Project 2010: Attainable?

You're right, I did. My fault.

 

Serious contender? What's a serious contender?

One of the top 10 teams entering the tournament? Lets see, figure Brazil, Argentina, England, Italy, Holland, Spain, France, Portugal as better. Could we beat out the likes of Germany, Mexico, the rest of South America, all of Africa, Czechs, Sweden, Greece and so forth as being in the next three.

Maybe. Unlikely but maybe.

And if serious contender is the next level -- a team like Turkey or Korea in the last Cup, say in the 2nd 10 -- then, yes.

In summary, Project 2010 is a bit of a stretch but nowhere near as ridiculous as it sounded in 1998. Which is very good.

 

Greece was what, 80:1 to win?

In any case, without even looking at Euro'04, WC'02 gave us South Korea and Turkey in the semis. Turkey is presently ranked 26th by ELO, South Korea 38th, US 19th. So, there's definitely a chance.

What were they?

 

I wonder if someone could find bookmakers records for world cups. I would like to see who was the biggest outsider to reach the world cup final.

 

Sure about that?
Anyway Greece did pull of the biggest upset in the history of major international competitions.

 

Don't know but I do know that the US is currently 100:1
Here's an idea - a little far fetched, but why not buy your freinds that don't follow soccer $5 bets that the US wins in 2006 as their x-mas present. Them not knowing the difficulties involved won't diminish their stake in the outcome and will definitely get them more interested in following the team. I'm planning on doing this.

 

i think the 1980 us olympic hockey team might question that boast.

 

Possibly, but I meant only football.

 

I would view us as being a contender for the WC title in 2010 if:

1. We at least do what we did in 2002 in 2006 and 2010

2. We get to at least the semis in either 2006 or 2010.

3. We play consistently competitive football in between. While we will lose games, this includes winning against Europeans on European soil.

The issue right now for us is to continue to incrementally raise our game while not suffering lapses in major tournaments. In 2002 though we were fortunate to get past the first round, we were unfortunate to not make it to the semi-finals. We have to get past relying on late goals by other teams to get us through.

I think all of the above is attainable. Not sure we WILL do it, but it is attainable. I also like the view that 'if we become a seeded team for 2010, then we have become a contender'. What an advance for US soccer that would be.

 

Well, depends on what "contend" means. If that means routinely make the quarterfinals and play every other team in the world as an equal nine times in ten, then, yes -- we'll be a contender. By 2010 or soon after.

If it means we go into the World Cup as one of the teams other countries are scared of and one of the teams everyone is pointing at to win it, then no. We won't.

But in a short series of games it's a bit of a crapshoot as to which sides are on form, so anything could happen. If Argentina and France can get bounced in three, so could we. If Greece can win Euro2004, there's no reason we couldn't reach the semis or finals.

 

Of course.

I do think we will see the US win a World Cup in the next 50 years. Which really isn't a lot of time as long as World Cups remain once every four years.

 

What would be a likely squad composition for a US World Cup winner in 2010? (I'm assuming a 4-4-2 here.)

1. Elite, top-5 class goalie.
2. We don't develop good wide players, so for the fullbacks, let's peg them at "above ave. EPL starter caliber." This is gonna be the weak point of the team.
3. One top-10 in the world central defender, one top-25.
4. One midfielder among the top 5 in the world in his role, two in the top 25, one top 50.
5. One striker who is a legit candidate for WPOTY, another who is good enough to start for all but the best 5-6 club teams in the world.

A team like that could win it.

I think the US has a real chance to have that good of a GK.

I think it speculative for us to develop fullbacks that good. Maybe Spector and Karbassiyoon could get there. But there's nobody really on TODAY's radar. Luckily, I set a low standard there...it's basically, "don't be so bad that the pressure on everyone else to cover for you is overwhelming."

Gooch has serious potential, and I'm a big Chad Marshall fan too. But I think it unlikely, but not really impossible, for the US to have the requisite centerbacks.

Between Gaven and Szetela, one of those guys is gonna have to be a top-5 at his role mid, the other top 25. (It would be nothing extraordinary for Landon to be one of the top 25 attacking mids in 2010.) HIGHLY speculative, not impossible.

Between Eddie Johnson/Kenny Cooper/Robbie Rogers/All Those Guys, maybe one of them will become our "2nd forward" ("good enough to start for almost any club.") Of course, Freddy would be our WPOTY candidate.

Adding it up, it could happen if most prospects hit their peaks.

I really like our chances of being a team "expected to make the quarterfinals/darkhorse." But IMO, there's a big, big gap between those squads, and the winners.

If you start to think of it this way, you see how much work has to be done. TBH, I think it's more likely we'll have a Mundial-worthy attack than defense.

 

I like your analysis.

Remember, however, that 2010 squad could include players who are today as young as 13 or maybe even 12. We may not have so much of a problem on the flanks in 6 years as we have now.

There is another HUGE gap between the level of today's top U12 player and that of EJ or even Gaven's age.

Big time outside back prospect coming up right now - Oforie Sarkodie. At 16 started for the U20 NT team that recently won the 4 team tourney in FL. Kid is a tank and skiiiiiiilled. And crazy fast.

With the MLS reserve system supposedly starting up, I would think he will be selected to somebody's team this year.

 

Good stuff. The one thing I would add is in the attack -- anywhere in the attack -- we need a gamebreaker. Someone who, when the chips are down, can pull a Baggio '94 and will the team to victory.

We showed great resolve this year with wins over Jamaica and Panama. Say what you will about the performances, but those are the types of games where in the past, we probably go home empty handed.

