Miracle on Grass?

It wouldn't be a Miracle. The US is an underdog and winning the World Cup would be a shocking upset, but (even before we got our favorable knockout stage draw) it wouldn't come close to the Miracle on Ice. That was the equivalent of our 1990 team winning the WC.

 

That game isn't remembered for an unprecedented upset (although it was remarkable). It's remembered for the enormous political tension between the two superstates.

 

And with which of the potential opponents outlined above do we have currently have enormous political tension? That's a pretty friendly list of countries.

 

There isn't. It's a poor analogy.

 

I'm pretty sure Argentina and the US are not friendly but I could be way off. I feel like I read something somewhere about that. Either way it's no where close to the way the US was with the Soviet Union.

 

I think beating Portugal in 2002 was more of a shock than any potential victory we have in the next couple of weeks. We were still under the radar, the underdogs (still are to a degree), and considered a E.A.S.Y. oppenent back then. If we upset a major team next week (Brazil, Holland, Spain, Italy (oops), Argentina) it will be a bona fide upset, but no miracle. Yes, it will be a shock to the rest of the world, and huge news here, and I will gladly celebrate by peeing my pants or something crazy like that.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062500397.html

The only comparison that comes immediately to mind was the "Miracle on Ice" hockey victory over the Soviet Union in the 1980 Olympics. I covered that career highlight event and distinctly recall one of my colleagues standing up in the cramped press box in the rafters above the arena that day and declaring to his fellow American scribes: "We're changing the rules. There will be cheering in the press box!"​

 

No it's not. An analogy by definition does NOT have to be exact in all details. Just watch the reaction to Landon's goal video in other threads to see the excitement generated in this country. So you have a sport that has a small passionate following. You have a US team that is good but not considered near the top powers in the sport. You have a team that plays together as a TEAM and is being recognized for its cohesive play. You have a period in US history where the nightly news just sucks. Bad economy. Oil Spill. Wars we are not winning etc., compared to Iran hostages, bad economy in the first part of 1980.

Hell, you even have parallels in the games themselves. In the first game of the Olympics, Bill Baker scored on a shot from the blue line with seconds left to earn a tie against Sweden. Without that, none of the rest happens and that game started the love affair with the American public. I even find some parallels in the excitement added by Al Michaels and Ian Darke.

I am a big hockey fan (in part from those Olympics although I was already following the sport at the time) and the Soviet angle was part of the story but was far from dominant. The fact that they were Soviet AND the best team on the planet by a wide margin was the bigger issue. The fact that they were perceived as having an unfair advantage as the sport was supposed to be amateur was far bigger at the time than the politics.

Miracle on Ice is a very solid analogy to what we are seeing now. Even the nature of the two sports where there is much less scoring than the big American pro sports leads to the same type of despair you saw when the Soviets scored first and when Slovenia scored and the same type of emotional release you saw when Eruzione scored and when Donovan finished off his goal.

Where the analogy might fail is that the hockey team was standing on the highest spot on the pedestal with the Gold Medals. That is a long, long haul for this team. Still, the effect and the memories generated for people thus far are similar.

 

Slow down sparky. They may not get passed Ghana...