US Soccer 2009

I wrote the MLS because I was watching a game on a Saturday night, Chicago Fire at Colombus Crew and the fans at Columbus were flipping off C. Blanco taking a free kick, that stadium, a soccer built facility and nice but the corner is too close to the crowd area, like 10 yards of less and Crew fans were acting all outrageous. Then, not long after that, I saw another Crew game and the fans threw some projectiles, outrageous and security got over there. I've mainly seen that in Columbus because the corner is so close to the edge. I think US teams have a lot of Ultra/Hooligans/Barras Bravas (DC United always have those signs saying that) wannabes. I like the MLS but this part I don't. Here is an article on whether Landon Donovan did this pissing incident. http://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070725190943AA3S139 I don't know about this but when Donovan speaks, it sounds a bit like he is on Helium gas... still, the Mexicans might have done things to piss him off as well, it is a heated rivalry.I think Donovan did better when he was a more unknown quantity, now he's more known. I think Hejduk is our best. I think our personnel, our players have been more at fault in recent games, however, Honduras was a bit pumped with Palacios returning and Honduras has gone to the World Cup. They've been up to number 34 ranked against USA being 15, not too bad.

I actually think that the MLS might be about 80-85% of the quality of the top leagues in the world (although it's ridiculous to try and quantify it). There's a massive gulf between the SKY 4 and the rest of the Premiership. There's much more parity in the MLS, so you really have to decide what portion of the table you're comparing them to. Newcastle? I'd take almost any MLS team over them.

Hejduk is definitely one of our highest-impact players. Our outside backs really are a weak spot, especially when we try to play counter-attack ball. The real hero of 2002 for me was Sanneh, who allowed the US to cede so much possession (and thus play such a dangerous counterattack style) without much risk. Nowadays, I get seriously uncomfortable when opposing teams have the ball. Even in their half, I feel like they could score at any second. I didn't used to feel that way when watching the US.

800 Dude: before I get into the meat of my commentary, what do you think the US needs to do? Do you think Bradley's tactics were wrong??

Arena, had his fall in the World Cup in that first game. I've always like Bruce but maybe it was time to go. I don't know.

Very good remarks, I support the MLS strongly, because... I read the book "Soccer in a football world" and I have the US Trivia Soccer book too. Soccer/Football has struggled in the US and that's why I support it in part, its always had big problems. US Soccer has a rich if uneven history.

I know, these past two, three games were big dissapointments, it was like the last world cup. We need to go to the Confederations Cup and just do our best. Maybe it can point to what changes need to be made.

I think our players were lackluster but Bradley has some fault.

Was at Honduras game on Sat - US fans were outnumbered 5 to 1 but that's normal. What's not normal was Dempsey trying to do too much at midfield & giving the ball away for a quick goal - oh wait, that IS normal. You know it's bad when even Sams Army went silent, muttering "oh no, here we go again".

The US benefits from being in CONCACAF. In Europe, the US becomes Belgium. Dangerous on their day, but against a big side not a threat. Better than San Marino, but not at the level of a Russia, much less Spain/England/Germany/Italy/France.

As to the team on Sat, Bornstein made signficant progress in terms of a back line player. It was an improved perfomrance from him. But the real man of the match was Ricardo Clark - he was everywhere and shut down the Honduras central attack. Really worked hard particulary when not in possession. Clark needs to start in the future. With Clark in there, Bradley can become more of the playmaking mid, then Donovan and Dempsey on the wings. I do not think we'll ever see 4-3-3 from Bob Bradley again (which is too bad, because that can be effective - particularly with Dempsey in the middle of the 2 strikers - but not against the Ticos who play wide with speed).

There is little depth up front. Altidore & Ching do work well together at times, but neither are the most consistent scorers in front of net. Casey I thought did an admirable job stepping up on the day, but is too slow on the ball to be a starting striker. He does make a great last 15 minute guy - he's huge in the box and I think can do a decent job creating space. And then the real question, who else is there? (I don't mind Twellman, but Bradley does not like him).

Beasley - unfortunately I do think he is close to being done. His blazing pace is gone after the surgery, and without pace he's average. Sad, I had extremely high hopes for him at PSV and Rangers, but he's a bit player now.

Sadly, the next World Cup will be the last for this group. Could this group make the final 8? Top 4 - no. They just are too inconsistent. The showing against Italy in 06 was epic, the toughest game the Italians faced (once Zidane's sister was insulted), but too often the US shows up like the team against Honduras - decent, competent, but not warriors. Warriors are required against the best in the world.

