Assess the USA soccer situation here

You know, American football isn't a whole lot different than soccer in terms of pace of play, especially considering how many runs of two and three yards you get on 1st-and-10 and 2nd-and-12. There are times that I've been bored to tears by NFL games.

NOTE: I'm not trying to say that soccer is a better sport than football. I don't think it is. But I can see where people wouldn't find our football all that thrilling.

 

But in two years the US baseball team will be in the Olympics and the US soccer team will still suck.

 

So, every year we shouldn't even expect to hear Team USA as a legitimate contender?

Then again, in the run-from-steroids era, maybe we shouldn't.

Still, soccer is a LONG way from real contender status.

 

Actually we're getting to the point in the US where women's sports rule internationally and the men's teams are collective wusses.

 

No, I know they have other sports overseas other than soccer like rugby, track and field and swimming. It's funny. It's like all of the sports considered minor in the US - the ones that would go in a roundup or agate - are the major ones - the ones that get the big stories - overseas. Conversely, the US sports get the roundup play.

I understand about the set roster. I was just thinking hypothetically if suddenly the big three were wiped out in the US and everybody played only soccer that the best 11 players would be better than they are now because you'd be drawing from a larger pool of players. Conversely, if the rest of the world got really into other sports other than soccer than their best 11 wouldn't be as good because they would lose more players to other sports. So that would make the US's catchup job easier. But maybe since it's only 11 players I'm overestimating the difference it would make. Some analyst said something about the US 3-11 players matchup with the rest of the world's 3-11 players, but the US's top two don't matchup with the rest of the world's top 2 players.

I don't really know this, but, overseas, do people try to play soccer first and if they can't cut it they go into other sports? Or does anybody really aspire to play, say, rugby first? The only overseas MLB player I ever asked something like this told me that he chose baseball first because more baseball scouts came to his country than did soccer scouts. So while he liked soccer better than baseball he knew, because of the scout situation, he had a better chance of making it in MLB than in professional soccer.

 

The other difference between USA Soccer and USA Baseball and Basketball is this:

Baseball has never fielded its strongest possible team in international play. Basketball hasn't fielded its strongest possible team since probably 1992 yet they are still a factor in world events.

Soccer had its best possible team in Germany and got the Boots treatment. Again.

 

Interesting thought, but impossible to happen since baseball is now out of the Olympics.

The US soccer team does not suck, they drew a poor group and played one bad game.


A_QB, with baseball, the US did field its "strongest" team and it couldn't beat Canada or Mexico. Those happen to be two countries the US can beat in soccer.

As to team basketball, you field the team you have. There were injuries to the US Soccer team preventing them from playing their best players. This is part of the game.

 

They drew a horrible group. And they played two bad games. The Italy game -- their "best" one -- wasn't exactly a world-class effort, either. Blame the refs, but you still gotta get the job done. They didn't.

And yes, they do suck. They're not among the 10 best teams in the world, and never were. ... They're the best team we've ever had. But they still suck. We're nowhere close to being a consistent quarterfinalist, which should be the first goal among many. (Actually, we could say "let's get out of the group stages consistently first" because we've only that twice -- once on our own soil, both times needing help.)

We suck. It's OK to admit it. We just gotta get better, that's all.

 

After over 100 e-mails with my friends about today's game, I'm officially sick to my stomach.  My final thought (for the next 10 minutes at least) on our WC is this:

I'm depressed because we are just so far away from being even decent.  

 

Again, sucking would imply that the team is no good. They are better than other teams that did advance (Mexico, possibly Australia and Ecuador).

Qualifying for the World Cup means beating those teams in your group enough to make it to the "Finals" which is what these 32-teams are.

When the US beat up Poland before the Cup started, was that team "sucking"?

The problem is that many people look at the World Cup and say "Oh these are the only teams that play." No. They need to qualify. In doing so, the US came in first in their conference and qualified earlier than nearly every other team.


Put it this way: The US can beat Mexico everywhere but at the Azteca and Mexico has been at this for much much longer than us.

 

Actually, baseball is still around for 2008. It's out after that.

And baseball wasn't close to having it's best roster in the WBC. Plenty of pitchers and a few position players who would have been there said no thanks. Much like the NBA guys do.

Fact is, baseball and hoops still do very, very well at the international level with less than their best. Soccer, not so much. I do think over time that will change for soccer though. And the rest of the world will be really, really pissed when it does.

 

Great. So we're Murray State.

Consistently make it TO the Big Dance, even if we can't do shit when we get there, outside of the occasional 13 v 4 upset to the Sweet 16 (or, in the USMNT's case, the '02 quarters.)

I say, aim a little higher than just qualifying for the WC. We've reached that goal for five straight now. It's time to move up. Now the goal is, making it out of the group stages consistently. That means every time ... like Mexico (mostly), like the Czechs, like Holland, like France, like all the teams that aren't nearly good enough to win it ... but are good enough to compete when they get there. We're not at that point yet.

And let's not consider Mexico the crown jewel here. They suck on the international level -- we're already on their level. Let's aim for higher than that. (And no, we're not really better than Mexico -- not in the WC. We are in CONCACAF; but we're not in the WC. Big difference there. ... And I doubt we'd beat the Aussies consistently, either. They're much more dangerous than us.)