I was curious about how many countries could meet these criteria. Here's what I came up with (all numbers are since the 32-team format was introduced in 1998): TIMES MAKING FINAL 8: 4 Germany Brazil 3 Argentina 2 Spain England Netherlands Italy France 1 United States Uruguay Ghana Paraguay Ukraine Portugal South Korea Senegal Turkey Denmark Croatia TIMES ADVANCING FROM GROUP PLAY (* = at least 2 consecutive): 4 Brazil* Germany* England* Mexico* 3 Spain* Netherlands* Argentina* Italy* Paraguay* 2 United States Portugal* Ghana* South Korea* Sweden* Denmark* Japan Chile France 1 Uruguay Slovakia Japan Australia Switzerland Ukraine Ecuador Ireland Belgium Senegal Turkey Nigeria Yugoslavia Norway Romania Croatia My conclusion? These tests aren't particularly meaningful. To the extent that they show a class of teams ahead of the United States, there are only 7 teams that rank above the U.S. on both metrics--not a very big class, and certainly smaller than the class Sleazy McCloud tried to put above us. Countries that do worse than us, based on this metric, include Belgium, Uruguay, Colombia, and Chile. We're essentially the same as Portugal by this standard; the only difference is that their two knockout appearances were consecutive (2006 and 2010).
Not sure what you mean by expanding the player pool. He has gone after players born and raised in Germany more aggressively than other coaches but he is not the first. Also, of the pool of Germans he brought in, only Fabian Johnson is making a significant impact on the US team (Jones was involved before JK). Looks to me like the pool of players are coming from the same place they always have. But feel free to correct me if I am missing some.
Interesting numbers. But based on them the thread could be changed to "will Ghana or South Korea" win a world cup before England's 2nd.
Somewhat pertinent to this discussion I think. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/s...european-peers.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&
A good player does not always make a good coach. Especially strikers. I'd even say: more often not. So, to me, him being a WC tells me nothing on how a completely different team under his guidance would do in a World Cup.
yeh agree completely. Often former world class players have difficulty coaching players who don't have their athletic skill or, their work ethic.
No. England is still light years ahead in soccer immersion. That said, the English game up until the BPL, was always long cross balls into the box with little real ball handling skills. That is slowly changing, but it is still their national style and the players they develop reflect this.
Don't have to humor you man. It's not gonna happen anytime soon but neither will the ENGLISH. Just my opinion. the NT ceiling his high. Sky's the limit. With the next generation and what this current will pass on to them. Abilities and expectations. The English were just loathful at this past WC. They can play better and have had world class players of the past decade and yet nothing. Even STEVEN G (the Man) has to go. Rooney needs time on the bench. They need more collectivity instead of simply trying to create the best situation for Gerrard or Rooney to succeed to their fullest. It hasn't worked enough or at the right times. I see them starting fresh after euro 2016. But don't see any results coming. But I can wager $100 the US finishes further than England in 2018. it's happened in the past 2 cups.
So basically neither of the teams are winning anytime soon - What an astonishing revelation there, what stunning insight. Well done. I forget that the only national team that has room to improve is the US. You also assume a constant improvement. That rarely happens. Stop with the random capitalisation as well - You just come across like that plank Ives.
