Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ashersky]

Well that is that. Beckerman should have been in the game. We might not have won if he had been, but we wouldn't have given up 18+ shots on target. Cameron was awful--playing out of position I don't blame him at all. Wondo was the one sub I didn't like. Would have preferred Becks coming in for Bedoya, having Yedlin slide up and Cameron over to right back. Zusi also was pretty bad.

And ash, we did deserve to be there. We deserved exactly what we got. We are a top 16 team, but not a top 8. Some work to do yet... Also that last goal was exactly what I was talking about earlier in regard to Bradley.

Lot's of hope for the future. Yedlin, Brooks, Greene, etc, etc are quite promising.

yuma, you and I are just different types of fans.  You are an apologist, I'm a negative realist.  We're both annoying types of fans to the other, but we both exist out there.

I do not believe we are one of the best 16 teams in the world, not after every minute of soccer we played after Ronaldo made us look like fools.  Belgium has a total population of 11.14 million people; the USA has 313.9 million.  That they could field a clearly superior team says a lot about the state of US soccer.  "Some work to do yet" is the grandest understatement you could say for what should be a phenomenal sporting nation.

Maybe it really isn't our game.  A lot of US fans keep focusing on the "grit" and "heart" of the team.  That doesn't win soccer games.  Goals do.  Belgium had zero "grit" or "heart" measurements going, but they sure had a lot more "talent" and "skill."  Another (unfortunate) part of the game is the ability to draw the foul, which the US is just terrible at doing.  We fail when it comes to the things that are required to win games, as the team itself proved to us.  A lucky late win against Ghana, a pathetic lay down against Portugal, a clearly outclassed side against both Germany and Belgium.  If I was Jermaine Jones, I would be begging for a spot on Germany's team.  Tim Howard deserves better, maybe a Dutch passport.  Tim Howard is the one shining star in an otherwise bleak and dark hole of infinite heartbreak.

After every disappointing World Cup, I tell myself I'm just not going to care anymore.  But I can't help it.  I get sucked back in by "hope" and "undying spirit" and all that.  But that doesn't win World Cups.  I want to be the team that can compete to win the Cup, not the team that gets to play every four years.  Participation Badges are worthless.  All that matters is winning.

And we just don't win.

I hope the new coach guts the team and starts over.  I hope the nation decides it needs to step up and provide the talent it takes to win.  I hope, just like all Americans.  Too bad "hope" is all we have.

[jonts26]

Maybe it really isn't our game.  A lot of US fans keep focusing on the "grit" and "heart" of the team.  That doesn't win soccer games.  Goals do.  Belgium had zero "grit" or "heart" measurements going, but they sure had a lot more "talent" and "skill." 

Grit and heart don't win US centric games either, despite what so many people will say. Talent and skill win baseball games, and (american) football games, and basketball games... The emphasis on grit and heart is a media tactic to create narrative and get viewership. And I don't think this is purely a US thing. Listening to foreign soccer commentators you often hear crap about heart. Anyway this is not at all important for your main point, it's just a thing which irks me.

[soulnet]

I do not believe we are one of the best 16 teams in the world, not after every minute of soccer we played after Ronaldo made us look like fools.  Belgium has a total population of 11.14 million people; the USA has 313.9 million.  That they could field a clearly superior team says a lot about the state of US soccer.  "Some work to do yet" is the grandest understatement you could say for what should be a phenomenal sporting nation.

If you want to feel happier about success in football / total population, start comparing your team with China's or India's.

Listening to foreign soccer commentators you often hear crap about heart.

Definitely true.

Maybe the problem is that in the US they insist to call football to something that is played primarily with the hands?

[2.71828.....]

Maybe the problem is that in the US they insist to call football to something that is played primarily with the hands?

yes

[yuma]

Those are all fair points ash... But... how do you expect to find talent?

