Why is it the USA has managed to produce a string of quality keepers in recent years, i.e. Keller, Friedel and Howard yet their outfield players remain average at best? Is it the emphasis on hand based sports i.e. basketball in american schools which gets kids used to using those instead of their feet?
Yes, MullettMan this is an interesting point. I've often wondered why USA have an ability to produce good keepers whilst their outfield players are so abysmally poor. Also, why do American footy players have made-up names that really belong on the set of Star Wars.
Interestingly this is often accompanied by exotic and unusual facial hair (see the case of Alexei Lalas) which seems to be another aspect of this Star Wars theme.
It is all down to the inspiration of Sly, in Escape to Victory! Seriously though, the skills required for American football, i.e. catch, kick, speed, agility, strength, go a long way to provide the essential criteria in the job description of the 'lonely man'! Oh and I forgot - no brains!
Poor? I wouldn't call American field players abysmally poor. In fact we have a lot of good players, they just don't get the same press as our keepers, and rightfully so. In the past I think we didn't have any really good field players, but now we do. We just don't have as many world-class field players as we do keepers. What names are you talking about? I'm not saying they don't have wierd names, just that I don't recall any players with really weird names.
Re: Poor? No you are right - abysmally poor is much too generous - how "totally unfit to be on the field of play"?
Is it really that our Keepers are that much better than our field players - or just that Europe has never really given more than a couple of our field players a look. I think we do have very good keepers, but I think the difference is largely (but not fully) reputation rather than real. It's not like Tim Howard was throwing shutouts every week in Major League Soccer.
Why do all Englishmen have bad teeth? Why are all Irishmen drunks? The answer is they don't and they aren't, just as all US outfield players are not 'abysmally poor,' in either the absolute or relative sense. The ones that are drop out of the game or never rise above the amateur level, and if that was not the case a decade ago, it is now. We also produce a large number of very average keepers, but the position is closer to the kind of physical activity found in native US sports: sprinting, jumping, catching, throwing. That's probably why it is easier for us to excel at the keeper position, though we have demonstrated the ability to excel in the outfield as well: Landon Donovan, John O'Brien, Brian McBride, etc. As for the 'made up names' of our footy players --- you lost me there, pal.
Who are these Star Wars-like names? I want to hear them!! I do think the fact that the reason the U.S. produces such good keepers is because of the popularity of other "hand-based" sports. As for outfield players, give it time, we will have many world-class players in the future.
Once bitten, twice shy. If you´d ever had to watch Roy Weregle or Cobi Jones - you´d be very careful about employing a yank footballer again.
As opposed to all the shite European, African, Australian, Canadian, and South American players that have appeared and disappeared from England without a trace over the years? I mean bad players - or players that don't work out - come in all nationalities. How much is Souness writing off on his big summer acquisition? For that price he could've had any two US international strikers. A 20 year old Cobi Jones and a South African Roy Wegerle are hardly the "gold standard" amongst American field players.
So server priority is allocated to these newbies and I can't log on? Huh, whatever. IluvEnger-land, Barca, et al - have you recently immigrated over from the BBC boards or something? Your slagging skills are pitiful, but if you want to practice the low art of the troll - we have a forum for you. It's called World Rivalries. Go dribble out of your arse over there. The posters that have answered you so far have tried to engage in the reasonable debate that belongs on this board, yet you continue with insults that are both stupid and don't even make sense.
I believe Roy Wegerle was second in scoring in the old English first Div, before Prem so you'd better lay off the sauce.
I think my friend that have hit the nail on the head with that one, got right to the heart of the matter - if these players are not "gold standard" then which American players are? I can´t think of a single "great" outfield American player who has proved himself in one of the three top leagues in the world. If I´m wrong please enlighten me.
So much for this thread being about our great goalkeepers. Yeah, that Brian McBride played horribly for Everton during his short loan. And Sunderland got relegated when? Oh, yeah, when Claudio Reyna was healthy and playing. The same Reyna that DIDN'T make the BBC's World Cup team in 2002? But I'll agree. These aren't our great players. We never even claimed to have anything other than good field players. Among them are John O'Brien, who plays for Ajax, Landon Donovan, WYC Golden Ball winner, Damarcus Beasley, Eddie Pope, Carlos Bocanegra and Bobby Convey. Fit to be on the field of play, for sure.
I´ve been to my dictionary, I looked up tautology, and confirmed that it is "a phrase which is self contradictory". I´ve have now thought about American outfield players and the phrase gold standard and realised as aresult that : a) You are trying to tell me that a sentence which contains the words "American outfield player" and "gold standard" is tautological. or b) You are just trying to sidestep my original question because you can´t think of any great american outfield players either.
No. I realized that once you made the statement After you agreed with me that Americans have never been given the chance to prove themselves that further discussion was pointless. You've argued yourself into a hole. No Americans are "world-class" because no Americans have ever been "world-class". It's self-definition at its finest. A classic Catch-22. Over the last 15 years there have only been maybe twenty American field players to play as much as one first division game in Germany, Italy, and England (none in Spain that I can recall). That's not exactly what I'd call an adequate sample size to damn all of American soccer field players with. Is it? It's not for me to provide you a list of great American field players. If you knew enough about American field players, then you'd know who they are. It's easy to slag off something you know nothing about. Ignorance is a comfy cloak against the cold.
Please choose the best answer. Which of the following posters recently discovered his girlfriend getting from or more likely giving too someone of the American persuasion? a)  Forever England b)  Mullet Man c)  Barca Gooner d)  all of the above
Congratulations. You just lowered yourself to the level of a US sports writer who, during the '94 World Cup, wrote a disparaging article in New York Newsday about about soccer, about how Americans like to use their hands, and how our players have foreign names, like Alexi Lalas. The writer refused to take part in the general clebration being 'forced' on the American public. Apparantly 'foreign names' like Olajewan, Gretsky, et. al. didn't count in the Big Four sports. Your comments are worthy of the dinosaurs that stalk US sports writing.