Brian McBride scored for the US in its WCQ against El Salvador, continuing his steallar US National team play. Surprisingly, he used his right foot to blast home a shot from the top of the area instead of his head, but it was a great goal none the less showing confidence on the ball. Hes always been a top notch performer for the National Team here and im sure its only a matter of time before hes performing well for you fellas too.
That is awesome that not only McBride scored, but that the US won. I do feel that McBride will come around some for Fulham and put some shots in the back of the net. He is solid player.
Do you know why Bocanegra didn't play, or even make the bench? Did he actually travel to El Salvador?
I think he still had the minor hamstring porblem. I think he was in El Salvador, but because of the lingering injury, Arena did not play him. That is a good thing to do. While the game was important for the US, there was no sense in risking further injury to Carlos for this game. I am not sure what his status is for the game on Wednesday.
So it must be doubtful that he'll be fit to play on Saturday, particularly with the US/Panama not kicking off until about midnight Thursday British time (Radzinski's match with Canada kicks off even later!) PS From another thread - Jensen missed about four months of the 2001/2002 season with Charlton. Other than that, he was pretty much ever-present.
I would guess you are correct. I think during the last qualifiers, Radzinski did not play when he came back. Who knows though. However, if I was a betting man, which I am not, I would say that neither of these guys will start. Radz, if healthy, should be on the bench though.
i think part of it was an effort to show gratitude towards Fullham for releasing McBride and Carlos and not wanting to sour a relationship by causing further injury to a player. The US Nats relationship w/ Fullham will be important down the line as long as McBride and Bocanegra stay at the club, so best that The Bruce stay on your good side.
Good point. I never really thought of it from that perspective. Usually it is the opposite with club and country feuds in Europe. It is nice to see both sides in this case trying to look out for one another.
I think that mcbride played excellent as he usually does as he proves over and over that he is a great goalscorer.
btb4 We FFC fans did not take kindly to Bruce Arena describing Tigana as a "jerk" (I mean, how AMERICAN can you get? ) when Tigana refused to release Eddie Lewis ("the American David Beckham" - remember that? ) early for the 2002 WC. Now, though, our own chairman is saying much worse things about Tigana ("a crook"!), so perhaps Brucey was on to something. Seriously, though, aren't Fulham obliged to allow McBride and Bocanegra time off for competitive internationals? And, by the by, how does Al Fayed's media image play in the USA? Is he largely seen in a sympathetic light, or not?
I will answer the latter question first. No one in America knows who Al Fayed is. I would venture to guess that 99.995% of Americans do not know who he is at all. I personally do not mind him. As long as he does not abandon the ship or sell the club to someone who will not keep the club going in a positive direction. To answer the first question, Fulham are supposed to release players to play international games, but sometimes it is not that easy. Many clubs would make up an injury or something to make sure a player does not have to go. You know about the club vs country row that goes on over there. I just think it was being talked about that Fulham did not fuss or try to pull any crap in trying to keep the players in England or release them late.
There are probably about .3% who know him as the father of the guy who was killed with Princess Diana
Only 0.3% believe he works with Bin Laden? That's something, I suppose. Seriously, though, with all the Princess Diana conspiracy theories, plus owning a shop that some Americans would have heard of, is he really that unknown over there? Oh well, we Brits love to accuse the Americans of being inward-looking, but my Monday football (oh alright, soccer!) supplement in the Times (oh, alright, London Times!) did not even have the result of the USA/El Salvador match, let alone a report.
Quite simply, nobody knows him. It is hard enough to find someone who even knows what Fulham is. If you asked a non-soccer person what the word Fulham was they would have no idea. I would even venture to guess that some soccer people do not know what Fulham is.
So howzabout if you tried them with "Chelsea"? An area in Manhattan? The daughter of a former President? Or would they just start spitting and cursing uncontrollably like I do?
Without Abramovich, Chelsea was a known team, but now that Abramovich is there, they have become quite popular to soccer minds. If you asked a non-soccer mind you would get one of your repsonses. A neighborhood in Manhattan or a daughter to Bill and Hillary. Me, I am like you in terms of cursing and getting pissed off about anything and everything that is Chelsea.
Chelsea is obligated, but given Carlos' situation it would have been easy to try and keep him. They didnt and im sure Bruce appreciated it. Well i would imaginme at least. they decided he wasnt quite 100% and didnt play him. I really only know who Al Fayed is bc of the Princes Diana connection, to be honest. well first knew of him i should say.
im an idiot, i ment Fulham. I was thinking about the conflict at Chelsea over something like this and made an error. beyond that, u get the point