Maybe if the MLS increased the quality of play more people would watch? Because it ain't that pretty.
It was a decent performance by the U.S. First they held a more talented England side to a draw (thanks in large part to a great performance by Howard). Then they were down 2-0 to Slovenia, showed tremendous resilience to get the game tied, and almost won except for a controversial call (enough so to get the ref booted from the tournament). Then they beat a bunker-happy Algeria side in a must win match (despite having another controversial goal call go against them). Funny how spin works.
And, against the two worst teams in the tournament, Mex won one and tied one. I'll take the U.S.'s WC over Mexico's - easy. Your argument about the Algeria match is specious. it was pretty clear that Algeria was basically playing for a draw. Read the international soccer media. And, the U.S. needed a W to advance as well. So, we were putting ourselves at risk in the back. The fact that we managed to do that & not concede, while Algeria couldn't is, of course, lost on you. And, don't forget that one of Mex's goal's against France came on a clear offside. Don't you subscribe to Aguirre's "terrible error" theory? If not for that "terrible error" France could have gotten back in the game. Shoot, Aguirre is saying if not for two terrible errors, Mex would've been in it. Surely you can grant France one? Btw, your comparison or U.S. soccer to the cyclical nature of nations' soccer teams is grossly misguided. The U.S. is not your usual soccer country. The game is growing here by leaps and bounds. The number of young players playing abroad (instead of in what we agree is a pretty crappy MLS) is muuuuuuch larger than it was 4 years ago. And, the quality of player coming out of the college system is significantly better than it was 4 years ago. Your contention that this is the pinnacle of the American soccer is just silly. We didn't even have a league 16 years ago. This generation, right now, is the first generation to grow up with soccer being a blip on the American sports radar. We are just beginning to be a soccer country. American soccer is, if not in its infancy, in its toddler-cy.
But should it have gotten to the point where we were down 2-0? Slovenia is underrated but we were the favorites in that one. The call was bullshit but it was in the 86th minute so I can't say a win was guaranteed. Algeria was our best game and coincidentally it was when we didn't (because we couldn't) couldn't play Findley because the ref saw an imaginary handball.
I think it would be nice to get an America's tournament with both North and South America participating. Keep the two regions seperate, but I think it would be nice and benificial (for both parties) to incorporate some more functions between the two regions.
We are getting there. MLS was extremely lucky to get two great players during it's infancy stage. Valderama and Etcheverry. Valderama I think had the best 1st touch any human could possibly possess, and Etch was simply damaged goods that luckilly still had some life left. The quality of the league has increased, and will continue to increase. Our sports infrastructure simply won't allow for soccer to survive until MLS goals have been met. I'm confident that with in 10 years, we will see MLS as one of the top 3 sports franchises in the country. Once that happens (top 3), you can say hello to players like "Messi", "Ronaldo", "Robiniho" and etc. We have the richest audience in the world, so we will attract big time investors once we rid priv entity.
That's too soon. European clubs/leagues will attract your best players. And the richest audience is watching the NFL, NBA, MLB, Golf, Nascar, College Football and Basketball. MLS being that big is a 50-100 year process.
Agree with the poster above. MLS is going to have to scrape & claw to raise it's profile. It is currently a little above a semi-pro league. When guys have to take off-season jobs to make ends meet, that's semi-pro. There won't be enough money to remedy this situation until there are more name brand players in their prime in the league to draw eyeballs. And, there won't be more eyeballs until there are more name brand players in their prime. It's a tough situation. For the foreseeable future, the development of the USMNT will be much like it is now. Young stars go to Europe (or Mex, or SA?) early. Late bloomers go to college, then MLS to get polished up a little, and then they follow the money. Not to worry, there are so many more and better athletes playing soccer that this will be an effective developmental plan. And, I've said it a bunch of times before, but.....NCAA soccer is a huge advantage for the U.S. - There are sooo many athletes in sports who are "late bloomers." Look at all the NBA & NFL players who went to small colleges. Those are guys that wouldn't have been discovered if the pro window closed when you're 17-18 (as it does in the soccer world, around the world). Lot's of people bloom athletically between the ages of 17 & 21. Anywhere else in the world, they're car mechanics or accountants (yeah, right). Here, they've got 4 years of college to hone their skills, show their stuff, & mature physically. In any other country, Dempsey woudn't have made it as a pro. Nor would have Davies. Nor Feilhaber. Nor Bornstein. Nor Holden. Those are guys that no professional team had any interest in when they were 17, 18. And now, they are National Team quality. That will continue to happen for us. And, the early or ontime bloomers will be scouted by the pros more & more. Funny thing is, other countries will benefit from NCAA soccer, too. There are plenty of international or dual-cit guys playing in the NCAA as well.
Are you kidding me? I'd rather have us in the next few World Cups to come than not qualify potentially for the next 12 years.