Anytime, a Soccer thread pops up I want to chime in... However, every time a soccer Thread pops up it's like 4-5 pages long in a few hours. How many people on here played soccer and then switched to running? I know I am and Soccer was my first love, and I still follow the sport with a strong passion for Arsenal, and now the SOunders..

Anyway, Jose Altidore will be a force in the coming years, and Adu needs to be an attacking midfield, or on the wing. I think we have a strong squad up front. Our weakness is our defense. THe big Galoof in the back is absolutely horrible. I mean he is absolutely awful.

Right, everyone's opinion is very valuable. I read big soccer sometimes but it's easy to get lost over there and it's a bunch of "vets" opinions on this matter in part and that is valuable but it's also a zoo sometimes. This is real edifying to read. Refreshing.

Ljundberg with Seattle have had outstanding games, I catch often the Sunday game on the Spanish channel and a lot of the other games on Fox and ESPN.

I know the game, but Europeans and others have all the positions down, chart it out. I've not been able to do that.

There are not that many great soccer forums for US fans, seems the Sam's Army site had one but took it down. Other forums are more like blogs.

Chivas look like the best MLS team so far. I like the Wizards some. Only dominant teams that have won the league a few times do I not care to see continue dominating (I think that mainly means DC United, though I shouldn't feel that way, I've been to DC and they had a real good coach previously when Adu was there).

What does the US need to do? I really don't know. I've always been skeptical about the ability of a small number of people to plan specific changes in something as complex as "soccer in the US." Some people get heralded as wizards, because everything works out right. Arena was like a god to American soccer fans after '02. The same guy can't get it done in '06. You see the same thing with coaches, CEOs, politicians, etc.

England has these same conversations, and they have the best domestic league in the world.

I used to talk a lot about developing soccer in the US, and the inevitability of eventual US dominance. I don't really think that way anymore. As many kids as we have playing, we have very few who are getting Academy-level training. Having met some euro academy rejects, I think that's maybe not such a bad thing. I think that, between NCAA, MLS, and the U-17 program, we have an adequate number of potential world class players. Our ultimate success depends a lot on luck. Do the right players come of age at the right time? Do we have a glaring weakness at certain positions? Do players who rocket to the top because of their talent have the fire to move from promising to great? At this moment, the conditions are right for it to be POSSIBLE for a great American team to emerge. There's only one way of guaranteeing such a result, and that would be to spend NFL-level money on soccer, over the course of decades, until you pull all of the best athletic talent in the country into the sport (guys like Lebron, Kobe, Randy Moss, etc).

The '94 team was great, without the benefit of a major domestic league, without the levels of youth participation that we have now, and without the U17 program.

If we hadn't been seeded below Mexico in the '06 draw, we might be talking about the '06 team as the greatest American team of all time. They certainly looked like it against Italy. Our group proved to be monstrously difficult, and we had the extra bad luck of playing an aging Czech squad first. As flat as we played in that game, they looked tough, and neither Italy nor Ghana played a team that looked like the one the US played. I'm not trying to rationalize a weak performance; I'm just saying that we sometimes make really big conclusions about sports, based on the tiniest of details. It reminds me of the USATF report on Beijing. I dropped baton here, a tweaked hamstring there, an unprecedented superstar wearing a different country's colors--medal counts hinge on such things.

Clown SHoes wrote:

Anytime, a Soccer thread pops up I want to chime in... However, every time a soccer Thread pops up it's like 4-5 pages long in a few hours. How many people on here played soccer and then switched to running? I know I am and Soccer was my first love, and I still follow the sport with a strong passion for Arsenal, and now the SOunders..

I didn't start running (distance) until after college. Played soccer for 17 years. I don't play anymore, because I'm too competitive. I don't do well in amateur leagues. I get very frustrated with talented players who are out of shape. Nobody wants to take it seriously unless they're getting paid. I'm not saying that I fault them for their attitude. In fact, I'm sure I was a pain in the ass as a teammate. It's just not the same as in college. Running works much better for me. Training hard as a runner doesn't piss anyone else off.

Lower division soccer can really be a lot of fun. The setting is more intimate, and the quality of play is decent. You also get to see some faster, more talented attackers really tear defenses apart. You don't see individuals break the game apart as much in the MLS because defenses are faster.

