Player with a lot of injury concerns playing on a pitch where everyone gets injured will do that to you. He played no different than Rio did.

Well, Manchester United has 2 and Liverpool has 1.

^ BAN

I agree, and I think there's a decent chance we throw in the towel in the second half against England if things don't go our way.

Thread went to crap

LOL at the guy going on about AIG, the company that recently had to be bailed out cause it couldnt pay its bills and made the princely sum of -$11bn in 2009. They aren't even the shirt sponsors any more CAUSE THEY ARE BROKE

On 21 January 2009, it was announced that AIG would not be renewing their sponsorship of the club at the end of the deal in May 2010. It is not clear, however, whether or not AIG's agreement to run MU Finance will continue.

This is an excellent post

QFT

Question for yanquis, do you expect to see the US win the WC at any point in your lifetime?

yes, this WC

If soccer was the #1 professional sport in the US (or top 3 even) and has been for say 50 years the US would be a soccer power. But it isn't, so we aren't. Seems silly to bring it up, as well as silly to scoff at the notion that the US would be a soccer power if it was a major sport here. We wouldn't crush the field or anything or even be the best per say, but it would be miles ahead of where it is now and competing for international trophies.

So basically both sides look stupid whenever this is brought up.

Maybe 10-25% we win one of the next twelve?

No, but I expect us to be in the semis before I die.

Only 26...

Yes, I do. Not a sure thing obviously, but it's definitely over 50% imo.

The youth soccer system was non-existant 20 years ago. When I was coming up through the system, there was exactly one serious youth academy that was only available for kids who had made the national pool squad. That was 2000-2003.

Today that has completely changed. Now there are around 75 youth development academies, and almost every MLS team has one. When I was coming through the system, the only way to really compete was to go to a good DI college and go from there. Now, more kids receive pro level training from a younger age and go to the pros directly. The development of the MLS into a feeder league has been great as well. Like I said before, while only 4 of our players play in the MLS, but 17 started there.

When you look at our players, you see different generations of our youth development system. Most of the players my age or older (basically Michael Bradley or older) went to college ball (which isn't very good for development). Some of them are products of the IMG academy (the academy I first referred to), but some aren't. Pretty much only Donovan went straight to Europe, and that obviously didn't go well.

When you look at the younger players, like Altidore or Torres, they went directly from high school to pro ball. Altidore received top level training from IMG before he went pro at 16. As the national team progresses, you'll see more and more stories like Altidore and Torres, and less that involve serious collegiate ball.

Obviously the players who have received serious professional training from when they were young teenagers will do much better than the players before them.... and this line of thought doesn't even consider the effects of the 2018/2022 world cup hosting.

I don't.

thread is ruined by dumb hypotheticals and lame trolling. If USA werent in Englands group i would be cheering them on as my 2nd team. I still hope they finish 2nd. England are gonna probably win the group unconvincingly before going out in the quarters.

Fair

A little pessimistic

Way too optimistic.

/seriousness

Ike,

Training facilities and a good youth development setup are obviously prerequisites for long term success, and the US has the resources to make theirs the very best.

The problem as I see it is the large culture shift that would have to occur for soccer to draw the best talent. At the moment the best athletes are more likely to be playing the three other major sports. Would you agree that this shift has to occur for the US to become a top footballing nation?

Not to butt in here, but "winning a world cup" and "becoming a top footballing nation" are not the same thing. You can win a WC without being a perennial powerhouse imo. The two discussions are different.

Soccer guys, how high variance is the sport?

low-variance like American Football or high-variance like hockey?

American football is high variance.

Anyone could win the world cup but to be 50%+ sure that a team will win it in 10-15ish attempts implies they are a top team

Quite high variance depending on tactics. Put it this way: The better team (or even the team that plays the best) often don't win the game.

not necessarily, since the time fram we are talking about is 40-60 years. He can assume the team will get significantly better within that time, to the point where maybe those attempts way in the future have odds of winning increasing from the 1% it is now to say 10%. Remember you need to take the aggregate win % total for that time period. 50% on the surface may seem crazy, but if the US improves a ton I don't think its crazy. I mean right now countries like Brazil, Italy, and Germany are easily 100% locks to win one between now and 2070.

How much of an impact could 2 or 3 world class (like top 10-15 players in the world) players have on a team like America?

Hate us for our merciless world dominance if you must, but you absolutely cannot deny that we bring the ruckus when athletics are involved.

If enough people start giving a **** about soccer here, we'll have success eventually.

(Whoomp There It Is!)








amirite?