In the World Cup, we'll most likely be thrown in a similar spot where we need a flash of brilliance for the win.

 

don't forget the euros went to the quarters without a 2nd round, so greece had a less match in the knockout phase....

also, throw argentina and brasil into the knockout phase, and advancing through them is particularly difficult...

miracle on ice 1980, had huge edge of home ice, with 3,000 crazies packed into a cramped auditorium...think saprissa here...

as to usa winning.....sure, the talent pool is getting more proficient with world class caliber...the question becomes, how many TOP 100 players will have american passports??

and who's gonna be managing these guys...my belief is arena maxes the current group and the next guy will need to do a similar job.......

if I was betting, I wouldn't bet my IRA on it...

 

Frankly a team like this would be the bar-none favorite to win a WC. Argentina doesn't have a top GK. I don't know that Brazil's is that good but if he is then it would be a first for Brazil. France is not that good either. Additionally, Brazil never has had many top-rated defenders. What seems to be crucial is that no team wins the WC without a great striker or a great offensive midfielder, preferably both. Italy, won without having a great striker but that's because they suddenly got spark from Rossi.

So I would say that if we get conditions 4 and 5 and get only one other from 1,2 and 3 then we are a candidate.

I would add:
6: "You can not suck completely in any position"

 

There's one other thing about Project 2010 that people forget...

(Good thing I've had this article saved on my PC for 6 years)

Remember, this was before FIFA started the "rotation" of host sites, so we really thought we had a shot at hosting 2010.

Make of that what you will...

 

I like what you guys have had to say but one thing I think you are downplaying is luck, you say the U.S. was lucky to advance out of it's group. True. No one's going to deny that but every team needs luck to win the WC except maybe Brazil. Germany was lucky we didnt score in a game we completly dominated and were lucky the ref (was it Hugh Dallas? i cant remember) didnt see the Frings' handball. South Korea was lucky in like two straight games to take it to the semi-final. Senegal was lucky against Sweeden that Svennson's hit the post in golden goal extratime otherwise it would have been Sweeden into the next round. England was unlucky in Ronaldinho's wondergoal. Spain was unlucky (and had bad referring). In Euro 2004 if Nedved hadn't been injured the Czech Republic might've beaten Greece and gone on to the final b/c hands down if anyone saw them play they were the best team in that tournament, the game against the Netherlands was one of the best i've ever seen. Anyway the list goes on and on. My point is luck plays a big part in every team except Brazil making it to the final and a lot of the time there is a big name that can't qualify ( a la Holland) or gets knocked out (France, Argentina). I would count that as luck too. Also you don't need players who are recognized as some of the best in the world to get to the final you most definetly don't need them to be a contender. All you really need is a group of players or maybe 7 of your 11 to be some of the best performing players in their positions in that tournament for at most 30 days. Thats all you need to be a contender. My goal for the U.S. in 2006 is a quarterfinal appearence it will be much harder this time due to it being basically European homefield advantage and the U.S. will be a team the other teams will be prepared for this time out. In 2010 if our national team and player pool keeps progressing at a steady rate I want (want not expect or demmand but hope for) a semi-final appearence. If we get to a WC semi as cliche and simplistic as this sounds we've got a 50-50 chance of making the final and in 2010 i would not doubt that the quality of player we can put on the field in every position will be able to technically and physically play equal to any team in the world.

 

It's fascinating to speculate what it might take to win the WC.

In 2,002, the winner Brazil had received excellent goalkeeping from Marcos and had a magnificent trio in 4 Rs - Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos. Other than that, some good experienced pros like Cafu and young Kaka on the bench.

The 2,002 finalist Germany had two stars - one was MIA in the final - Michael Ballack and Oliver Kahn. Come to think of it, both were MIA in the final. If it wasn't for that Kahn howler...

In 1998, the winner France had Zizou (MIA in knockout stages), top defense and the home field advantage. Pires, Henry and Trez never got off the bench in the final game.

Brazil had 3 Rs in 1998 and very little greatness besides that.

The 1994 final was altogether dreadful.

The last really quality side to win was Germany in 1990 that had Brehme, Kohler, Littbarski, Mattäus, Häßler, Völler and Klinsmann.

So, with importance of individual talent diluting, 2,010 may be a year for a total team.

 

Brazil had an easy draw, with only England being anything of note and there they got the Seeman pooper.

As to luck ... it runs alternately. You get it in one world cup but it goes missing the next.

 

In retrospect, I probably did "construct" too strong of a team. OTOH, while my hypothetical team is unusually devoid of weaknesses, it's also (for a world cup WINNER) unusually devoid of greatness. On balance, probably more the former than the latter.

The specific real-life teams you named have more weaknesses but more strengths than my team. I was just trying to set a standard from which reality would deviate.

 

How many 19 year olds have contributed to World Cup Winners? Sure, there have been a couple, but they tend to be legendary players like Pele. I wouldn't count on us popping one of those out.

 

when i was in high school i went to SGA- star goalkeeper academy the summer of my sophmore year. dan gaspar gave us a speech, to the whole camp in which he stated that in 2010 the us would be able to win a world cup. this was in 1999. that was a ballsy statement if i ever heard one, esp in the after wc 98. but looking at things now i feel much more confident. we do play well vs tough opponents these days and really cant be pushed around by any teams these days. in a knockout round, anyone can beat anyone and win.

go usa!

forza inter

 

Just to add to the "home field advantage" talk, remember some errr most errr pretty much all of Europe doesn't like the USA right now. Granted in our own region away crowds can be nasty but I think a bunch drunk Euros watching their country play the USA in the worlds biggest sporting event would be nucking futs.