The current problem in the US is that there are too many potential soccer players who get sucked in at age 5 to either basketball or football or baseball and they devote hours of time to it mini-camps, etc, etc, etc and never hear or see soccer at all. It isn't something that they are exposed to except maybe on a rec team level during their sport's offseason. As a result your talent pool is shrunk.

So how do you build your talent pool. That is what the last 20 years has been all about. Look at the progress the US has made in those 20 years. We used to be a never qualify for the World Cup team, now we are arguably the best in CONCACAF. Why? Because of the domestic league. The domestic league attracts those 5 year olds who go to games and decide that they want to play soccer. The talent pool increases, you have a better selection to choose from and your players get better overall and you start to make it further in the tournament.

No one expected the US to win the World Cup--even Klinsmann said that. What we wanted was to maintain the hype longer so that more people would start sending their kids to soccer camps and improve the depth of quality talent in a sport which you can excel at and not have to be a freak specimen like you do in football or basketball... plenty of 5'9" guys running around out there.

I know you aren't state side but this world Cup was huge on a publicity level. It--and the one before it--are attracting that talent that you need. Kids who might never have considered soccer before are now going to be playing it. Yes, it will take 8 years for them to get there, but the same thing happened in 2002 and now you have Yedlin and those other young players coming up who are really exciting. But you can't just gut the team of veterans because then the team will just collapse and not qualify and there will be no hype and no build up and kids will just go back to playing football and basketball.

So the US did get outclassed by their opponents for the most part, but their recruiters don't have to battle against football and basketball the same way--another reason I love that both sports are becoming more popular in Europe.

You want instant results, I want progress. I am seeing progress. I see it when I go to the Real Salt Lake stadium in a state that I thought a few years ago would never accept a professional soccer team. It is awesome!

And we are one of the top 16. Getting into the round of 16 twice in two world cups isn't something to shake your head at.

[soulnet]

Buenos Aires at the time of the goal

[ashersky]

You know what I'd love to see?  An American Idol tryout style road show.

Like, the coach and some USMNT players go around to some cities around the countries, set up open tryouts, and let folks show their stuff.  Maybe you get one player that you've never heard of, but you drum up excitement, publicity, etc.  It worked for the Eagles that one time, where they signed Mark Wahlberg. Maybe you find that guy who plays on a dirt field in Arkansas that no one has ever heard of.

I get that we are in development, and I'm excited about some of the younger guys.  I thought Devlin looked great.  You are absolutely right that the "more popular" US sports hurt the available talent pool for soccer -- you see it with baseball players who play basketball, etc.

Where the MLS is now, miles ahead of where it was when I was living full time in the US.  I'm nominally a Columbus Crew fan, given I'm from Ohio originally and I've attended a game and Brian McBride played there.  I think drawing in old stars from Europe helped hype in the beginning, but cheapens the league now (see Sydney FC's Del Piero experiement here).  I do love that a majority of the US team plays in the US.

We'll see where we are in 4 years.  I'm sure it'll be in Qatar, probably in another group of death.  But I'm going to be bitterly sad for the next week or two no matter what, and I'm going to be overly annoyed at the silly positive memes going around about "believe" and "hope" and "thank you heroes" and the like.

[ashersky]

I will say, the fanatic optimism of Australians about their chances at the World Cup was both refreshing and silly.  Over half the population believed Australia would win the World Cup.  Not win a game, win the CUP.

They really got behind their team, who I think really represented themselves and their country well.

[nkirbit]

We'll see where we are in 4 years.  I'm sure it'll be in Qatar, probably in another group of death.  But I'm going to be bitterly sad for the next week or two no matter what, and I'm going to be overly annoyed at the silly positive memes going around about "believe" and "hope" and "thank you heroes" and the like.

Qatar isn't until 2022.. 2018 is in Russia.

Bummer that the U.S. lost, was an entertaining game though.

[Polk5440]

Belgium has a total population of 11.14 million people; the USA has 313.9 million.  That they could field a clearly superior team says a lot about the state of US soccer.

A big part of it is that soccer is just not popular in the US.

