Assess the USA soccer situation here

I think the US will get to the point where it's a consistent second round entry. But that's only going to happen if it learns from its mistakes.

 

Just to point out a few things.
1. The Czechs didn't make it out either. Difference being that at least the US was able to score against Ghana.
2. France scored 1-goal in this World Cup and NONE in the last one. Let me know when they "consistently" get out of the first round. They have tied powerhouses Switzerland and South Korea (I like SK but come one).
3. Holland should be winning World Cups not just making it out.
4. Mexico isn't a crown jewel, but much of making it out of Group Stages depends on your group.
5. England didn't qualify for '94 (yes, they weren't brought up but I'm making a point about "consistency".)

I agree that the US should be aiming higher and I think they are. But coming in many people weren't even expecting them to get out of the group stages.

Greece, EuroCup winners in 2002, didn't even qualify for the World Cup. There that team was, beating Portugal in Portugal and now they are at home watching Portugal advance. Are their fans screaming about how the team "sucks?"

 

I'll go out on a limb and say, yeah they are.

 

Do we "suck"? Or is is just that we have trouble against nations that have played the sport for decade upon decade, with soccer filling their priority list as much as multiple sports fill ours?

From 1950-1990, we failed to qualify. At all. In a region that features Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Canada, Costa Rica, and any number o places that never do shit on the international soccer scale (mexico AS HOST in the 1970 and 1986 world cups, and winning the 1999 Confederations Cup notwithstanding). That's it, just Mexico.

The rest of our region is bollocks and we still couldn't qualify. We had World Cup qualifiers at junior college stadiums! In 1990, the main reason the door was opened was because Mexico was not eligible for the world cup for reasons I cannot remember right now.

We had no pro league for much of that time, and when we did, there were few if any quality American players to speak of. Now, we have a pro league that has owners willing to hemmorrage a LOT of money (and they do, rest assured), and that produces players that help our depth, end up overseas, and make it so that simple world cup qualification is no longer a struggle until the final weeks (as it was as recently as 2002, when we had a bad stretch).

Yes, we have a lot of trouble competing against the best in the world on the biggest stage. And I was one of those who thought Arena had something up his sleeve, but he just didn't have it this time. But let's make an honest assessment of where the sports was in this country not so long ago, and where it is now. A decade ago, we were transitioning from "suck" to "competing". Now, we're still competing, and trying to figure out how to take that next step.

20 years ago, and for many decades before that . . yeah, we sucked. But after living through those times, I'm amused at how angry people are about this. Not the fans who believed in our guys, who watched the friendlies, or who follow the team regularly. I mean the ones whose attitude is "But . . aren't we AMERICA!?!?! Why do we SUCK!?!?!?!?! Soccer SUCKS!!!!!!! It will never make it here, because we SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Um, it actually has "made it here." It gained a foothold while you were saying it never would. It's just that we still have a long way to go after accomplishing so much in just the last decade. Based on those strides, maybe more are coming. There are enough athletes in this country to have an NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, AND MLS that all feature some very good home-grown players. MLS won't be on the level of other countries' leagues (is the Italian hoops league on par with the NBA?), but it will continue to feed our national team as long as the owners believe in it, and keep it afloat.

I agree with buckweaver. It is time to aim higher. Hell, after we lost to Iran in France, I know I hoped that US soccer would understand that simple qualification is no longer enough, especially in CONCACAF. There are teams that did not qualify in Europe that could and would beat us. US soccer felt the same way, starting Project 2010 a year later. Now, it has been (rightfully) abandoned, because there are just too many variables the US needs to win at the world cup. Arena mentioned this at the Honda symposium last year, about how the draw would be key in whether or not we couold advance. He understands that we're still fighting to get there, pretty 2002 run or not.