Don wrote:

I wrote the MLS because I was watching a game on a Saturday night, Chicago Fire at Colombus Crew and the fans at Columbus were flipping off C. Blanco taking a free kick, that stadium, a soccer built facility and nice but the corner is too close to the crowd area, like 10 yards of less and Crew fans were acting all outrageous. Then, not long after that, I saw another Crew game and the fans threw some projectiles, outrageous and security got over there. I've mainly seen that in Columbus because the corner is so close to the edge.

Both the Crew Cat and I apologize to you for having to see our fans flip off someone else on TV. However after Blanco bribed the ref and got our boy Padula a red card he is very much disliked.

As for US development, it's obviously a slow process but I see progress. Ten+ years ago is was all about getting the youngsters to play, and slowly you saw a lot more youth leagues popping up on top of local baseball fields, especially in my neck of the woods. Now, I think we are seeing the next steps, which are some of the major teams implementing youth programs which may effect some of the youth clubs that have come to bear fruit the past so many years- but at the same time MLS will be involved in finding and developing young talent. For example, a couple years ago the Crew implemented a Crew Juniors program, and it seems to be fairly visible now.

To add, what a couple teams have been able to accomplish by building not just stadiums but 'soccer parks' is neat as well. It has to be a great resource.

I don't know a lot about this side of it, though, cause my wife doesn't want to father my running soccer child yet. It's ok, because I don't know if I want my kid to play soccer or run XC. I need time to think. Instead for the moment I focus on getting my wife to let Crew Cat and I build a Crew room in the house just to watch soccer. Thanks for listening.

Why has a "smaller" country like the Netherlands done so consistently well?

Why does even tiny Denmark (with a population about the same as Washington State) perform consistently better than the US? (granted they didn't make it in 06 but otherwise they consistently have a system and players that outclass the US)

Answer these questions and we can solve the problem with the US's relative poor showing.

the secret wrote:

Why has a "smaller" country like the Netherlands done so consistently well?

Why does even tiny Denmark (with a population about the same as Washington State) perform consistently better than the US? (granted they didn't make it in 06 but otherwise they consistently have a system and players that outclass the US)

Answer these questions and we can solve the problem with the US's relative poor showing.

Part of it is the exposure. Every sporty kid in Holland and Denmark can name all the best adult players because of the massive interest and higher coverage, therefore a higher percentage of them want to be like them, therefore its more likely that the little Robin Van Persies with the talent will actually turn to soccer. In America other sports get more glory, so a lot of kids who might have the talent to play soccer well end up thinking, hey, JV (American) football!! Yes!

I watched some highlights of the CONCACAF games on Mexican ESPN (same graphics, fonts, formats, and everything as US ESPN, just in Spanish obviously) and they spent five minutes on the recent Mexico match. Here, the US match got thirty seconds, they only showed two of the three goals, and didn't say how it affected the qualifying table.

Another part is the lack of the bigger picture from the people in charge. The first world cup I remember was 94, at home when we made the knockout round. After that, and with MLS starting to exist, the higher-ups at US Soccer said, we will win the World Cup by 2010. Well it's 2010 and do we look like winning it? No, because after we messed up in 1998, they all just abandoned ship for a while and let the US program fester. A lot of people in charge have, or at least had in the past, an attitude where if we don't win the World Cup it's not worth trying. Netherlands is consistently one of the best teams in the World but they've never won it. Hungary used to give people nightmares...they have no titles. Crap, even Spain has never won it. Only 7 teams have ever won it and we're probably not going to be eighth. But we could stand to improve certainly, if people would just realize that it's worth the effort even if we aren't the FIFA #1.

I agree that we can call Netherlands a smaller country but compared to the USA, though not as much, Germany certainly is smaller too as all of the European countries are except maybe Russia.

I think it is because soccer in Holland, Belgium, Denmark is pursued from a young age the way baseball has been in the US, soccer is the main passion, soccer is baseball, American football and basketball all rolled into one. <---- This is the key reason these teams can be so good.

It seems we are mostly familiar with English soccer, how a club like Liverpool has probably been around 110 years, or at least some of those clubs have. That's a big part of it, in Holland clubs like Ajax and others have been around for a long time with their own history.

Holland is the home of "Total Football", pioneered by Johann Cruyff (Crujiff, different spellings, considered a giant much like Pele and Maradona though his name may not be as recognizable) and the like,

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brilliant-Orange-Neurotic-Genius-Football/dp/0747553106

, one of the all time great players but Dutch football did not really make a mark on the scene until the 1970s, going to the final against Germany in 1974 and going again to the final to lose again in 1978 vs. Argentina in what is like some other World Cups, a bit of a controversial one.

