree on the third point, that we didn't win the hex in convincing fashion...anyone who thinks we did is a little blind.
World Cup qualifying is supposed to be hard. We came out on top........and that's convincing enough for me. Here's one statement that Jamie most definitely got right.......... Soccer has also had difficulty breaking through a media culture that lacks real knowledge about the game, and has been quick to condemn the pastime as "foreign." I couldn't agree more Jamie, I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, I think of you.....when I'm thinking it. Also I don't buy for one second his assessment that Mexico is now the top dog of CONCACAF because they "slaughtered" us in the Gold Cup final. Jamie.......do watch the USMNT? Did it prove something? Sure it did. That the USMNT doesn't have as much depth as Mexico. (Shock!!!) But that's about it......you ignorant tit. (Sorry about that last part)
Yes, i agree, and? I'm just saying convincingly would imply that I'm "convinced" we would have won the hex 10 out of 10 times with the way the matches were played and frankly we were a minute from losing to Costa Rica and possibly placing 2nd...just saying. And to touch on what Clint said about Jamie thinking Mexico is top dog in CONCACAF because of the Gold Cup just reiterates what a smug bastard Jamie is. Oh well, brush it off boys.
Just FYI: He didn't write this for SkySports. He wrote it as part of his "32 Teams in 32 Days" feature for Fox. The piece is fine. It's just the basics with a bit of perspective. As for the American history portion, here's what is weird about that: He didn't actually write it. It appears to be some sort of boilerplate encyclopedia entry that shows up all over the place, but I can't figure out what the actual source is.
Does winning the hex really mean anything? No, it doesn't. Qualifying is all that matters, we did that with a game to spare. So the Costa Rica match was truly meaningless. Don't forget that Mexico barely even bothered to show up for their last qualifier, drawing with T&T......as they were already qualified as well. If they'd won, we'd be second.......and it wouldn't have mattered one bit. Quick......who won the hex in 2002? I'll give you a hint, it's wasn't the US or Mexico. Did it matter at all at the World Cup? No, it didn't.
Except for this part: HEAD TO HEAD AGAINST ENGLAND: England has a long, winning history against the USA. In nine games, the English have lost just twice, the most recent coming in a 1993 friendly. The last time the sides met, in Chicago in 2008, England walked to a 2-0 win. However, in the only time they've met in the World Cup, the U.S. pulled off a shocking 1-0 win in 1950. I guess he forgot about the match in England last year. What is the point of reading if he can't even get the most basic of facts right.
The "mercurial" comment just verified for me (not that I needed verification) that Trecker is perpetually talking out of his ass. Mercurial is defined in the dictionary as: "changeable; volatile; fickle; flighty; erratic: a mercurial nature." In soccer parlance, mercurial usually refers to a gifted attacking player with an unorthodox personality who can be difficult when he's not playing well, but joyful when he's scoring goals. That defines Dempsey almost to a T. On the other end, Donovan is a fairly consistent player and has a pretty conventional, non-offensive personality. It just makes no sense.
Funny that you're going to call him out for getting the most basic of facts wrong...and then you proceed to get the most basic of facts wrong. The match in England was not last year. it was 2008.
and the teams finishing in 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th didn't finish in their spots in convincing fashion either. It was a difficult hex this time around when El Salvador decided to come play. And between the polar opposites of start and finish that Mexico and Costa Rica did made things a bit bizarre.
Man you guys are a sensitive bunch. Granted the write-up wasn't overly glowing, but I don't think he was overly harsh either. Surprise, not every one is going to agree with your opinion of your national side.
He also informs us that Mexico is still the better Team....citing the 5-0 result against our C's as the proof.
Yes I know, it's completely asinine for anyone to not think the US is the best team in the history of the the game. Look, he provides a different perspective. Does he exaggerate? Of course, but guess what, all of the guys who are overly pro-US exaggerate in the USA's favor too.
Little surprising consider 10 players from their 18 man squad made the World Cup team 1 Francisco Guillermo Ochoa (G) 2 Johnny Magallón (D) 22 Efraín Juárez (D) 6 Gerardo Torrado (M) 8 Israel Castro (M) 7 Alberto Medina (F) 17 Giovani Dos Santos (F) 13 Pablo Barrera (M) 10 Guillermo Franco (F) 11 Carlos Vela (F) Vs. 3 Clarence Goodson (D) 10 Stuart Holden (M)
I know it's been said, but Trecker is a major douchebag, he's worse than the so-called soccer haters, he's an ''American'' who likes soccer, as long as it's not American soccer.
You don't know who Jamie Trecker is, do you? He's a hack American soccer "journalist" who gets off on being negative. We could win the World Cup, and Jamie would write some garbage about "unconvincing" or something. The fact that he uses last year's Gold Cup as an example of Mexico's dominion over CONCACAF is absurd. That team had Brian Ching as its captain. You know, the same guy who didn't make the 23 for the WC. I would argue they actually overachieved, just by making the final. The US put up a good fight in Azteca. The teams split the Hex series. The US finished on top the Hex. That's a more compelling indicator of CONCACAF lordship than some B tournament with B players. It doesn't really matter, though.
Yes, I never said anything about the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th place teams. Frankly, no one was "convincing" in this cycle, I'm cool with that, it was the hardest hex. Why is everyone criticizing an opinion? I understand that you guys may not agree with me but I never said "we didn't win it convincingly, while mexico and honduras qualified convincingly" in fact I never implied that. And Clint, the reason I was talking about WINNING the hex and not just qualifying (something we indeed did convincingly imo) is because that is what Jamie wrote about. If he had said the same thing about simply qualifying for the tournament, I would have responded about that...but it wasn't the case.
No I don't. I tend to stay away from most, if not all, American journalists writing about soccer. You pointing out Treker's M.O. only furthers my point, why get all pissy about this little profile if you're expecting this from him? It's like sticking your hand in a fire and acting indignant about second degree burns.
Okay, the US DID NOT put up a good fight against Mexico in Azteca. They scored early and were completely gassed by halftime when Mexico took over and dominated while the US sat back and hoped that bunkering would get them a draw.
This is the world cup. Not having depth or whatever really goes out the window and it's really who shows up to play and a little bit of luck. All the analysis and everything up to this point is almost a mute point when it's WC time, especially off European soil. I mean, France bowed out early in 2002 and so did Argentina. At this point, I wouldn't be surprise to see Carlos turn into Roberto Carlos when this thing starts.