Still, we thought we would do well, because of our progression. And in Germany or Mexico's group, our faith may have been rewarded. Hell, if McBride's header goes in today (or reyna's shot doesn't hit the post against the Czechs), maybe we still get lucky and advance. But we're realistically not to the point where we can advance without a bit of luck, and help. Doesn't mean the word "suck" should be bandied about, except by the most ignorant of fans, the ones who call our offices with the foolish questions and the "settle a bet" stuff on deadline.

Realize where we were not so long ago, and where we are now. Now we try to take the next step. Maybe this is the best we can be, ever. Maybe not. I know I'm gonna stick around and find out if we can ever produce that one world-class attacker that strikes fear in defenders not from Central America.  

 

Here's a question, if you combine CONCACAF and the South American Federation for qualifying, would the US even be in Germany?

 

Good points, Hattori. I don't mean "sucks" in a bad way, honest. I just mean, we're not at that level yet. And we're not.

But you're right -- in the last 15 years, we've made 1,000% strides. Perspective is important to keep here. ... Although we still suck.

Re: France. You're right. The frogs suck. They did finish 3rd in '58, 4th in '82 and 3rd in '86, won it all in '98 ... but outside of that, they choked like dogs (or their surrendering army.) My bad.

Re: England. One missed WC does not bring down 80 years of solid play (despite their Maple Leafs-like drought since they won a Cup.) We'll miss a WC again, too. Won't be the end of the world.

Re: Czechs, Holland, etc. They're still consistently better than us, on a long-term basis. We've only been to five WCs after missing 40 years' worth. I'd rather make it every time and go 3-and-out every time than endure another drought like that.

 

Here's where the U.S. is in soccer.

This is a sports journalists' board which, I feel fairly safe in saying, indicates that the majority of people on here are those presenting the sports world to everyone else.

And still, I think this board presents a fair cross-section of sports fans in this country too.

And one out of every three people posting in this thread and the other one feel the need to start out with the disclaimer, "Now, I don't know diddly about soccer, but..."

.

.

.

When that changes, U.S. soccer might.

 

Yes.

 

If there were nine spots available (COMMEBOL's 4.5, CONCACAF's 3.5, plus one to account for a region with so many countries), I would say two things:

1. The travel would be murder on all teams involbved.

2. Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Mexico, Colombia, are all road losses we can count on. I would think we will have moments where we struggle, but ultimately yeah, we'd squeak in. And our national team would be better, with plenty of games againstn top compeittion instead of merely dreading one trip to Azteca or Costa Rica.

 

Buck, my point is that consistency is fleeting. Hardly anyone is absolutely consistent. So, yeah, over a 60-years those countries consistently perform. Well, in 60-years, we can look over the US squads and see how consistently they are performing.

I wanted the US to win today. It killed me watching them lose. But I am able to recognize where the strides are and what is going on.

In 4-years, I would certainly hope that the US makes even more strides. And by this, I mean beat Mexico in the Azteca. On top of that, I want to move out of the first round.

However, no matter what the history is, things happen. Things change. Who would have guessed in the last World Cup that France would not score a single goal? Four years before, they won it all, then they can't score. Now, the team has 1-goal over two games and are in danger of not getting out of the first round for the second straight time. 8-years ago, World Cup Champions, now they can't beat Switzerland or South Korea.

 

This lucid and eloquent take came from one of my co-workers, who used to cover soccer for two SoCal papers and MLS.com. I'm not going to pretend to be this knowledgeable about the subject.

I have my own takes for why we are where we are, takes that largely center around the fact that we're expecting A-level soccer players from a minor league like MLS to compete with major league veterans from the EPL, Bundesliga, Italy and Spain and that -- and this may have been addressed earlier -- our players are in a Catch-22; they're expected to compete in America to build up the sport... at the expense of their own games and the National Team.

But here's some more food for thought...

>>As I said 7 years ago or whatever, I would never have hired the naive lacrosse coach to begin with. Pathetic! Pitiful! No semblance of an attack, dangerous possession going forward, players running off the ball and one-and two-touch football for all 3 games. You don't judge offensive effectiveness by how you attack when you are down a goal or 2 and the other team drops into a defensive shell and concedes space or when your opponent is down a man. You judge talent, speed of mind and play and technique when it's 11-on-11 and the game is even.

