2018 World Cup

[dal4018]

How is this for a fantasy final USA vs USSR the cold war all over again ???

[DSUrocks07]

Greece won the 2004 Euro final playing very much like what you saw from the US last night. Plenty of teams win by playing defense and getting offense from countering. But is this really that much different from other sports? Don't we talk about parity in the NFL all the time?

Had that final shot gone in very few would be questioning it.

The story would read "US takes the punches, buys time and delivers late KO"

Foreman "dominated" Ali in their fight too...

[GannonFan]

Extra points for the difficulty of landing that one GF.

"Record versus Mexico through the '90's: 5 wins, 28 losses, 9 ties"

and Harvard has how many DI football National Championships through 2013? Not exactly sure what games from 1930-1989 have to do with this. The USMNT was 3-1-3 vs Mexico from 94-97... the relative period in question. You're not making a very strong case here for "light years" (Jon's words) or "throttle" (yours).

So the difference in winning percentage in the 90's (note, just that decade) versus since 2000 (i.e the 14 years up to now) is negligible? What is that, like a 53% improvement? You're starting to lose your balance as you tiptoe around the reams of data that assail your position while you cling to the threads that support it. Shouldn't you be coming home from dinner now anway - I thought old people were done dinner by now. Isn't it bedtime soon?

[CAA Flagship]

This is the problem with the sport. We were "completely dominated" but only lost by 1 goal in each game. You hardly see that in other sports.

Greece won the 2004 Euro final playing very much like what you saw from the US last night. Plenty of teams win by playing defense and getting offense from countering. But is this really that much different from other sports? Don't we talk about parity in the NFL all the time?

There are plenty of times where the play in the game is not reflective of the score in many sports. But when the average score in professional soccer games is a total of 3 goals (2014 WC is under 3), a team that is "dominated" is often still in the game in the final minutes. More so than in any other sport it seems. It makes for a tense finish but lacks the display of offensive skills by the players. Less scoring also creates less stars no matter what the sport. There is likely a lot of hidden talent on soccer rosters because they are not the team's leading scorer. IMO, soccer can have tremendous growth in the US with some tweaks. Without tweaks, it goes to the back burner for another 4 years (and that is only if the US qualifies).

[Grizalltheway]

The more you watch and understand the game, the more able you are to recognize contributions from players who don't necessarily score a lot of goals. It takes a lot of work and skill from every player on the field to set one up, and it's very rare that a single player is able to take over and win a game.

[BDKJMU]

Greece won the 2004 Euro final playing very much like what you saw from the US last night. Plenty of teams win by playing defense and getting offense from countering. But is this really that much different from other sports? Don't we talk about parity in the NFL all the time?

There are plenty of times where the play in the game is not reflective of the score in many sports. But when the average score in professional soccer games is a total of 3 goals (2014 WC is under 3), a team that is "dominated" is often still in the game in the final minutes. More so than in any other sport it seems. It makes for a tense finish but lacks the display of offensive skills by the players. Less scoring also creates less stars no matter what the sport. There is likely a lot of hidden talent on soccer rosters because they are not the team's leading scorer. IMO, soccer can have tremendous growth in the US with some tweaks. Without tweaks, it goes to the back burner for another 4 years (and that is only if the US qualifies).

That probably is the #1 reason why soccer will remain #5 in the pro sports ratings of NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS. In football when you get 2 great offenses and 2 bad defenses with an Arena Ball like score, no one complains it's boring. But when you get 2 great defenses and 2 bad offenses with very low scoring people complain it's boring. Americans lack of tolerance for low scoring has gotten worse over the last several decades. Low scoring = boring (a mentality I don't agree with) ain't gonna change in today's short attention span, instant gratification society. Could you imagine if the NFL avg less than 3 TDs per game?

21.7 million viewers last night (16.5 million ESPN, 5.1 million Univision). About 7% of the 318 million US population. The majority who watched last night's game probably won't watch another televised soccer game for the next close to 4 years until World Cup 2018.

