Assess the USA soccer situation here

Ugh ... the near posts do suck. But look at some of the other saves he did make, particularly in 1990. He was on three World Cup teams and an alternate this year. He won 100 caps and was one of the most reliable keeps we ever had. I was biased though, because Tony has always been one of my favorite players.

 

That team in 2002 was extremely lucky in that Portugal took them for granted, and got burned. They were the surprise team that snuck up on everybody, and that will never, ever happen again. The FIFA world ranking of #5 is an absolute joke.

When you're in a must win game, and you're playing a Ghana team that has speed to burn, what does Arena do? He send out the guys in a very conservative 4-5-1 formation, and keeps his own speedburner (Johnson) on the bench. When the USA was getting waxed in match one, who game into and started creating scoring opportunities? Johnson.

The USA ranked dead last among all 32 teams in shots on goal, and you are not going to win many games if you don't put the ball on net.

 

Why didn't it end with "See you at the tour stop in the ATL, Jim. OUT!!"?

Oh for pete's sake, that was complete nonsensical garbage. Yeah, like soccer parents are any worse than tennis parents. Or travel baseball parents. Or any other number of sports.

So the reason we lost two games in the WC is because, why again? They were sheltered growing up? Because they were afraid of the testosterone of playing American football? How silly. And was it like this in 2002, when the team was a handball away from perhaps playing in the semis? That "call" was just too stupid and simplistic to dissect.

 

No, sir. They're ALL bad. And they're a big part of the larger problem.

 

The US needs some guys named Ronaldinho.

and Fred.

 

Boy, talk about your disconnected analysis.
What happened in 2006 proved that 2002 was an "overachievement"? Really? What you're saying is that it was a fluke, right? Except that in 2006, the U.S. thoroughy outplayed Italy in between the Italians trashing Ghana and then the Czechs. Everybody wants to forget about that, but dammit, the game counted.
So many want to say the U.S. can't compete with the best. (Wrong. Italy.)
Or can't handle the Europeans on their home turf. (Wrong. Italy.)
It took a bogus PK call to send the U.S. out of the tournament, even though they played below their standards in two of the three games.
The supposedly sub-par league here developed Dempsey, Donovan, Beasley, McBride, Mastroeni -- all of whom have played well in at least one World Cup. MLS is better than its detractors here claim and MUCH better for U.S. soccer than Shotty understands.

 

I've seen it. No, it isn't better than I claim. The U.S. team has to be stocked somehow, and some of their players had to come from MLS; there weren't enough overseas performers to fill the roster. And it doesn't matter if the U.S. lost to Ghana on a penalty kick; there's no way they were gonna get the needed victory. One gritty effort (and it wasn't much more than that; it wasn't skillful or dominant) against Italy doesn't make up for horrid performances against the Czechs and Ghana. To take anything hopeful out of this effort is pure apologism.

 

I'm sorry, there's no putting a good spin on this for the U.S.

 

They "thoroughly outplayed" Italy? The US only got a draw because of an own goal and self-destructed every time they came within 30 yards of the goal.

The performance against Italy has somehow turned into some legendary accomplishment now, simply because the team wasn't as godawful as it was against the Czechs and Ghana.

The US isn't out because of a "bogus PK call" -- it's out because it has no offense.

 

devil's advocate:

was 2006 the aberration?

how do we know that 2002 wasn't what the US will normally do in the WC, and 2006 is the fluke?

Listen, im as down on this team as everyone else, BUT ... The 3-0 loss to the Czechs does look KIND of flukish since the Czechs never scored again and lost badly to Italy and Ghana.

Obviously, changes, must be made, but depending on what happens with Adu, and the forward situation, 2010 doesn't have to be a one and done deal.

 

Well, the Czechs losing badly twice would logically be an argument against U.S. progress. But we're apparently willing to stand logic on its head here, as we are when we say league play with the Red Bulls is just as much of a test of mettle as league play with Bayern Munich or Juventus.

 

Oh, that's ridiculous. No one is saying MLS is as good a league as the Bundesliga.
But all your BS reasons for the U.S. going out in the first round are blown away by Australia, whose domestic league is not as good as MLS, not even close. Or Switzerland. Or Ukraine. Or Ghana for that matter. You make up reasons to fit what you want to say, whether there's a logical basis or not.
The U.S. started its opening game with one forward (EPL), five midfielders (one Dutch Eredivisie, one EPL, two MLS, one English first division), four defenders (one German Bundesliga, one Belgian first division, one MLS and one English first division) and a GK (German Bundesliga).
Grand total: 3 MLS starters in game one. And they got their butt kicked.
The problem: they played crappy.
They played great against Italy and completely dominated the game. If you don't recognize that, you need to study the sport a little harder, PC.
Then they played the third game, and their most experienced player had a brainfart that cost them. Then a ridiculous call completely changed the game. There's no conceivable way to know how the second half would have played out if they went to half 1-1.
I'm not defending the U.S. performance vs. Czech and Ghana. I'm certainly not going to defend Arena's strategy. But too many of you are adding 2 + 2 and getting 36.