I'm a John O'Brian guy myself but Michael Bradley is quickly changing my mind.

Edit: Claudio was sick too

it really is a shame that O'Brien's career was so destroyed by injury. He probably had some of the best technique a US player has ever had and was a terrific passer as well.


Wondercall, I know the season is starting up again, but would it be even remotely possible for Brad to do an ask me series again? Doing it in this thread or the MLS thread would significantly cut down on the ******ed noise that happened when he first did it.

This is a pretty ******ed argument then.

Heaps of average players get capped every now and again for all sorts of reasons.

With all things being equal, and Argentina picking their best squad with every player available, Chicharito would not be in it.

This is going to sound SO stupid but since he's become a bit of a mini celebrity in Seattle it seems like he's been hesitant to do anything outside of what he has to do. I'll definitely run it by him though.

Also, please make it happen from 3 - 5 AM the night before a match.

not stupid at all IMO. Obviously during the season would be extremely tough, but it would be really cool if he was able to do it. Last time there was some some dumbass SE stuff, so hopefully doing it with more regular posters asking him actual stuff would work.

Is there any specific match you are thinking of jared

Just as long as it isn't CCL!

I'd be more interested in knowing what the raw number of, say, 14-18 year olds who play high-level club soccer--the kids who are devoted to the sport pretty much exclusively, some of whom will go pro. How do those raw numbers compare to other countries? I'm sure we're behind the biggest countries, but I'd have to assume that number looks pretty good compared to the developed countries that are roughly 20-30 in the FIFA rankings. Because while a lot of the participation numbers are inflated by U6 trophy/juice box/orange slice soccer crowd, I think there are quite a lot of teenagers who take the game seriously. Now, I think most of us would agree that we aren't training those players to their full potential, but I think there's a pretty sizeable pool to pick from.

With 310 million people, I think we can still manage even if soccer can't reach the level of the big three sports. As has been mentioned before, there are plenty of people who may be too short to play in the NFL or NBA but are tall enough to play soccer. Obviously the more popular soccer is in the US, the better our chances will be, but our population advantage can't be discounted. There's plenty of room to grow just by improving our youth development system, even if soccer doesn't become more popular than it is right now.

i can't believe anybody who is capable of critical thought could actually think a "population advantage" could be a real thing in a world where Jamaica dominates sprinting and India produces zero world class athletes outside of cricket

This remains to be seen. A lot of money coming in is not enough to convince me that things in England will change.

A lot of money coming in ≠ A lot of money going to he right places.

Ummm...yeah you did.

Looking back, we were pretty lucky that he was injury free before, and during, the '02 World Cup.

On this point, brits/english (29 golds) demolished the recent olympics. apparently we out-nutrition Germany/France/Spain combined (25 golds)

It's obviously not the only factor, but it's a huge factor, especially for team sports. Aside from Uruguay in 1930, I wouldn't call any of the other WC winners small countries. India is hindered by poverty, malnutrition, and lack of a centralized sports infrastructure along the lines of China's.

I think you're unintentionally arguing against your own point.

sure, all other things being equal having more people to choose from is a great thing, but all other things aren't equal. there are so, so many examples of small population countries being great at sports that population is not the most important factor

kkcountry, you should maybe think about it a little more. within regions (where population density and infrastructure are on a more level playing field) population is an enormous advantage. the historic best teams in western Europe, South America, Africa, etc. are the largest ones.

(pelican isn't arguing against his own point, obviously "population advantage" is most properly considered ceteris paribus.)

but there are other examples like the 6 Nations Championship, which Wales has won as many times as the much more populous countries over the long term and they continue to be as good as the other Western European countries where rugby is also popular

you have convinced me that population is not the sole factor in team sport success

NZ tho.

haha i was hoping no one would go back and check.


k 2 mexicans would start for argentina. but that doesnt mean we arent anywhere close to a top 10 team. obviously Argnetina is better than us individually, but as a whole, they aren't that much better. Just go back and watch the 2005 confed cup when we owned them and they beat us in pks, or go back and check 2006 when we got ****ing robbed by that ******* ref when Heinze commited obvious red on Kikin Fonseca. You can even go ahead and look at the 2010 world cup when we got robbed yet again. We were playing much better than Argentina before that offisde goal. they run good vs us, theres no other explanation for this.

leave me alone now.

Cruizn you sound really, really stupid at all times.

whats so stupid about what i just said?

I agree cruzin is just a mex troll

He once admitted to getting banned from Big Soccer. Do you realize how hard that is?

lol