sigh

lot of truth in this
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/st ... us&cc=5901

 

Really? I was with his view... sorta.. but he lost me here:

Not better than Bosnia-Herzegovina ?!!!! HTF does this schmuck know?

How does he explain the performance in the Cup?

I call BULLSHIT!

 

I think the US is better than all of the teams he listed which is why I'm not too happy with the way they have performed. Nobody should be happy with these results unless you think that the US is a middle of the road team. They must dominate these teams whether they're on the road or not. A game in El Salvador should be 3-0 to the US. It's that simple. They've been mediocre this qualifying round and they must win both of the games they have leftto prove that they are the best team in CONCACAF and one of the top 15 teams in thw world.

 

The US is overrated and will get their asses handed to them at the World Cup next year. Their performances in the CONCACAF region this summer have been horrid. While they have won matches, it is the way they are playing that concerns me as FFC24 pointed out. There is no set style of play and I am not sure Bradley even knows what he wants his team to do tactically.

What bothers me the most is that come Spring time ESPN and the other media outlets that cover the World Cup will start ratcheting up the US hype and how they are going to do well in South Africa and how they might win the World Cup when in actuality, getting out the group stage would be a good World Cup for them. Then, when the US does get eliminated the casual fans will be disappointed in the team as they were under the assumption the US was a formidable team that could win the whole thing. It happens every four years and it makes me want to puke. This team is no better of a US team that four years ago and unless they are drawn into a weak group, if there is such a thing in the World Cup, they will have a hard time advancing past the group stage. If they do advance past the group stage it will be a successful tournament in my eyes.

As great as 2002 was, it is unrealistic to think the US can and should get to the quarterfinals every World Cup. We still do not have the players and set up to consistently go deep into these big tournaments.

 

Article's a joke. England (8-0 in qualifying) couldn't go into Azteca and do any better than we did. What is "normal" in our region is grounds for match cancellations and playing in empty stadiums in Europe. Racial abuse? Acceptable; foreign objects thrown at players? Unless it draws blood, play on.

Those are the conditions our guys play under in CONCACAF, so really, I don't look at the performances against regional opponenents, I only look at results, which have been good enough. I do look at performances against top teams from other parts of the world.

We played England, Spain, and Argentina and, after a frightened showing against England, performed very well in Spain and home to Argentina, despite the loss and scoreless tie.

In the Confederations Cup, we only had one bad performance, against Brazil (the first time). We didn't play badly against Italy and arguably outplayed them in the first half. We than played Egypt off the pitch and had great performances against Spain and Brazil. We proved that, on neutral ground, we can beat anyone.

 

A couple of issues with the author; he writes that the WC matches are "away" games. Hey, McFly except for South Africa they're away matches for every team.

As far as the media heaping praise on the team, aside from the ESPN studio crew and sportscenter (which is their job in order to get the casual fan to watch, it's called cross promotion) there hasn't been a whole lot of positive press.

I agree w/Tom about getting out of the group being a good WC.

However, to chalk up the putrid performances that were away to Costa Rica and the first 75 minutes in El Diveador to objects being thrown from the crowd (btw, nothing gets thrown at Saprissa) is wrong. As far as Azteca, and it being as good as gets for the US...I remember a ten man US team outplaying EL Tri at Azteca to the point that 100 k were chanting 'ole, ole' every time we passed the ball the last ten minutes of a draw. We are capable of playing better than we did, sorry to disagree.

 

Oh give me a break. England would waltz intto Saprissa and beat Costa Rica 3-0. They would then go to Azteca and handle Mexico too. This is what good teams do, they beat the shit out of their opponents whether it's at home or away. If you honestly believe that England wouldn't do any better than the US on the road, then I have a nice multi million dollar home to sell you.

 

FFC24. ROTFLOL!!

Look up the last time Brazil or Argentina beat Mexico in Azteca.

As for England, at least the Brazilian and Argentinian players were mostly brought up playing in that kind of atmostphere.

Do you really think playing away at Stamford Bridge helps prepare players to play in Azteca, where they'll face constant personal and racial abuse and get crap (litterally) thrown at them with every corner and throw in?

Do you think playing away at Anfield helps prepare them to play in the concrete jungle of Saprissa on a plastic pitch bumpy enough to be used for motocross?

I'm not denying that the English players are better, but they're pampered in comparison, typically playing on good playing surfaces with very well behaved and controlled crowds. Playing in CONCACAF isn't about winning a boxing match, it's about winning a bar fight - it's rarely pretty and the point is to be the last man standing.

 

a-Brazil and Argentina don't get regular shots at Mexico. The US gets regular shots in Azteca and should be used to the crowd.

b-England went into Zagreb and beat Croatia 3-0. Netherlands went into Hampden Park and beat Scotland. The point is that good teams can play in hostile atmospheres and come out on top.

c-CONCACAF teams are below the US. Therefore, it should'nt matter if they're on the road or not. Any good team should win in El Salvador. As Mexico have proven the last 2 times they played Costa Rica, it's possible to win in Saprissa. You can make all kinds of excuses you want, but no team should never win on the road to your rival. It just shouldn't happen.

 

Another problem I have with all this World Cup talk and where the US ranks is comparing us to Mexico. Quite simply, Mexico is not that special either. They are a slightly above average team just like the US and will get demolished in South Africa as well. It bugs me when I hear how people judge the strength of the US team based on how they do against Mexico. It is crazy. Additionally, the CONCACAF teams. They are all crap. Every single one of them is garbage. The US, if they are as good as many people believe, should be destroying these teams...both home and on the road. Unfortunately that is not happening.

