I'm sure there were others, but the players I remember being captain in Reyna's absence the last 4 years were Stewart, Armas, and whoever played keeper. Stewart may have earned his last cap against Germany. Armas will get more caps, but I'm not sure how much longer (or even if) he will be in the preferred starting 11. I'd say the most likely captains are: 1. Friedel 2. O'Brien 3. Pope 4. Donovan I wouldn't be surprised to see Pablo wear the armband at some point, but right now he only has what, like a dozen caps?
Re: Re: Re: Who will be the US's next captain? Huh? You talking about the guy who got screwed over during the Cup and kept his mouth shut?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who will be the US's next captain? I don't think he got screwed, I think the best players for that cup got to play.
He should have started against Germany. However, he would have gotten more time off the bench if we need offense, but we mostly need defense. Screwed is too strong a word, but I would have used him more certainly.
Let's not say Mathis got screwed. Let's say the team got screwed. And the fans got screwed. When Arena started a dead McBride, Frankie Hejduk on offense, subbed in Cobi Jones when we're down a goal, and put in Earnie Stewart who was badly injured basically giving him his swan song and saying "I give up, Germany wins" when there were ten minutes left, that was a screwing with BA behind it all. (Bruce Arena's thought process) "Hmmm, we're going to play the best defense in the tournament and the best goalie. I know, I'll play Frankie on the attack who hasn't shown to be able to complete one pass so far, and hasn't played midfield for me in years. I'll also keep the player who scored TWICE on them the last time we played on the bench." "OK, now we're down a goal, I have a burner on the bench, Cobi Jones and an injured, recently ineffective out of position midfielder. I'll go with the latter." For all his brilliance against Portugal and Mexico, he sure effed up against Germany. Pressure gets to coaches too.
Considering that Mathis created as many chance in his 10 mintues, than the rest of the team did the entire game, there is a lot of truth contained in this post.
I just don't think Mathis is all that. I've seen him play, he doesn't impress me that much. Frankie and Ernie, especially Ernie, are worthy of playing agaisn't anybody. Frankie also plays in Germany, so maybe that's why he got the nod. I don't feel I got screwed, and I'm a fan. I don't think Mathis would have made a difference in the game. He's good, he can score, but he's not great.
Are you suggesting Frankie is on the level of Mathis? Hmmm. You really believe Mathis was not a better choice versus a dog-tired, limited foot skilled McBride against an air dominant Germany defense? Mathis got screwed by not starting against Germany, but more importantly, he got stabbed in the back by Arena in the press. He still put the team first like a profesional by keeping his mouth shut. How was this disloyal?
As far as frankie, I said he plays in Germany, so he would know those players better. I never mentioned McBride, I said Mathis wouldn't have have made any difference agaisn't Germany, who was the better team. Mathis knew what Arena wanted out of him, a true team player would have complied with that. The team and it's personnel choices are up to the coach, if the coach wants you to do something, you do it. Period. If Mathis decides to do those things, he then might become a great player.
First, Frankie's contract is owned by a German team. That isn't the same as stating he play in Germany. But Frankie is irrelevant to the discussion, expect for the fact you think he is worthy of playing against anyone. Germany wasn't the better team. At best they were even. They were real good at drawing fouls on the left side for about ten minutes before they scored, but other than that part of the game the US was in total control. Mathis played the last 10 minutes and created more chances than McBride did the entire game. Given more time its likely he would have found the back of the net. I hope you have the game on tape, because your memory has failed you.
Mathis Rick is right, Mathis got screwed. I don't care what his sins were, Arena's punishment was greater. This was the one, single point in Mathis's life when he had a chance to cash in the lottery ticket with a big European contract -- back healthy, on form, and the spotlight of the World Cup. Arena effectively told the world, "You don't want this guy, he's another Gazza, and in a year or two he won't have anything left." And that's it for Clinto. He's not in Europe this year. He'll be almost 27 by the start of the 2003-4 European season. Too old. The clubs want a 22 year old who might round into form at age 24/25, not a guy who will be 28/29 by the time he gets his feet wet in the league. Arena had every right not to play Mathis if he thought he had better options. But publicly scuttling Mathis's European chances ... that, I just don't understand.
like the friendly where he din't make a difference? Like the perfect cross to Sanneh? germany the better team? We kicked the crap out of that team, just didn't have the offense in the game to get the ball in the net. I'm going to have to take Beckenbauer's and Kahn's word that we were at least the equal team, over yours
You have to consider who Mathis would have been replacing before you can legitimately say whether he would have made a difference. Otherwise, your true aim seems to be to disparage Mathis in lieu of critically analyzing how our attack may have differed with him in the starting lineup. Did Mathis make a difference in our offensive ouput when he scored two goals against Germany last Spring, or were those simply two US goals we were definitely going to get no matter who was in there (such that he did not make a difference)? The rhetorical nature of that question is obvious. Had we seen Mathis in the first have when the rest of the attack had fresh legs (and prior to the Germans shifting to a more defensive posture), I believe we would have seen US goals. Even with the pressure the US was able to bring in the 1st half, McBride was nowhere. You don't think a Mathis who was able to create chances in the 2nd half would have made a difference in the 1st half (when the rest of the US attack was still fresh) as compared to a nowhere McBride?
O.K. look, I have a difference of opinion about Mathis than most. He's good in the MLS, granted, I just don't see that in the international level. And to compare an international friendly with world cup play, to me, is rediculous, (in which we still lost to Germany 4-2) ,remember Brazil in '98? And we were no where near Brazil in '98, or do you believe we would have beaten Brazil, had Mathis played. And Germany was the the better team that day. We might have been better in a different day. We put on a good showing, and believe me, I would LOVE to believe Mathis would have made a difference. I really do. But I think that really put's our boys and thier effort as not being good enough. I hope Mathis proves me wrong, let him be our savior. By ALL means, prove me wrong and win the damn thing!
My friend, anyone who believes Germany was better in the Wolrd Cup game against the US does not have a clear grasp of reality. Thus, the balance of your comments must read and quickly ignored within that context.
I never found any. I looked somewhat but apparently not hard enough. The language barrier was fairly high, to the point that asking would have required barking or making dog gestures, which would have created too much mutual embarassment.