Yeah, this thread is silly. Only occasionally qualifying for World Cups will do far more damage to soccer in this country than playing against tougher opposition will benefit us. There is a simple solution to the Original Poster's wish - continuing to schedule difficult opposition. We actually did a good job of that this past cycle, playing road games in Poland, Switzerland, Spain & England, playing Argentina and Brazil, playing in Copa America, and playing in the Confederations Cup. This team tested itself against quality opposition sufficiently during this cycle, unlike the 2006 cycle. You can criticize our team for tactics, lack of skill, poor decisions, etc, but one thing I would say our team has proven to be this cycle is battle tested.
I honestly thought this ROBO crap was done with. If you hate US soccer and US coaches, support some Euro team with a coach with sexy glasses. There are plenty of them.
bigsoccer.......just when i think your threads are getting to their limit in terms of lunacy, you come out with this little gem.
Yes they should. Absolutely. By pulling an Australia, you mean doing everything you can to make sure you don't have to go through a Commebol nation to qualify, correct?
I applaud your confidence and the game is growing, but you are way too optimistic. So you believe MLS will surpass not only hockey but also either baseball the NBA in ten years? Not a chance. Maybe hockey in 20. What does "...we will attract big time investors once we rid priv entity" mean?
USA should stay in Concacaf number 1. Number two Uruguay is NOT a second tier team ALL of there players play for some of the most important clubs in the world and Uruguay has 2 of the worlds most prolific goal scorers. The USA unfortunately is second tier to Uruguay. Paraguay's success is due to following the same coaching pattern for more than 4 WC cycles. When a team discovers it´s style and identity qualifying becomes a lot more easier. I agree that qualifying form South America is more difficult than concacaf and Europe but the US needs a change in idea not competition. The US is in a good place now, with most of our best players in Europe and a growing domestic league. What the US needs is a more traditional and game changing coach not more of the same...
Add me to the 'this is a terrible idea' club for so, so many reasons. First, Oceania had only 0.5 spots in the World Cup. That's why Australia left. They kept getting dumped by the likes of Iran and Uruguay in the play-off and failing to qualify. Moving to Asia meant more, better chances to qualify, albeit against stiffer (but still not good) competition. Sure, AFC's tougher than Oceania, but it's no tougher than CONCACAF. Second, we'd basically have zero realistic chance to ever make it to the Confederations Cup again. I could go on and on. Bottom line: it's a terrible idea.
Fyi, besides Argentina and Brazil, the rest of Conmebol has sucked in the world cup, for decades. Go back and look, you'll be surprised, although this is already common knowledge, so you shouldn't be. This is the first world cup in ages where all of them are playing great football.
Competition improves quality, for people afraid of not making the world cup this is a bad Idea, for people that want their team to get better then this is a good idea. I would love for the USA, Mexico and maybe even Canada moved to Comebol, leave concacaf to become another Oceania with 0.5 spots to the worldcup. The only Issue is that comebol teams would never agree to this.
Mexico has a pretty darn good record against South American teams. We actually have a winning record against every country except Argentina and Brazil. Out of 7 Copa Americas we have been in 5 semi finals. We have actually played Ecuador 3 times in CA and once in the WC and have yet to loose to them. All those Ecuador squads were their best they had to offer. The team that killed us in Peru was Brazil not Peru. We have never lost that bad in CA to a country not named Brazil.
Why do people like MADDog keep thinking we get schooled by those teams? It's an annoying myth. Only Argentina has our number, big time. Even Brazil has a losing record against Mexico this past decade (there overall record is superior tough). The rest of South America has a losing record against us. I don't know why people keep thinking we struggle against those teams. Yes, they're tough to beat, very tough, but we've proven we're more of a headache for them, then them to us. Having said that, Uruguay played us smart in the WC though, they know we struggle against teams that sit back against us and planned on doing just thatm, they only needed a point, so it was a no brainer in terms of their strategy.
Yea seriously! The competition is better.... but why complain when USA and mexico get into every WC since 1990 for USA and 94 for Mexico! With the competition USA and Mexico would be fighting it out for places 3-5 with the likes of uruguay, peru, colombia, ecuador, venezuela, and for USA playing at altitude in la paz and in ecuador! Mexico doesnt have much problems at altitude, and have a fairly good home advantage.... but USA I think would struggle HARD in south america. Mexico too would have trouble qualifying..... and they both have it good being over there in concacaf. I WISH bolivia could trade with USA or Mexico, lol Bolivia would finally start making it to world cups!!! lol
6.5 would maybe make it easier, but doesnt change the competition. South America is TOUGH! Especially for USA. Thats why I wish USA would compete in the copa america to get a taste, and to have another tournament besides the confederations cup and WC to face top opposition. Some people (like me) even argue that its tougher to make it to the WC out of South America then in europe! When you look at it, with Argentina and Brasil for the most part always being locks, there is only 2.5 spaces left for the remaining hungry, and decent soccer playing nations! Heck, look at how tough it, even the worst 3 teams, venezuela, bolivia, and peru all can rise to the occasion and play beautiful soccer. Bolivia probably the worst talent wise, still schooled argentina at home 6-1. Imagine USA at that altitude. Bolivia knows how to shoot in altitude and can send rockets outside the box when they are on their 'A' game. Point being, all teams in south america are tough.