In the new era, I think we should play more friendlies with Chile, Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. I aslo think the CONCACAF Gold Cup winner should be able to play the winner of the Copa America. Or at least get an invite!
Does anyone know why CONCACAF and CONMEBOL both schedule their tournaments the year after the World Cup? It's a shame we're forced to concentrate on the Gold Cup at the expense of potentially more valuable playing experience at Copa America.
In theory I would like to see that, in reality we will just end up with B-team friendlies in the US (like always) that will do little for either country. It is difficult for some of the second tier South American to get their top teams together with players playing in Europe, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, and their domestic leagues.
This is what I was going to point out, most S. American sides that travel to the states field their youth or "B-team" and do very little for your development. Most yanks don't know or really care but like dna wrote it's tough for them to get their top sides together to travel to the US and I don't really see the US traveling down to S.America. So it's a lose lose situation. Which is why I think the Copa America would be great for you guys, but apparently you wont be part of it.
What they need to do is to get a tournament together where they invite teams from South America and European to come in and play for a decent money every year and have it blessed by FIFA and the ESPN televise it. Do away with gold cup and the other bs. If the money is right, they all would send their A teams.
Can not happen, will not happen. Do not think it should happen. The only thing I want to change is make it every 4 years not 2. Also next years Gold Cup is for a berth in the confederations cup in 2013.
Copa America is the oldest national team tournament of soccer, older than the Euro and World cup. It is played every 4 years and South America always sends its A Teams. See Copa America 2007 and Copa America 2011 in Argentina. What the US needs is a coach like Bielsa or Pellegrini from Latin America... If they want to go latin.... Or Guss Hiddink if they want to go Euro.
More attentive defending would have made the difference... Better goal scorers would have made the difference.
I'm all for playing all different kinds of styles and countries., but this is 'flavor of the month' stuff.
Gold Cup is scheduled every 2 yrs to milk more money from the Region. We are "forced" to focus on Gold b/c its our ticket to the Confeds. Anyhow, clubs are not forced to release our players for the Copa as we are merely guests. Hence if we hold Gold once every 4 yrs and hold it the year after Copa, Fulham would not be required to release Dempsey (though one could argue they'd see the benefit, despite it falling into place when euro preseason begins).
Teams dislike International competition in general, it goes against all their interests....the only time they are happy to release a player is if they see no real use for him at the time.
I bolded this because most of Big Soccer right now is filled with toxic levels of idiocy and drama over us not going to the 2011 Copa America. Personally, I think it's more important to concentrate on the Gold Cup/Confederations Cup. I also think it's a great idea to play more South American teams. South America is very strong in this World Cup, 4 years from now they will be even stronger. Honestly, I think a great idea would be to invite Brazil for the 2013 Gold Cup. Brazil are already qualified so they will be dying to get more internationals in.
What the US needs is a coach like Bielsa or Pellegrini from Latin America... If they want to go latin.... Or Guss Hiddink if they want to go Euro.[/QUOTE] This is it. There are three excellent names, mainly Guus Hiddink in my opinion. He is the right coach for US. See his performances at South Korea, Australia, Russia and many clubs. The others two (Marcelo Bielsa and ManuelPellegrini) are great options too. All of them three like to play a quality and technical soccer. Just the US needs.
Pelligrini no. If he can't manage some of the best players in the world, you think he's gonna do better with the US player pool? That's dumb. Bielsea...Maybe. But right now even Roy Hodgson's out of budgetary reach, much less Bielsea. Maybe our TV ratings can get the US a big sponsor (Like Wal-Mart or Microsoft or something) with lots of cash so we can afford a coach like him. I like Bielsea personally and I think he will be a great fit, even if I think his first act would be to probably show guys like Bradley, Clark, Altidore, Gooch and Bocanegra the door. Guus of course, is busy eating an extended Turkey dinner. Also, the US has a habit of beating up Guus Hiddink's teams. On that account, my answer is no.
We don't necessarily need to play more South American teams ,we need to develop more talent based on the South American model. They develop their talent from street soccer. This does not exist in our country. Our country is a beast and to compare our country to any other soccer country in the World is silly. No other country has the number of sports that we do and the options for our children that we do. WE are different and so are they. One is not better than the other, but all are different. There is not 1 solution to our problem but many. Do we need a better coach? Yes! Do we need to develop better talent? Yes. to say that playing the South American teams alone would improve us is silly. Klinsman hits it on the head when he says it needs to chANge from the bottom up. We are the best in the World at basketball because our kids learn it on the street. Canadiens learn hockey from playing on the pond. Brazilians learn football from playing in and on the street. There are many solutions to our problem, there is never just 1. Did playing a REALLY tough pre- World Cup schedule work for Mexico? THey are at home just like we are. WE need a coach that understands our country, our profressional league and all that comes along with being the USA.
About Pellegrini: these "best players" have relationship and ego problems. Many coaches will have difficulty with that. I don't think this is a problem in USMNT. About Hiddink: don't matter if US has beatingor not his teams. Look at his jobs. He made many teams play better than expectations.
Tbf, he got 96 points with Real Madrid. Any other league that wins the league. He never really had the backing of Florentino Perez so he was done in a year. The players liked him. He He did a great job at Villarreal on a small budget. Why do you think Altidore and Bradley would be shown the door under Bielsa? The US has only beaten one Hiddink team IIRC and even in that case he wasn't officially manager yet.
You said very interesting things. Mainly about how brazilians learn soccer. That's right. First of all the kids have to develop their talent and technique. And then later to learn tactics. I can't understand how a very talented guy like Freddy Adu didn't become a star yet.
Wait...playing four South American teams would have made the difference in defeating an African team? I really need this one explained...or does my sarcasm meter need to go back in the shop again?
Playing young players like Bowen, Stephen, Gonzalez or Mix vs Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela or Ecuador, for first caps, isn't a bad thing.
Pellegrini got 95 points out of this Real Madrid squad, problem was Barca was better. Any other league Pellergini wins the league...