If you are a great athlete (think extreme right tail of general athletic ability/potential), what do you play? Probably (American) football, baseball, basketball, or possibly even golf before you play soccer. What kind of potential talent does that leave soccer?

If you're a college, where are you going to pour your athletic dollars? Into buying great soccer coaches at the expense of the popular sports? Probably not.

Even high school participation rates are lower for soccer.

[Twistedarcher]

It sucks that we loss, but this was another solid performance. We are not a top 8 team in the world and are probably not a top 16 team (but are close). Getting this far was a success, not a failure.

We do well at world cups for not having a solid domestic league. It's really remarkable honestly. We have made it to the knockout stage 3 out of the last 4 world cups, and are in good company there.

I'm not really expecting us to compete for a place in the semifinals or beyond any time in the next 20 years but am looking forward to seeing us compete in 4 years.

[Twistedarcher]

Maybe it really isn't our game.  A lot of US fans keep focusing on the "grit" and "heart" of the team.  That doesn't win soccer games.  Goals do.  Belgium had zero "grit" or "heart" measurements going, but they sure had a lot more "talent" and "skill." 

Grit and heart don't win US centric games either, despite what so many people will say. Talent and skill win baseball games, and (american) football games, and basketball games... The emphasis on grit and heart is a media tactic to create narrative and get viewership. And I don't think this is purely a US thing. Listening to foreign soccer commentators you often hear crap about heart. Anyway this is not at all important for your main point, it's just a thing which irks me.

Grit and heart don't, but solid defensive shape does and good finishing of minimal chances does, and these things are commonly described using words like grit and heart.

[Davio]

Belgium has a total population of 11.14 million people; the USA has 313.9 million.  That they could field a clearly superior team says a lot about the state of US soccer.

A big part of it is that soccer is just not popular in the US.

If you are a great athlete (think extreme right tail of general athletic ability/potential), what do you play? Probably (American) football, baseball, basketball, or possibly even golf before you play soccer. What kind of potential talent does that leave soccer?

If you're a college, where are you going to pour your athletic dollars? Into buying great soccer coaches at the expense of the popular sports? Probably not.

Even high school participation rates are lower for soccer.

It's a bit of a chicken and egg discussion.

As long as USA doesn't perform exceptionally well in football (not soccer) over a longer period of time, there won't be a lot of interest for it. And as long as there isn't a lot of interest, you won't have good players. It takes a lot of effort and money to break this circle and build something from the ground up.

And look at what football has to compete with in the USA! You can get like a 5 million dollar contract by being the 32nd substitute for a mediocre American football team or 1 million dollar by being the top striker in the MLS.

In the Netherlands about 1.5 million people are actively playing football! That's a lot given our population of 17 million! If we only count eligible people (healthy people from say 5yrs to 40yrs) , that's about 20%! And we're still counting women, who are usually not so interested in playing football.

So you could say that roughly 1 out of every 4 boys and men plays football. That's just such a huge amount.
It's much easier to find good players if football is such a big part of a country's culture than when it's treated as a third grade sport.

[ipofanes]

Maybe it really isn't our game.  A lot of US fans keep focusing on the "grit" and "heart" of the team.  That doesn't win soccer games.  Goals do.  Belgium had zero "grit" or "heart" measurements going, but they sure had a lot more "talent" and "skill." 

Grit and heart don't win US centric games either, despite what so many people will say. Talent and skill win baseball games, and (american) football games, and basketball games... The emphasis on grit and heart is a media tactic to create narrative and get viewership. And I don't think this is purely a US thing. Listening to foreign soccer commentators you often hear crap about heart. Anyway this is not at all important for your main point, it's just a thing which irks me.

Grit and heart count a lot towards success. A top tier team playing at 80 per cent will have a hard time against a lower-ranked team playing at 110 per cent. This is what keeps national elimination tournaments interesting. In the most recent German DFB Pokal tournament, 3 out of 32 games were won by the team playing 2 leages below the losing team.