1988, Holland won the Euro Cup, which is still a major trophy, Lippi the coach of Italy said the only difference is not having Brazil and Argentina playing also.

So, a lot of people know the Orange and at times, their play, total football I think is a bit like "beautiful football" associated with Brazil.

I liked your analysis of Holland and total football.

Yes, I agree their Euro in 1988 is a major trophy.

Oh, and guess who won the 1992 Euro Cup?

We were never going to win the World Cup in 2010, regardless of what the USSF did or didn't do. It is simply a factor of size of the player pool, competition, standards, and professional opportunities. If it is possible for the US to ever reach the highest levels it is going to take a while.

the secret wrote:

I liked your analysis of Holland and total football.

Yes, I agree their Euro in 1988 is a major trophy.

Oh, and guess who won the 1992 Euro Cup?

Exactly: I thought of that after I finished writing that.

Everyone might find it interesting that Denmark won the 1992 Euro Cup.

I'm not sure, I think the old Yugoslavia actually won a place to go to the 1992 Euro Cup and Denmark actually did not qualify but because Yugoslavia was facing international sanctions because of war there and in Bosnia and Croatia, Denmark was next in line. This is if I'm not confusing the scenario with the 1994 World Cup.

It is possible, if North Korea continue to stir up trouble, their soccer team, close to qualifying for the World Cup, could be banned also because that country may come under severe sanctions.

I have always thought Denmark, though a small country, shares a large soccer heritage with Sweden who is almost always in these tournaments and Norway who went to USA '94. They are seriously into the sport and that helps the countries as a whole and are big rivals with each other... Denmark defeating Sweden this past Saturday and Sweden in a bit of a slump just like countries like England, Czech Republic, France have gone through.

FIRST USA INTERNATIONAL!!! WAS AGAINST SWEDEN!!!

All USA games more or less, listed at

Ok, maybe with a federation in place our first international game was with Sweden but apparently, we did play in the past, did not mean to mislead someone. That is up to debate.

Early games vs. Canada but that is all up to how it is interpreted historically. I will have to research.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

We were never going to win the World Cup in 2010, regardless of what the USSF did or didn't do. It is simply a factor of size of the player pool, competition, standards, and professional opportunities. If it is possible for the US to ever reach the highest levels it is going to take a while.

Yeah I know. I knew that that then, too. But they really believed it.

agapius mackwamba wrote:

...but too often the US shows up like the team against Honduras - decent, competent, but not warriors. Warriors are required against the best in the world.

This post is right on the money. The only true warrior that we have is Hejduk – whom I agree is our biggest impact player right now. This is a big problem for us because the only reason he is a warrior is because he is not a particularly skilled player. We need skillful warriors not overcompensating ones. I think of him more like a greyhound than a wolf. To continue this analogy Donovan has turned into an Irish setter – pretty to look at but dumb as a box of rocks.

There is no way we get out of group play next year. Our current lineup and personnel is woefully inadequate to win at the World Cup level. Players like Bradley and Dempsey are too slow footed and seem to lack the confidence to create. Dempsey tries but for every winner it costs us 10 losers.

I get the sense that the players are looking for someone or something to blame rather than create. Yes we weren’t looking to win in San Jose but that was a downright depressing result. Warriors would not have let that happen. If they were going to beat us that badly we should have extracted our pint of blood rather than just roll over and take it. Howard has got to be losing confidence in these guys and when that happens he will expose himself to poor decisions and bad results.

So is it the coach or the players? I’ve got to pin it on the players. Sure the promotion of this current crop of players must have come at the expense of legitimate talent but my sense is that you can’t blame the coach for trying to fit a round peg (success at the World Cup level) into a square hole (level of talent currently residing on the national team).

How can it be possible to degrade so much since’02 when we, as a nation, have thrown so many bodies at the problem? The answer, as other posters have already indicated, is that it takes a more focused approach on talent building and is not as easy as a numbers game. It is very frustrating watching this team continue to fall further apart. This leads me to the conclusion that all the “sorting out” in the World will not cure this team. The best we can do is to figure out a way to get better at identifying and promoting World Cup talent not just best in the suburbs of St. Louis.

Also, Blanco deserves a lot more than the finger…

Whew, glad I finally had a chance to get that off my chest. OP - thanks for this thread...

The US needs Hejduk and Cherundolo healthy--they are not only solid defensively, but constitute offensive threats as well. However, without a creative midfielder and powerful striker, we can only go so far. Imagine if someone like Allen Iverson had taken up soccer instead of basketball.