usa is still an emerging soccer country... as the soccer culture matures, the overall quality of player and play will improve... usa is somewhere around the top 20, getting into the top 10 will require a couple more generation of players... when usa has 10 jozy altidores, then it'll be a major factor in group play... the elimination phase, usa will be the underdog, but will be able to win every now and then, maybe 30% of the time... so .3*.3*.3*.3 gives you the chances usa could win a title.. but i'd say each round gets more difficult.. so .3*.2*.1*.05 might be more realitistic NOW, with the .3 in 20-30 years time
it'd be like the old time brasil of 1970...not saying jozy is close to any of those guys though their defenders, ah, didn't really defend
I'll take 2 Jozy's and 4 Donovans...as for the back line I don't think the 'ultimate' US player type has come to light yet. Sanneh was there in 2002 for sure. Gooch is an interesting talent and great for now but I think we can do a little better in the future. One thing should be certain, the US should never be weak at GK. If that ever happens it will be a sad sign of decline in soccer popularity/talent
the above progression leads to a usa where footie and mls play in the nfl/nba/mlb neighborhoods, with all the passion, popularity and money those leagues enjoy. i have no doubt a genuinely footie mad usa, with it's enormous population and economy, could produce serious wc title contending teams (with serious depth) every cycle. would love to see this. however, looking at where we are now, and where we've been, we'll be way lucky if any of our grandchildren are around to see it.
i see the grass roots learning of the game to be the critical element... when millions of kids have access to a better quality of teaching and training, then they become the bigger resource, so at higher levels, sheer number of talent raises the entire country... and exposure to better teaching at each increasing level of the game should happen too... a top down approach isn't the cultural approach for success.. it's the other way around
Here's what we'd need against the top teams in a WC to win: 1. Howard stands on his head (see Argentina) 2. We bag a s(crappy) goal or two and hold on for dear life There's a certain amount of posession that we'd have to maintain to set up plays for those scrappy goals and our D would still have to play well to limit the top teams' chances. Finesse teams that give us space (Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Italy) we do better against. The physical teams (like us, but with better technical skill) like England, Germany, or Czech/Croatia are more nightmarish match-ups. Odds are long, but are team does have a knack for bagging goals like that AND if Torres proves he can be our posession man at the Confederations' Cup, then I'll be happy. Our odds will be higher in my eyes, we'll need a good draw still (finesse match ups instead of physical ones) and some luck (everyone does, and we'll need a special amount) but this WC presents us with the best opportunity to win we've ever had. Still, that's not saying a ton, cuz we've never, and still don't, have a legit shot.
Hmm, Argentina, Brazil and Spain we do better against? Famous last words, my friend. Maybe we can convince them they're playing a friendly.
In his defense, "do better against" is different from "do well against." But I'm not sure I agree that there are two and only two forms of ass-whuppings that we can endure at the hands of better teams. And even if there are, I'm not sure it's a case of technical vs. physical. Brazil traditionally takes about 70-135 minutes to get rolling in group play, so we might have a chance if we played that kind of Brazil in our first game. (But I suspect that under Dunga they'll be more boring but also more focused from the start.) We've played well against Italy and Germany in previous World Cups, and in 2010 and 2014 they'll be playing in somebody else's backyard too. They could crush us, but I also wouldn't be shocked to tie or squeak out a one-goal win. I sorta suspect that Argentina and Spain move the ball so well that in a meaningful match they'd carve us up no matter how well we held our shape for 99% of the game. They could easily put 2 or 3 past us in that crucial 1%. And as much as it pains me to say it, England under Capello is a different beast than it was under McClaren or Eriksson. They're not as talented as their tabloids think, but right now they're probably better than us everywhere on the pitch except goal. (Though few things in life would give me more satisfaction than watching Donovan, Adu, Dempsey, and Altidore play a career game and score three or four.)