This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The North American style of play differs from traditional European play, and even moreso from English football. I guess maybe the gimmick, if you will, works against teams from North America, and not so much against teams from Europe.
I hate to say it, but the USMNT has regressed from where they were six years ago. The individual players are absolutely more talented today, but the team as a whole is worse. Not sure if it's the coaching, the lack of a creative, possession-minded MF like Reyna, a McBride-like presence at Forward (we'll see whay Jozy can do), or what it is. But games like tonight, combined with their performance at Copa America, are really disheartening. Not to mention this was the weakest of the three teams we're playing this month. And England had literally nothing riding on this game. Spain is gearing up for Euro, and the Argies are absolutely STACKED. I'm hoping this brutal run-up to the WCQ doesn't dramatically backfire on us. We're supposed to win the World Cup this time around right? Isn't that what Project 2010 was all about?
The one thing that I think plays a major role in this is the midfield. That's not to say that we don't have decent midfielders, we just don't have the guys we had a few years ago. Ricardo Clark, Michael Bradley, Maurice Edu....they're all ok, but they're still project players. Back in 02, there was a veteran in the middle with Reyna, surrounded by proven national team players.One of the things I remember from that cup is John O'Brien playing out of his mind....it's that kind of midfield presence that the team is currently missing, IMO.
All Good Points. I just have to dump on Mexico b/c of the past behavior of their fans when we have played them. They are truly a hated (soccer) rival.The North American style of play differs from traditional European play, and even moreso from English football. I guess maybe the gimmick, if you will, works against teams from North America, and not so much against teams from Europe.
But they really are overrated. The track record in World Cups is testament to that (and before you site the most recent WC, they had the biggest joke of a group ever in that one).:boxeo: 
-QG
I don't think beating Poland is something to dismiss.
This team would beat the team the '02 team.They have played really well at times.I agree with you about this being the worst of next opponents. If we play like that Argentina and Spain are going to kill us. Who knows how much Donovan would have helped. Our problem was definitely up front. Our attackers offered nothing today. If Altidore is our future we should have thrown him out there to start the second half. It was obvious after the first that Wolf and Johnson were useless.I hate to say it, but the USMNT has regressed from where they were six years ago. The individual players are absolutely more talented today, but the team as a whole is worse. Not sure if it's the coaching, the lack of a creative, possession-minded MF like Reyna, a McBride-like presence at Forward (we'll see whay Jozy can do), or what it is. But games like tonight, combined with their performance at Copa America, are really disheartening. Not to mention this was the weakest of the three teams we're playing this month. And England had literally nothing riding on this game. Spain is gearing up for Euro, and the Argies are absolutely STACKED. I'm hoping this brutal run-up to the WCQ doesn't dramatically backfire on us. We're supposed to win the World Cup this time around right? Isn't that what Project 2010 was all about?
I agree that England is the weakest side the USMNT will face in these three friendlies, but disagree that this was a meaningless game for England. I think it was a huge game for the team and especially for Capello. Not many people outside the US would ever expect this to be a competitive game. The English players, coaches, fans and media would not expect nor be satisfied with anything less that a completely dominant performance playing the US at Wembly. Everyone in England and especially the players know they have an absolutely miserable summer ahead of them with the Euro Cup going forward without them.I hate to say it, but the USMNT has regressed from where they were six years ago. The individual players are absolutely more talented today, but the team as a whole is worse. Not sure if it's the coaching, the lack of a creative, possession-minded MF like Reyna, a McBride-like presence at Forward (we'll see whay Jozy can do), or what it is. But games like tonight, combined with their performance at Copa America, are really disheartening. Not to mention this was the weakest of the three teams we're playing this month. And England had literally nothing riding on this game. Spain is gearing up for Euro, and the Argies are absolutely STACKED. I'm hoping this brutal run-up to the WCQ doesn't dramatically backfire on us. We're supposed to win the World Cup this time around right? Isn't that what Project 2010 was all about?
Is he the GOL TV guy with all the crazo analogies? He's (unintentionally?) hilarious.
No, Altidore wasn't there today.
The final three cuts were made. The trainers went with experienced players. Many played for Germany during the 2006 WC. Cut were some of the surpriesing nomines for the trainingcamp like second league player Marko Marin who wouldn´t have been able to play as physical as it is needed in sucha tourney.
No. Project 2010 was designed to make sure the US was competitive in the World Cup, not to win it.While I thought the US played poorly, I think everyone is going over the deep end quite too much here when looking at the factsWe're supposed to win the World Cup this time around right? Isn't that what Project 2010 was all about?
