USA still lacks tradition

I think most people don't expect us to win in 2006. I think they do expect us to win in under 20 years, like you said.

Americans always expect the teams that represent the U.S. to win and are disappointed when they don't, unless it's curling or something like that where nobody *really* cares.

 

I think the folks at bigcurling.com would take issue with that assertion.

 

It's a shame Holland hasn't won yet. A different bounce of the ball here or there and they would've. Still, they'd done well for such a tiny country.

It's a tournament and anything can happen. The US could win it in 2006. Will they? Probably not. And it's less likely than other teams such as Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Holland, France, Italy, England, etc. Then again, beside Germany and Brazil, where were those teams at the end? Oh ya, Turkey and South Korea were playing for 3rd place. A team just needs to be playing well at the right time to win one of these. I'm not saying it's luck. But the arguments laid out are good ones for the odds-makers in determining pay outs. They don't mean much though in terms of how other countries in the world are progressing.

 

Tradition is important, yes. because it is the building blocks on which you build a successful program. Those blocks are winning. By winning (or at least playing VERY competatively) you create a tradition. US soccer has a traditon, everyone does. Its not long or big, but its a tradition. The English team can look back to 66. the US team can look back to 1930, and the 1950 team that upset England, wondering what ever happened to those amateur players. Tradition is important, but what tradition did Uruguay have before 1930? Brazil before 1958?

 

I follow what you're saying, but there are exceptions that are able to make their way into the final 8 or even the semifinals of the World Cup - Turkey, Czech Republic, Sweden, etc. It seems there's always one side that catches people off-guard and makes you ask where they came from (hosts not included).

I think going into Korea/Japan, a lot of the U.S. fans were hoping for anything to redeem the reputation of the program after the France '98 debacle. I'm not sure how many people would've been happy with one point, one win, or (if Korea hadn't scored vs. Portugal) the U.S. being sent home after three games and four points. Any of those may have been difficult to swallow, but still an improvement over France '98.

Following the Korea/Japan experience, I hope a lot of fans have optimism to think we're capable of making the semis if the cards fall just right, but I also hope they realize just how difficult it is to make it there.

Korea/Japan showed us that you can't take anything for granted in the World Cup - whether you're the U.S. facing a winless Poland and getting hammered and then needing Portugal to lose to Korea so you can get out of the group, and then a couple games later not getting a call on a ball that was kept out of the net by a defender's arm... or whether you're Ireland or Spain (lost on PKs), Italy (had controversial officiating decide their fate), France (had their most important player hobbled and then some unfortunate bounces send them to an embarrassing scoreless performance) or whoever. Even Senegal saw how quickly a team's fates can change - in their final Group A match, they went into the break up 3-0, needing a draw to advance - Uruguay came back to tie it up 3-3 and Senegal held on to advance and then went all the way through to the Quarters (and lost in OT there).

 

what happened to usa in 98 and france in 98... ....
france was 3rd 1986
champs in 1998..
Agrentina champs 1978 and 1986...
runner up 1990......


USA have to do good for next few world cup in oder to compare with these team....
or else one world cup wonder.....

 

France didnt even make the cup in 94 and won it in 98. And your example shows argentina placing 2nd AFTER winning the cup. We just need a lot fo strong cup performances before we win it. Its not a matter of tradition or anything, just building a good base for success.

 

No tradition, yeah!

I think it's a hugely valuable thing that the US doesn't have the tradition. When the US takes the field, there are very little in the way of expectations or pressures on the players. The Spaniards or Dutch teams, for example, have huge monkeys on their backs because of their history and the expectations of the world. It doesn't actually take a big tradition to win, it takes a talented and cohesive team. The US probably performs above its raw talent level because it doesn't have the pressure of tradition and the swaggering culture to erode the workmanlike unity of the team. In a sense, the US beat Portugal (for example) precisely because of there was no tradition or expectation to get in the way of preparing for and performing in the actual match.

Just an alternative view. If there's one tradition we do have, it's one of Euro-trolls talking about how the US has no tradition and will never do anything.

G.