[tribe_pride]

There are plenty of times where the play in the game is not reflective of the score in many sports. But when the average score in professional soccer games is a total of 3 goals (2014 WC is under 3), a team that is "dominated" is often still in the game in the final minutes. More so than in any other sport it seems. It makes for a tense finish but lacks the display of offensive skills by the players. Less scoring also creates less stars no matter what the sport. There is likely a lot of hidden talent on soccer rosters because they are not the team's leading scorer. IMO, soccer can have tremendous growth in the US with some tweaks. Without tweaks, it goes to the back burner for another 4 years (and that is only if the US qualifies).

That probably is the #1 reason why soccer will remain #5 in the pro sports ratings of NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS. In football when you get 2 great offenses and 2 bad defenses with an Arena Ball like score, no one complains it's boring. But when you get 2 great defenses and 2 bad offenses with very low scoring people complain it's boring. Americans lack of tolerance for low scoring has gotten worse over the last several decades. Low scoring = boring (a mentality I don't agree with) ain't gonna change in today's short attention span, instant gratification society. Could you imagine if the NFL avg less than 3 TDs per game?

21.7 million viewers last night (16.5 million ESPN, 5.1 million Univision). About 7% of the 318 million US population. The majority who watched last night's game probably won't watch another televised soccer game for the next close to 4 years until World Cup 2018.

Remember that the game was at 4:00 on the East Coast and 1:00 on the West Coast on a weekday so there are a good number who couldn't watch.

Agreed though that many will not watch much more but if the past few weeks captures some more viewers for MLS, EPL and International games over the next few years, that is good.

There are 2 things that the numbers do not include which could significantly increase the amount viewers.

The viewership totals are incomplete because Nielsen does not measure any viewing at bars, restaurants, offices, or other out-of-home locations. [THIS INCLUDES VARIOUS CITIES' WATCH PARTIES]

...

Online streaming also adds to the totals. ESPN said that its live stream via the WatchESPN app averaged 1.1 million viewers during the match. "WatchESPN also averaged 3,500,000 unique viewers and 190,200,000 minutes viewed during the match, both records for the platform," the network said in a press release.

http://www.kitv.com/money/20-million-wa ... 336#!7vpP9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CAA Flagship]

That probably is the #1 reason why soccer will remain #5 in the pro sports ratings of NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS. In football when you get 2 great offenses and 2 bad defenses with an Arena Ball like score, no one complains it's boring. But when you get 2 great defenses and 2 bad offenses with very low scoring people complain it's boring. Americans lack of tolerance for low scoring has gotten worse over the last several decades. Low scoring = boring (a mentality I don't agree with) ain't gonna change in today's short attention span, instant gratification society. Could you imagine if the NFL avg less than 3 TDs per game?

21.7 million viewers last night (16.5 million ESPN, 5.1 million Univision). About 7% of the 318 million US population. The majority who watched last night's game probably won't watch another televised soccer game for the next close to 4 years until World Cup 2018.

Remember that the game was at 4:00 on the East Coast and 1:00 on the West Coast on a weekday so there are a good number who couldn't watch.

Agreed though that many will not watch much more but if the past few weeks captures some more viewers for MLS, EPL and International games over the next few years, that is good.

There are 2 things that the numbers do not include which could significantly increase the amount viewers.

The viewership totals are incomplete because Nielsen does not measure any viewing at bars, restaurants, offices, or other out-of-home locations. [THIS INCLUDES VARIOUS CITIES' WATCH PARTIES]

...

Online streaming also adds to the totals. ESPN said that its live stream via the WatchESPN app averaged 1.1 million viewers during the match. "WatchESPN also averaged 3,500,000 unique viewers and 190,200,000 minutes viewed during the match, both records for the platform," the network said in a press release.

http://www.kitv.com/money/20-million-wa ... 336#!7vpP9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Absolutely there were more viewers. But how many because of patriotic reasons? It could be 100 million viewers but it is only comparable to a couple of sporting events, if any.

But that does not matter anyway. Soccer is whiffing at success in America, while holding the blueprints drawn by the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, NASCAR, and the PGA. It's a shame because the soccer athletes and fans are as passionate about soccer as athletes and fans of the other sports are.