This is why the U.S. needs a foreign coach with some tactical sophistication in possessing the ball and going forward. Anyone can get across the message of being disciplined, defensive and organized. They had their chance for a Guus Hiddink or someone of that ilk before, but USSF probably does not want to spend much money on a coach. So, like with anything, you get cheap when you pay cheap.

What a collapse today. Reyna sinfully tries to dribble out of trouble at the top of the box, the overrated Onyewu concedes a dubious penalty but it just put an exclamation on his nightmarish World Cup -- he had a hand in all 3 Czech goals, commits stupid, unnecessary fouls and he's too big to be mobile and quick to cut off guys dribbling and passes played behind the defense. As I said when Onyewu got his first U.S. start in the Easter qualifier in Azteca last year, the occasion turned out to be much too big for Onyewu to handle.

What kind of coach puts in Ben Olsen in for Reyna when the U.S. needs to become more dangerous and score? Was John O'Brien not fit to be that sub? If he wasn't, then why did he take O'Brien on the team to begin with? O'Brien, obviously was a gamble pick that did not pay off. What kind of coach even puts a rec player like Olsen on a World Cup squad? Bruce's motivating technique is to call out players and challenge them, but it's obvious his method has worn thin with a few of the players. They will only be responsive to that sort of thing for so long before they realize he knows very little and tune him out.

 

Part II of co-worker's rant...


Of course, his supporters will bring up his record. I could coach the U.S. to an undefeated mark against Cuba, Canada, Guatemala, Panama, T&T, Venezuela and Honduras every year in friendlies/Gold Cups/Cup qualifiers. He has still never beaten a full-strength Euro side. Why doesn't the USSF see that?

What kind of coach experiments with his starting 11s in the World Cup? That's why you have a month or two of training and pre-Cup friendlies to sort that out. Eddie Lewis goes from left back to the bench to left mid today. Beasley goes from right mid to the bench to left side of center mid today. Landon is at forward then dropped back, then at forward, then dropped back. You don't take players out of their natural, best positions on the field in order to get someone on the field that you like. This is a Steve Sampson quality -- changing lineups and positions of guys constantly and out-thinking yourself. You put one formation out there, one lineup (barring cards and injuries) and let them go to work each match. You don't let the opposition dictate what you do in your lineup.

And as much as you and I hate to admit, Landon didn't do squat in any of the 3 games. No consistency out of him. He was rarely involved in each game. Part of that has to do with Bruce playing him at forward a lot, but even when he dropped into midfield, he only went forward until the slightest defensive presence was felt and then he would play a harmless, square ball out wide and it would lead to nothing. If Landon doesn't create offense and chances for others on this squad, who else will? The U.S. will never have a respectable attack until they develop two or three players who are skillful and confident enough on the ball to run at people and beat them.

I've felt for the last couple years that Landon's biggest weakness is his mental fragility. He likes the idea of having a comfort zone, loses confidence too easily and it can carry over into the next game or 2. That's partly why he couldn't cut it with Leverkusen. He, like everyone around him, was intimidated by the Czech midfield, did nothing againt Italy until 3 guys were sent off and suddenly there was a lot of extra space on the field and shied away from meeting up with Essien and Appiah in the middle of the park.

The one thing I hope doesn't happen with respect to increasing the popularity and exposure of soccer here is I hope fans don't see the status of the national team as being worse than it was 4 years ago because they didn't match the quarterfinal run. You know you can't compare one World Cup to the next. Players change over, opponents change, style matchups between opponents are different, playing in Europe vs. in Korea/Japan has its peripheral differences. The fact is the U.S. was in the one of the 2 toughest groups in the Cup this year, and if they hadn't played Mexico in the Round of 16 in 2002, a team they knew like the palm of their hand, they probably would have gone out to someone else right then.

End of rant.<<