It's my understanding that winning a World Cup by 2010, as was the goal of many American soccer fans, is hovering somewhere between a pipe dream and an outside possibility. IIRC, though, the other goal was to win the Olympic goal medal by 2008. I think it's very important for the U-23s to win it in Beijing before the senior team has a chance to win the World Cup in Africa. But since I don't follow the junior teams as much as others, I was wondering what everyone thought about whether or not our boys are still on track to win the Olympics in five years.
Well, in 2008 Craig Capano will be in his seventh pro season and Arturo Alvarez, Memo Gonzalez and Eddie Gaven in their sixth. A certain child prodigy will be all of 19 and will likely be in his fifth pro season. If he develops as projected, he should be Ronaldo-esque by then. Jon Spector will be a veteran of the ManU developmental system. That's five players to build around. Five good ones. Figure that with every year the number of US players turning pro in their teens grows and you've got to figure you've got a pretty seasoned bunch by 2008. Gold medal? No clue. A lot can happen and a team needs breaks to medal and on top of that, I know nothing of the potential opposition.
I think The US could win it next year. Pro Veterans like Donovon , Bealsey , EJ(?) Convey , Santino , etc. Then you add some 1-2-3(?) years of experienced pro players..Buddle , Jaqua , Clark , Magee , Brad Davis , Gooch , Countness , Mapp , Martino , Alvarez , Logan , ect....AND maybe , add some surprize players..Freddy(coming off the bench)?
Really? Why? Did you hear how the US did at the WC in 2002? To win a World Cup, certain things have to go your way during the tournament. Luck is good. No injuries are usually good. Having a good draw is good. But if you throw these things out the window and just look at teams, I don't see why Project 2010 isn't on track. After the '98 WC, I would have agreed with you. After Arena's hiring and our success at the '02 WC, I think we're on track. Am I being myopic?
Re: Re: Project 2010 and the Olympics This is a half full, half empty question. Considering where we've come from '86 to the present, we're definitely on track. We are 10th in FIFA ranking - which though controversial is probably a reasonable estimate of where we are. Winning a world cup requires a lot of skilled players, luck in the draw, injuries, bounces of the ball, referee decisions, and other factors you don't have control over (like Korea beating Portugal). An "outside possibility" is probably still the best description.
Winning the World Cup requires players on top level. Do you think MLS could provide those? The US has hardly any player in Europe on a top level. Only Friedel and O`Brien have what it needs. The last World Cup was an exception in everything. Usually World-Class squads like Argentina, France, Italy and Spain go further! And Usually you have to beat those teams to win a World Cup.
It wasn't my understanding that Project 2010 was to make us WIN a WC by 2010 -- it was to make us COMPETITIVE to be able to win a WC by 2010. IMO, there is no question that we'll be competitive with the world powers by then. But as others have pointed out, it takes of other things to actually win one. Just look at England -- many consider them competitive, but they haven't won since what 1966. Argentina has been a major power but hasn't won since 1986 and Italy not since 1982. There are other teams that have been powers over the years like Holland, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, etc. None of them have ever won the WC. So, whether Project 2010 is successful or not isn't measure by whether we actually win it in 2010, but rather by whether we are one of the top teams considered to have a chance to win it. For example, being one of the 7 seeded (plus the host) teams would be a major accomplishment. Then, if we're one of the seeded teams, not being one of the 2 teams that everyone says "I hope we're in their group." Those would be indicators of the success of Project 2010 -- regardless of what we finally do.
Re: Re: Project 2010 and the Olympics Oh, it was orignally supposed to make us win the whole damn thing by 2010 - that was the stated goal. This announcement was made shortly before the US let for France, where the performance made the idea of us ever winning a WC seem kind of silly. In fact, this announcment was made the same day the US announced it was starting the residency program in the 17s for Bradenton with the idea being that guys like Landon and DMB would be 28 and in their primes by 2010 and this training they would be getting in Bradenton would be a cornerstone of the 2010 goal. That part has turned out to be very true. Once Bruce Arena took over, he knew he didn't want to be hounded by questions about 2010 and progress towards that. He also wasn't shy about sharing his opinion that it was a ludicrous goal considering more established countries like Spain and Holland have never won it. Remember, this was after France and before qualifying or the strong showing in the Olympics in 2000 so we weren't feeling as optimisitic as we are now. And Bradenton hadn't reeped any benefits yet. So, suddenly the word out of SoccerHouse was that 2010 was, as you said, a goal to have us in contention by 2010. In fact, we hardly here mention of Project 2010 anymore by folks within MLS or USSF. But originally, that was the stated goal and the Fed even released a chart of goals they expected to achieve along the way. The goals were things like making it in further rounds of the World Cup with things like the quarters in 2002, the semis in 2006 and winning it all four years later. It also included goals for the Olympics and other youth national teams that included placement or medaling in those competitions. (Somewhere in my basement I have a box that has the chart US Soccer made with all these progressive goals that someone at the Fed slipped me a copy of.) The weird thing is, while I think it is still doubtful the US will win the WC in 2010, or in any of the next couple of cycles that follow, most of the other things are on track in terms of progress in the WC and doing well at Olympics and youth events. That said, the 2010 master plan is one of steady progress and doesn't account for set backs and hiccups like France 98, the 2001 U17 WC, etc... After the glow of Korea/Japan, it's easy to think we'll go at least that far next time, but it doesn't work like that and we could just as easily go three and out. As others have noted, you need breaks to fall just your way to have a good WC and we used up a lot of kharma (the Own Goal Portugal scored, Korea beating Portugal, including Figo missing a wide open net late in the game, O'Brien's handball not getting called) just to get to the quarters. While I think we'll be a better team in Germany, we also won't be able to sneak up on guys like we did to Portugal and as much as I hate to admit it, I think we have a greater chance of going three-and-out than we do of advancing. To bring this back on topic, we're certainly on pace to do very well at the Olympics, both 08 and next year. Granted, we have to qualify. But, if he get past that hurdle next spring, we have a team that is good enough to medal, which is what the original 2010 growth projection showed. The quality of attackers we'll be able to send to the Olympics will be as good as most every other U23 team in the world. Obviously we've got Landon and DaMarcus, but there's also Buddle, Convey, Casey, Martino, Clark, Davis, Mapp, Quaranta, Esky, E. Johnson, Magee, Jaqua... And that doesn't even include any kids who may play up like Arturo Alvarez, Capano, Freddy, Memo or Gaven. In goal, DJ Countess is as good as any other goalie 21 or younger in the world. I really believe that. Obviously, the big question mark with this team is the back line. We've seen progress but it's been in fits and starts. With Onyewu, Burciaga, Yi, Gray, Lewis, Salyer, Marshall, Cochrane, Klaas and Wingert but they have got to play regularly for their clubs and stay healthy and start doing so sooner rather than later. In fact, I think Marshall, Cochrane and Klaas have hurt their chances of going to Athens by not turning pro once the U20 WYC was postponed. If the back line can progress - it certainly has size and athleticism - than we have a real good chance of standing on a podium. And, if the back line doesn't I bet you see the USSF made getting more backs into a pro environment at an earlier age a priority for the 2008 group, thus erasing this problem.