Additionally, it is really, really hard to tell how good a team is based on anything other than World Cup qualifiers and the World Cup itself. Any other match, for the most part, is practice. Players from the bigger and better countries do not play with the same intensity and focus as they would in a game that means something. Regardless, those big countries almost always come out on top in the friendlies. Thus, we really do not know how good, or in my case, bad, the US team is.

Regardless of all of this, nobody seems to care that the US has no identity as a team. What kind of a team is this? What style of play fits this team the best? What kinds of things tactically would put the US in a good position to win matches? Don't just say play hard and fight like an underdog because that might cut it for one match, but it does not cut when trying to win three matches over 8 days in a World Cup. You have to have some kind of a system or style of play that the players can get used to so when the World Cup comes, they know exactly what they are supposed to do.

 

a - Be used to playing at 7000', in the smog, and having crap thrown at you - just because you have to do it once every four years!?!?

b - So you're comparing Zagreb and Hampden Park to Azteca!?

c - Nice theory, but the facts, not only in our region but others, doesn't match the theory. The reason the England and Dutch performances are getting so much press is that what they have done (consistently win away in qualifiers) is so rare and so hard to do, even for the top teams in the world.

 

Uh, in Croatia a civil war started because of a football riot. That place is a tough place to play just like any other place in eastern and southern Europe. Yet teams manage to win in those sorts of places. It's because those players don't get nervous because there's thousands of people who hate you once you walk out onto the pitch.


The US has only managed one draw in their history at Azteca. If you give Brazil 20+ matches there or England or any other top team, they will do better than that. You can point to Brazil's earlier matches there, but I'm not too sure they gave a shit about the confederations cup in 1999.


Furthermore, the record in central America is embarrassing. We should win at El Salvador every time we play them. We should beat Panama every time we play them. There's no excuse to have such a piss poor road record. If they were playing teams of better quality, I could understand, but they're playing shit teams and barely escaping with a draw. It's inexcusable.

 

LOL! Yeah, and I'm sure the players are concerned for their safety at a UEFA qualifier...

The US record prior to 1990 doesn't really matter, so in that (much smaller) number of games, no, I don't think Brazil or England would be guaranteed to do better. Brazil's altitude record is not great and England doesn't really have an altiditude record, they play above 3k feet so rarely.

You really should check your facts when it comes to away records against "piss poor" teams. Some of the UEFA powerhouses have gotten away ties against teams far lower in the FIFA rankings than El Salvador and Panama. How many times has England needed a break-out second half performance to beat Andorra away? Andorra makes El Salvador and Panama look like world powers; at least their players are all professionals.

 

It was just 4 years ago when the Swiss players were running off the pitch in fear after they crushed Turkey's chances to qualify for the world cup. Yes, UEFA qualifiers hold no potential for violence. The Swiss were just excited to leave the pitch and celebrate in the locker room.


Has Brazil ever won in La Paz? Yes. La Paz is worse thaan Mexico. You can go on and on about these piss poor excuses, but you're simply wrong. Good teams win in hostile conditios even if those conditions are 9,000 feet above the ground.


Brazil has beaten Argentina in Buenos Aires, England has won in Glasgow, Argentina has won in Montivideo,Greece has won in Istanbul etc etc etc. Point? The US has one of the worst record on the road to a rival. There's no excuse as these other teams have won on the road in fierce rivalries. If anything, the US-Mexico rivalry is lame on the international stage. Many places make Azteca look like Disneylaand. So admit it, the US is piss poor on the road and there's no excuse.

 

Yeah, POST-GAME, some stuff happens in Eastern Europe. Did they get stuff thrown at them DURING the game without the ref doing anything? :crickets:

La Paz is higher than Mexico City but it's not one of the top 10 worst cities in the world for air quality. Mexico has also been a consistently much better team than Bolivia, who has qualified for the World Cup only 3 times and has never gotten out of the group stage.

As for the "X has beaten Y", US Soccer, since it became a serious program, has only played Mexico away in World Cup qualifiers 6 times. Yeah, they have an 0-5-1 record in those games but I can easily find a stretch of 20 years in which Team X hasn't beaten Team Y away in the key global national team rivalries.

Also: "Many places make Azteca look like Disneylaand."

Name one?

Both Brazil and Argentina list it as the toughest place they've ever had to play so please enlighten me as to what national venue makes the 7200 foot smog-laden 100,000 seater concrete colloseum of Azteca seem like Disneyland.

 

You cannot pick and choose where to begin the record at Azteca. Just because the US was complete shit for decades doesn't mean you cannot count those games. If Andorra suddenly became a decent team, I couldn't say that everything before that point doesn't count.



I think that some of the stadiums in Europe are tougher to play in during a rivalry. Istanbul has some pretty terrifying places to play in especially when playing Greece. What I meant by that statement was that the atmosphere in Azteca is not really all that great compared to other rivalries. I have watched some of these other rivalries and I actually do fear for the opposing players and supporters. I really don't get that feeling in Mexico.


It's becoming obvious that you're going to continue to come up with shit answers. Maybe you should step outside of CONCACAF and watch other rivalries and games in eastern and southern europe. Until then, peace.

 

hey look -- a bigsoccer thread!

 

You were making so many good points, FFC. I was starting to be swayed to your side of the argument. And then...

...you lost me.

Name one UEFA venue that makes Azteca "look like Disneyland." I'm sure some are hostile. But name one that is so much worse than Azteca that it makes it look like Disneyland. I'm not just talking about the hostility, but the whole experience...the altitude, the smog, etc.