Respectfully disagree Andy. This was hardly a meaningless friendly. The Nats have been prepping for this game for quite a while. Had we played well, wed be lauding there performance for years to come. Matches against prominent European clubs are oftentimes more important than the regional games vs our local rivals - Im sure our players view it that way.No. Project 2010 was designed to make sure the US was competitive in the World Cup, not to win it.While I thought the US played poorly, I think everyone is going over the deep end quite too much here when looking at the factsWe're supposed to win the World Cup this time around right? Isn't that what Project 2010 was all about?
1) meaningless friendly
2) very few teams have historically played well at Wembley
3) Even the most ardent Donovan hater has to realize him not playing and Wolff playing made a huge difference on the squad.
4) The US is not as good as they looked in destroying Poland recently, nor are they as bad as they looked yesterday
Respectfully disagree Andy. This was hardly a meaningless friendly. The Nats have been prepping for this game for quite a while. Had we played well, wed be lauding there performance for years to come. Matches against prominent European clubs are oftentimes more important than the regional games vs our local rivals - Im sure our players view it that way.No. Project 2010 was designed to make sure the US was competitive in the World Cup, not to win it.While I thought the US played poorly, I think everyone is going over the deep end quite too much here when looking at the factsWe're supposed to win the World Cup this time around right? Isn't that what Project 2010 was all about?
1) meaningless friendly
2) very few teams have historically played well at Wembley
3) Even the most ardent Donovan hater has to realize him not playing and Wolff playing made a huge difference on the squad.
4) The US is not as good as they looked in destroying Poland recently, nor are they as bad as they looked yesterday
This friendly was only meaningless for England.
The nats have not been prepping for this game for quite a while. The first time the team got together to practice was on Monday. They haven't practiced together since they played Poland back in March.And again, what is the true team? The one that destroyed a team that won in its Euro group or playing poorly against one that didn't even qualify?Respectfully disagree Andy. This was hardly a meaningless friendly. The Nats have been prepping for this game for quite a while.No. Project 2010 was designed to make sure the US was competitive in the World Cup, not to win it.While I thought the US played poorly, I think everyone is going over the deep end quite too much here when looking at the factsWe're supposed to win the World Cup this time around right? Isn't that what Project 2010 was all about?
1) meaningless friendly
2) very few teams have historically played well at Wembley
3) Even the most ardent Donovan hater has to realize him not playing and Wolff playing made a huge difference on the squad.
4) The US is not as good as they looked in destroying Poland recently, nor are they as bad as they looked yesterday
The friendly held more meaning for England than for the US IMO.If this was a real game, both Donovan and Altidore would have been present and both would have replaced Wolff and Johnson who IMO struggled yesterday.No way England puts out there best squad if the game was meaningless to them IMO. They would have experimented much more especially considering they have no real games coming up.
Respectfully disagree Andy. This was hardly a meaningless friendly. The Nats have been prepping for this game for quite a while. Had we played well, wed be lauding there performance for years to come. Matches against prominent European clubs are oftentimes more important than the regional games vs our local rivals - Im sure our players view it that way.No. Project 2010 was designed to make sure the US was competitive in the World Cup, not to win it.While I thought the US played poorly, I think everyone is going over the deep end quite too much here when looking at the factsWe're supposed to win the World Cup this time around right? Isn't that what Project 2010 was all about?
1) meaningless friendly
2) very few teams have historically played well at Wembley
3) Even the most ardent Donovan hater has to realize him not playing and Wolff playing made a huge difference on the squad.
4) The US is not as good as they looked in destroying Poland recently, nor are they as bad as they looked yesterday
I don't think Capello would have made the same mistake as Eriksson. Sven put out a very weak side against Australia and lost. He got absolutely crucified by the media. If we'd lost to the US the press would have given him the same treatment if not more so as they know that "soccer" is very much an after thought to football, baseball, basketball etc.
That's Ray Hudson, who is insane. But that insanity can make for some very fun commentary from time to time. He had some crazy quotes when he was the coach for DC.Andy Gray is a Scottish commentator, generally considered one of the best. He usually is on Sky Sports, so if you've ever checked out a EPL match at a pub or streamed one online, you've heard him. I think he's also done commentary work for the EA FIFA video game series.
Andy Gray wrote perhaps the best history book on formations. It sounds dry but it was a fascinating look at how formations have evolved and how each one is played and what affects it has on the game.It is called Flat Back Four.Adrian Healy, Derek Rae, Tommy Smyth and Gray should be solid. If they team Healy and Gray together it should be perfect.I prefer the American Rae to the Scottish Rae but thats just my opinion. If you have ever met him, he can turn on and off the Scottish accent at will. Its an impressive talent.Both Healy and Rae did Revolution games in the past before moving on to ESPN.