[greatexpectations]

Grit and heart count a lot towards success. A top tier team playing at 80 per cent will have a hard time against a lower-ranked team playing at 110 per cent. This is what keeps national elimination tournaments interesting. In the most recent German DFB Pokal tournament, 3 out of 32 games were won by the team playing 2 leages below the losing team.

sorry but that really doesn't mean much when it comes to 'grit' and 'heart'. top level teams rarely play their strongest side in their domestic cups until quite near the end, especially when facing lower tier teams. even then the true talent level differences between the teams and the manager's tactics probably allows for a small percent of lower tier teams to win their matches anyway.

[DG]

You don't really give much value to grit and heart until you see your team play without it. If you look back at the shock defeats for defending champions, it isn't a lack of quality that sees them lose, it is always due to grit and heart.

[Teproc]

Grit and heart are not what wins championships, but they are what wins World Cups.

[Davio]

You need a lot of luck too!

If that guy from Chile would have shot the ball on the crossbar a few inches lower, Brazil would have been out!

[2.71828.....]

You need a lot of luck too!

If that guy from Chile would have shot the ball on the crossbar a few inches lower, Brazil would have been out!

Or had Wondolowski just put the ball on frame.....wait, that wouldn't have been luck, that would have been skill.


yeah, I am a bitter American

[ashersky]

You need a lot of luck too!

If that guy from Chile would have shot the ball on the crossbar a few inches lower, Brazil would have been out!

Or had Wondolowski just put the ball on frame.....wait, that wouldn't have been luck, that would have been skill.


yeah, I am a bitter American

A million times this.  On the bright side, that shot him way past Bradley as my least favorite player of all time.

[jonts26]

You need a lot of luck too!

If that guy from Chile would have shot the ball on the crossbar a few inches lower, Brazil would have been out!

Or had Wondolowski just put the ball on frame.....wait, that wouldn't have been luck, that would have been skill.

The question of why Wondolowski missed that shot is an interesting one. And the answer really can't be solely due to lack of skill. The shot he attempted certainly isn't super easy, but easy enough that any professional player should make it a decent amount of the time. But no player is probably good enough to make it 100%. If Wondolowski is more skilled, he makes that shot more often, and maybe makes it in that specific circumstance, but what accounts for the times one misses it then? Well we could go the 'heart' route. He crumbled under the pressure, or didn't want enough, whatever that means. I'm considering making an RSP post on that particular subject. But even if heart is a real thing, it's not enough to make up the rest of the percentage. A highly skilled player, with all the heart in the world, will still miss that shot a small percentage of the time. So what's left to call that missing percentage other than luck? Luck is very very real in sports. It's hard, maybe impossible, to fully separate from skill, but it's there.

[DG]

Experience, composure, confidence is why he missed that shot. Someone from one of top nations would knock the ball into the net just like all his countrymen have done in world cups before him. He wouldn't be dreaming of that chance, he would be waiting for that chance as he knows his team are good enough to create it.

[jonts26]

So no good player from a top team has ever missed a shot like that?

[Davio]

Sure, it's all percentages.

A good player might make a certain shot like 95% of the time and I would only make it like 5%.
You need to hit the ball on the perfect spot with the perfect part of your shoe to be really accurate.
The less skilled a player, the higher his "standard deviation" for both is.
And a cm off 20 meters away could be a meter when it arrives at the goal.

[ipofanes]

top level teams rarely play their strongest side in their domestic cups until quite near the end, especially when facing lower tier teams. even then the true talent level differences between the teams and the manager's tactics probably allows for a small percent of lower tier teams to win their matches anyway.

Here's the Bayern München lineup in their first round 2013/14 at fourth-tier team BSV Rehden which they won 0:5 (0:2):

Neuer - Rafinha, v. Buyten, Dante, Alaba - Schweinsteiger - Kroos, Robben, Shaqiri - Müller, Mandzukic

I'd call that as close to their strongest side as it can get. I didn't watch the match but two yellow cards indicate they were not slacking this one.