I'll give you a reasoning. Belgium realised it needed change after their Euro 2000 debacle, when they were co-host and eliminated in the group stage. They turned to the Dutch and to the French to see how they could improve. They made the changes they saw fit, and voila: they have an excellent crop of young players who made the quarter finals of a world cup 14 years later. They're really looking forwards to 2016 and 18. Germany decided they needed to change their way back in 2004 (I think) when their EC campaign fell painfully short and their game style had become nigh unwatchable. They decided they needed to change to produce better and more creative players. They turned to the Dutch... And no doubt to others as well. They had a look around and implemented changes they saw fit for Germany and their football heritage. They reached the 2010 semi's playing wonderful football (the Dutch were genuinely envious) with a rejuvenated squad full of technical players while maintaining their 'ausdauer', and they are the best team in Brazil so far. The Dutch have radically thrown out the majority of the old guard that shone in 2008 (and went bust) and nearly became wold champions in 2010. The squad is mainly made up of youngsters playing in the Eredivisie completed with some hardworking, nevergiveup oldies (Kuijt and to a lesser extent Sneijder) and a rather good international starman (RvP) and a world-class player who can decide games all on his own. The traditional way of playing has been thrown out of the window and catered to capitalize on the strengths of the players at hand. Against almost all predictions they won their difficult group and have hung on to reach the semis again. (Again drawing both lots of positive and negative reviews) Th US decided a few years ago that in order to grow their game, they needed to get rid of what their fans refer to as 'bunkerball' (A cautionary remark is warranted here: US fans are not always right). They turned to Jürgen Klinsmann. (see?) They reached the knockout stage in Brazil as they did last time. They may not be there yet but they were pretty entertaining at times whilst making it out of their group. England have been trying to change their ways since... What is it? 10 years? They were going to change their game. To a more technical, possession based style. They turned to the Germans, perhaps to the Spanish, maybe even the Dutch... And.... They were OK against Italy, but lost. Their youngsters were... mediocre and not too much fun to watch is both other games. They went home after failing to exit their group. It seems change goes very slowly in English football... The US may overtake them, at some point.
Looks like many turn to the Dutch, whose academies have the right idea. Here is my latest article on the matter: http://fromthestacks.bangordailynew...vamp-the-u-s-soccer-youth-development-system/ In it, there is a link to another piece of mine that speaks to this even more.
Well, John Brooks made quite the impact in terms of results: his goal arguably got us in the RO16. And Julian Green showed us the future--along with wondering why he didn't play more after Jozy AND Johanssen went down. Really, that is the only thing I wish JK had done differently. Recruiting and prying him away from the German team in the future is a huge coup for us. Green has been battle tested by coming up in Bayern's youth system; no other American kid had that kind of seasoning. That's a chance JK should really have taken, especially in the Belgium game.
Being "battle tested" implies a certain amount of experience in competitive situations; from all accounts, Green has almost none of that. He's had plenty of top-notch training, but that's not the same thing. Don't get me wrong--I think the kid looks fantastic.
Agree in principle. But he looks fantastic because of the crucible he had to undergo in the Bayern system. Those systems of the top clubs are enough battle testing for me. It breeds not only technical skills superior to our youth at parallel ages but also mental toughness some of our top pros could use. At a minimum....once in the RO16 JK had nothing to lose if he started the kid or just gave him all of the overtime to do his thing. Some of that speed and soft touch and finishing might have been nice to see --- and born some fruit. It's speculation to be sure at this point. ..but not blind given what he did in the short time he got in the game. The creativity of his deep run and deftness of that one-timer is something no one can dispute. When he entered the game my wife heard me yell "finally!" And as much of a JK supporter as I am.....he totally showed a lack of boldness in not bringing the kid in earlier. Thanks!
I'm not arguing the bigger point about the system here ... but when he came on for his first USMNT appearance in a friendly against Mexico he looked swamped and as though he'd never seen anything like it (raw talent was evident but we're speaking to bigger things). "Battle Tested" here is something completely different.
Yeah, in his previous appearances, he was totally naive. He got caught in possession a couple of times of a character that was nearly as bad as Fernandinho last night, but the consequences were much less. His brief appearance in this tournament seemed to suggest he was learning, but he wasn't there quite long enough to determine if he's completely learned his lesson.
We were ranked 12th at the last WC, you were ranked 13th. 1 spot difference of course but relevant. Not to mention we won the group. I'm not trying to cause any ill will, just pointing out some things.
Is Telly done sucking off all the Euros yet? Holy crap. Wipe your chin, man. I love Julian Green, too, but he looked anything but "battle tested" against Mexico and his goal came as fresh legs against guys that had been out there for 115 minutes in a KO game.... Get up off your knees already.