It was silly -- and almost dangerous -- for the Fed to ever have a stated goal of winning the WC in 2010. You're just setting yourself up for failure and ridicule with such a goal. Silly. The goal of being competitive is laudable and attainable, though. I think we will have achieved that goal if we can advance past the group stage at each of the next several Cups, with at least one more foray into the quarters. Re: the Olympics. I see no reason why we can't win in 2004. Our team will be skilled and experienced, and we tend to take the Olympics more seriously than other countries. So why not? It would take some luck -- as does winning any major tournament -- but it is possible. At the last Olympics, we were in the medal round and we thoroughly outplayed Cameroon (who won Gold), with a squad that, on paper, wasn't as good as our 2004 squad. I don't expect to win Gold, but I wouldn't be totally surprised if we did.
Re: Re: Re: Project 2010 and the Olympics I agree with what you say Sandon, but please don't use the karma route. I can just as easily talk about the Agoos own goal, Mathis missing just over the top and hitting the post against Poland and Frings handball on the goal line not getting called.
I havent been on BS long, but i'm getting the feeling that guys like these just wait around on the American boards to shoot down American soccer. Europeans are just going to have to accept the fact that the USA is here to stay in terms of soccer. Italy, Germany, England, Spain you had better get your world cup championships while you can because in 10-15 years the USA is going to be winning it EVERY TIME. Just like everything else.
To get back on topic and add to my own thoughts...I think the US is in striking distance of medaling in Athens, then winning gold in Beijing if not before. Considering the three overage players that I believe should be in the lineup (that is, Friedel, McBride and Pope), and regular Olympic U-23s including Donovan, Beasley, Buddle and Davis (?), this ought to be the strongest lineup the US will have to date. Again, it will take some breaks, and I don't know the opposition either, but it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect the US in the Athens final. As for Beijing, our overage players (not considering who else may hit their stride in '08) should be Donovan and Countess, and I'll leave the third spot open. As long as the number of development players grows over time - we'll have at least two more MLS teams by then and perhaps a few prospects that start in Europe - the U-23s ought to be very formidable in five years time.
No offense, but do you think that the level of play in MLS is going to remain static for the next four to five years? Beyond that, do you think that we're only going to have three players playing regularly in Europe in four to five years? I'll wager that we'll have close to 10 in four to five years unless MLS REALLY takes off here, and in that case they'll still be in MLS. Euros need to just realize this: MLS players can score goals on any team in the world, they just need the service. The defenders and midfielders are still lacking somewhat, but that should change in the next 4-5 years.
Germany made it to the finals in 2002 and won it not too long ago and most of their players don't play at the top levels...
We really need to pay attention to the Confederations Cup to see how we deal with playing tournaments in Europe. We have always sucked at European World Cups. All our great moments have come outside of Europe. Therefore, I'm not going to be asking the 06 squad of medals. If we win the 2006 World Cup, it'll be one of the greatest sporting miracles in the history of the world. 2010 is a completley different matter. If that tournament actually does end up in South Africa, then I think we have a chance of pulling this whole Project off. I think it's going to be another anomaly, like 2002, where the South America/European duoply will struggle to adapt, leaving a vaccum open for the footballing "third world" to occupy. That'll be our time to strike. IMO, but last summer the success came too early. MLS hadn't developed enough. If the leage was 5 years older, then I think we would be in Yokohama last June 30. We've got the players, we just need to get the TEAM. IMO, 2010 is up for grabs. If it was being held in South America, then forget it. But because the Cup is going somewhere its never been, I think we may have a shot.
I knew I had this lying around somewhere... Straight from the horse's mouth (US Soccer - I archived it four years ago), the timetable for Project 2010... A couple of things to note: First and foremost, this was written with the idea that we'd be hosting 2010 - before the current FIFA rotation system was put in place. (If, of course, as I maintain is a possibility, we end up hosting 2010 anyway, who's to say home field won't give us an edge?) Second, the goal for Athens was to get to the semis. Again, when this was written, we'd never gotten out of the Olympic first round. Sydney changed that...it could even be argued we're four years ahead of schedule at the moment...