Donovan and Altidore in for Johnson and Wolff certainly would have been an improvement but not enough to make up the gulf between the two sides yesterday.
This is true. But project 2010 was conceived in 1998 just after the Steve Sampson disaster in France. I don't think any of us conceived that in just 4 years we were one horrendous non call away from going into sudden death for a shot at the semi's. The definition of competitive in August 1998 was much different than the definition in August of 2002. And it may have changed again in 2006.
I agree with this 100%.To me, getting to the second round is all I hope for every WC. Any thing after that is gravy. Small teams like Sweden, Bulgaria, and SK have shown that once you get into the second round, you can make a run.As for us winning our group, it will likely be difficult seeing as how we will always be, at best, the #3 team in the bowl.
Totally agree. I also think people are discounting not having Donovan in there. England without their top player would be a totally different team too. This was a totally meaningless friendly for all but a few guys looking for contracts and it showed.
I dont really agree. Yeah, LD is probably our best player. However, he'd be like the 8th best player on the english squad. (maybe) I cant believe that he would have made that great of a diference. Unless England makes major, major mistakes (or the US gets lucky on a few set pieces) we can't beat them with their best squad on the field. The talent diference is just so massive. It's like a varsity-JV scrimmage and likely always will be.
Arguably the two worst players on the field yesterday were Wolff and Johnson.The two players that would have replaced them were our best player in Donovan and our best young player in Altidore. They most certainly would have made a difference (assuming they played well). As you said though, it would not have been enough with the run of play yesterday.Yes, the talent difference is huge between the squads. If you go back a few pages you can see where we debated this and pretty much came to the conclusion that likely only Howard would start for England and Donovan might have a chance at a sub role.However, as England and Spain(just to name two countries) continually show, having great talent != having a great team.
Let's face it, friendless are rarely ever meaningless....but they are more meaningful for the home side as no team wants to lose on their home soil, especially against the US.I'm sure the US team wasn't there to pack it in, as there are players fighting to make the national team/wc team and for playing time.England put out a very fair side, as evidenced by what, 6 ManU/Chelsea players who just got back from Russia a week back (Rio, Terry, Lampard, Brown, Hargreaves, Rooney...not sure if I missed anyone). The US was going to have a lot of trouble mounting an attack against one of the stronger back lines in the world, and a very strong midfield. I'm not going crazy over the US loss at all, but a better effort would have been hoped for, and I think that's the gist of most posters.Who else is the US playing? Spain? Argentina? I think those two were mentioned.
Oh, I don't agree with this at all.
It isn't that the American players lack the raw talent, it is more that they lack to opportunity to develop that talent IMO
please stop. You can join the Jim Rome thread if you want to spew such bile. Every single sport in America has this problem. You are nuts if you think all the best athletes are in the NHL or MLB, just to choose two leagues. Our best athletes are spread amongst many sports.
Why not?One side is picking the absolute cream of their athletic crop. They put them in what amount to soccer school from when they are like 5 years old. The other side loses all its best athletes to at least 3 other sports (hoops, football, baseball) and doesn't have anywhere near the type of feeder programs. It's just not a fair fight. Bottom line: If you are a 6 year old kid in England who is gonna grow up to be 6'2, run a 4.5 40 yard dash and be blessed with the quickness, instincts and vision of a world class athlete, you play soccer exclusivly for you entire life. In the US, you likely play basketball and football before finally settling on one when you are 18. I dont want to be negative, but i just dont see an opening. I'm really starting to get into soccer (hopefully taking in a game at Old Trafford next year) but its just really hard to be all that excited about the future of US soccer on the international stage. The deck is so stacked against us.
Spain in Spain next Wednesday and then Argentina in NY shortly after that. The Argentina game should have both Donovan and Jozy available.
DeMarcus looked stifled most of the night. This was not unexpected as its only his second game I think in the last ~6 months after the injury. He was not even really able to beat Becks with pace, which was obviously telling to his confidence level.For full disclosure, I am not a huge DMB fan. I love his defensive side of the game but for a guy with supposedly good speed, he rarely gets himself behind the defense.Clark has also played better. He was his normal pest in the midfield, but with out Donovan on the field some where, the US playing two deep defensive midfielders leads to a gap in possession. Neither Clark nor Bradley were able to over come the powerful England midfield.