 

"Its not a matter of tradition or anything, just building a good base for success"


I havent' seen Nat doing anything with building a good base... Start teaching some skills and some touches... Learn how to control the midfield. Can't play counterattack forever? I guess the counter attack didn't work against arg last time.

Yes nat has lots of potential but the system is not letting them play freely. LD is good player but I haven't seen him try to take men on (MLS WOULD NOT COUNT) like Wayne Roonaldo. Bruce need to mold LD into that type of player. The kid have talent let him play. That is building base.

 

Tradition is overrated. USA still lacks soccer ability. If you're good and have some luck on your side, you win.

 

Uruguay had won an Olympic gold medal, and Brazil had almost won in '50.

 

Tradition takes time....Despite having been in the semifinals of the WC (albeit in 1930 and fewer and less talented teams)...The US is still building what could years from now be called an American soccer tradition...On the other hand, teams like Croatia (that had not existed as a nation a few years before 1998), Tirkey (not at a WC since 1950) or South Korea do point to teams that can surprise and provide improved appearances over previous WC's ...I think the US is talented enough to at least equal what was done in 2002 (of course, taking into account intangibles-injuries, WC draw,and of course qualifying in itself!)

 

When we win our first World Cup, the world will say its a fluke, even if we hadn't allowed any goals during the entire tournament. It will take decades of sustained quality soccer to win over many of the people in the world.

 

I think the premise of the argument is wrong. You don't need to have a "tradition" to win the world cup. You need to have a good team with a good coach. Period. Does having a soccer culture make that job easier? Undoubtedly. What makes the US's quarterfinal run even more spectacular is the fact that the US team largely comes from a culture that is very apathetic about soccer in general. There is not much soccer culture here. There is certainly not much international tradition. But that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. THe US were arguably the better team against Germany--if the handball on the line was called, or Donovan's shot had not been miraculously saved by Kahn, the US would have found themselves facing South Korea, which they could have won. If that happened, they would have found themselves in the final!

Just as easily, though, the US could have been eliminated in the first round. If tradition means so much, why did teams having all of this tradition not even make it out of the first round in 2002?

 

Fluke wins are Traditional of the USMNT

 

And Various Styles is doing a good job keeping up the traditions of the Mexican supporters.

 

FWIW, Uruguay won the two Olympic golds in soccer before the first world cup (1928 and 1924). In any case, I don't think it makes any sense to talk about a World Cup tradition before the World Cup began.

As for the premise of this thread, I don't think it's necessary to have a tradition to win the Cup, but it's interesting that the Cup has remained the province of teams with a strong WC/international soccer tradition. Each WC sees teams that lack a WC "tradition" (ie, are not perennially strong but are having an unusual spurt of talent -- e.g., Turkey 02, Croatia 98, Bulgaria 94, Belgium 86), and it's interesting that none of these teams has ever won, or even made it to the final. The semis seem to be as far as they can go.

One explanation might be that at the late stages of a tournament like the WC, the teams are finely balanced in terms of talent, and the confidence and tournament experience of the teams with WC "traditions" carries them the extra distance. But when you look at the incredibly small number of teams that have won the WC (seven), indeed have even made the finals (ten), there does seem to be something to the tradition argument.

But that doesn't mean it can't change...

 

It's simple. The lack of tradition is a USA tradition.

Mexico, on the other hand, adheres to Toscanini's famous definition: "Tradition is the last, bad performance."

 

Well, the counter arguement would be, I guess the following:

If you lack a sense of tradition and history for the sport, then you would also NOT have to deal with the immense pressure and expectations that consequently flow from the aforementioned sense of tradition and history...

So, in a sense, you have nothing to lose and everything to win--when millions of people don't live and die emotionally with every bounce and twist and turn of the ball, there's relatively no pressure: so, just go out and be yourselves and try your best.

 

Forgive me for saying, but in order to win the World Cup you must win the World Cup final. Not exactly an easy task, but there's nothing particularly mystical or magical like an aura of tradition to it.

And forgive me for also saying that I think this thread would not have started if, say, South Korea fluked their way into the final, a possibility not terribly far gone.

 

Ah, so now it's bad officiating that helps win games? What about tradition? I mean, it's one or the other, the two cannot be present at the same time for one to genuinely claim credit, so which is it?