I'd argue that there isn't a great athlete besides Defoe on the entire England team...hell I'd say half our team are better athletes than their team (Donovan, Beasley, Johnson, Altidore, Clark, Edu, Dempsey). We aren't missing athletes we're missing skill.Oh and I totally disagree about this game not being different with Donovan. Like him or not, his speed and vision are game-changing and absolutely critical to US success (I'd even argue our entire run of play setup right now is devoted to getting him the ball in space/situations he can exploit...plus from what I remember he's been hitting the ball on set pieces too). Hell, he's probably had a better season than Beckham at this point, so its not like he's some schlub.
Oh, where to start....first off, I'm not really a US soccer apologist.....as I much prefer the European leagues....but......England is a nation of what, 60 million? US has at least 5x that.Not every English athlete plays soccer. There are plenty of other sports played.The English side happened to boast a number of players that are world class, the US didn't dress a number of their world class players.If you took the second team English side...not just any 11, but their second best 11, and the US played their best 11, on a neutral site, I'm pretty sure the US would be quite competitive if not win outright. Hell, did you forget the 2006 world cup? The US team played Italy to a draw, the Italian team that won the entire tournament. US has a very competitive team. Are other countries best better than ours? Sure there are quite a few countries that sport better teams. But it's not like we have a bunch of intramural players out there.
I think US Soccer's situation is unique because its the only major team sport in which the diference in skill and phsyical talent is so apparent, even to the untrained eye. What other major team sport are we so obviously overmatched man for man? I can't think of any. Our ELITE athletes play football and basketball. I dont see how you can dispute this. When England produces an athletic phenom on the level of a Lebron James or Adrian Peterson, they are on the soccer field full time from the first day their talent is recognized. If american soccer truly gets its share of the top athletes, why have we never ever seen an American Soccer player be an elite performer on the world stage? (like a Ronaldinho, C. Ronaldo, Henry, ect) Sure, coaching has plenty to do with it, but i have to believe that a truly elite talent who wanted to play soccer would still rise to a fairly prominent level. The fact that this hasnt happened speaks volumes to me about the phsyical talent disparity US soccer faces.
I don't agree with this either. I don't think the US problem is a lack of athleticism at all, although I'm sure someone like Allen Iverson could have been a tremendous soccer player if he worked at it from a young age. What the US team lacks is more in the areas of creativity, flair and vision. We play a very vertical game, and use our athleticism for counterattacking and drawing fouls deep to create set pieces. But against good, disciplined teams, we get exposed as being one-dimensional and easy to stop.England's 2nd goal yesterday (the tic-tac-toe quick one touch passes from Barry to Gerrard) illustrated this perfectly. It was essentially just a quality, professional attack which resulted in an above average goal. Nothing overtly "athletic" about it at all. But if the US were to pull off a play like that against someone better than Honduras or Trinidad, everybody here would be going insane.The issue is you can't teach creativity and flair. Players either possess it or they don't. Maybe the problem is the way our youth development system is structured, or that kids don't play pick-up soccer like they do hoops and football, to develop these skills in a more unique way then in organized youth leagues. I don't know. But that's the difference between us and Brazil, Italy, Argentina, not athleticism.
This guy gets it
You are not going to find a more raw athlete than Johnson. The fact that his first touch is attrocious nullifies his natural gifts.
When i say "athlete" I'm taking skill and other qualities (vision, instincts, balance) into account. Size and speed obviously arent the only factors. I apologize if i wasnt clear on that. As far as england playing other sports...What other sports (that require similar phsyical characteristics as sports like football, basketball and soccer) is england losing elite athletes to? They dont play basketball, baseball, hockey or american football on any sort of competitive level. Sure, they lost some kids to track, but other than that, i dont see where else their elite talent pool would go. And i never said we can't be competitive. It's not like we're getting embarassed out there (most of the time). I just dont think we can ever consistently beat the top squads. Yeah, a tie against Italy is nice, but if a draw is all we have to hang our hat on, (wasnt there an own goal involved?)i think we have a very, very long way to go)
I have often imagined what a combination of Iverson and Ronaldihno would be on a soccer field...oh my
You are missing a basic premise. Touch on the ball is paramount in soccer. You can't compare that skill with any thing LT does on a football field. Its as silly as assuming LT would be the best hockey player in the world.Running fast and being powerful are great. If you don't have the touch, you are not going to be an elite player.
good lord you are myopic.Have you ever heard of Rugby?
I did forget about Rugby. Good point. Thats fair. I still dont think its quite the drain that Football and basketball are on US soccer.