[CAA Flagship]

The more you watch and understand the game, the more able you are to recognize contributions from players who don't necessarily score a lot of goals. It takes a lot of work and skill from every player on the field to set one up, and it's very rare that a single player is able to take over and win a game.

As a sports fan, I completely agree. But as an investor, I'm not buying in to the same old strategy when other sports have proven track records using a different approach.

[BDKJMU]

That probably is the #1 reason why soccer will remain #5 in the pro sports ratings of NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS. In football when you get 2 great offenses and 2 bad defenses with an Arena Ball like score, no one complains it's boring. But when you get 2 great defenses and 2 bad offenses with very low scoring people complain it's boring. Americans lack of tolerance for low scoring has gotten worse over the last several decades. Low scoring = boring (a mentality I don't agree with) ain't gonna change in today's short attention span, instant gratification society. Could you imagine if the NFL avg less than 3 TDs per game?

21.7 million viewers last night (16.5 million ESPN, 5.1 million Univision). About 7% of the 318 million US population. The majority who watched last night's game probably won't watch another televised soccer game for the next close to 4 years until World Cup 2018.

Remember that the game was at 4:00 on the East Coast and 1:00 on the West Coast on a weekday so there are a good number who couldn't watch.

Agreed though that many will not watch much more but if the past few weeks captures some more viewers for MLS, EPL and International games over the next few years, that is good.

There are 2 things that the numbers do not include which could significantly increase the amount viewers.

The viewership totals are incomplete because Nielsen does not measure any viewing at bars, restaurants, offices, or other out-of-home locations. [THIS INCLUDES VARIOUS CITIES' WATCH PARTIES]

...

Online streaming also adds to the totals. ESPN said that its live stream via the WatchESPN app averaged 1.1 million viewers during the match. "WatchESPN also averaged 3,500,000 unique viewers and 190,200,000 minutes viewed during the match, both records for the platform," the network said in a press release.

http://www.kitv.com/money/20-million-wa ... 336#!7vpP9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure there was way more viewers. But still the majority were watching for patriotic, social, curiousity, etc reasons and won't be watching again till 2018.

As far as the foreign leagues, they're not going to attract beyond the hardcore soccer fans. Most people need a home city/stae/region team in 'Merica' to root for. Where cities/regions come together to root for THEIR home team, that's covered on the local media, news, sportstalk, etc. That's shown in the local watering holes, talked about at water coolers and in the neighborhood. That excites a whole city/region. That' would have to come through the MLS. Its not going to through foreign teams.

[tribe_pride]

I agree with you guys that a lot of it is for patriotic reasons (and even acknowledged in my comment above that many would not continue to watch) but if we are not going to be able to attract the best talent to play here in the US (and we cannot because we cannot afford it and the strong roots are so deep In Europe (but mostly money reasons)), why should soccer want to change when the people where the talent is really like how the game is played?

As for viewership and as described in the other thread, EPL drew only about an average of 100,000 fewer viewers per game on NBCSN's first year of showing games than NHL does and only 200-250k (I believe) fewer than the average NBA game. I am not expecting it to compete. Just expecting that it will grow to a degree.

As for MLS, they are averaging about 150-200k total (about 1/2-1/3 of EPL viewership) per game on tv. That may grow too but MLS talent is not the best in the world unlike the NBA, NHL, and NFL. It's tough to compete when the top players are playing elsewhere. That said, for home attendance, in 2013, Seattle averaged 44,000+ and MLS averaged attendance per game greater than NHL or NBA (though over fewer games so lower total attendance obviously)

[Skjellyfetti]

Good read on the problems with US soccer.

Until the player development system in the United States receives a major overhaul, the nation of seemingly endless resources and population will continue to fall short of its immense potential at the World Cup. That system, not a lack of talent or one coach at the senior national team level, is what holds the USA back from winning.

Before taking over as United States manager, working as a television analyst for ESPN during the 2010 tournament, Jürgen Klinsmann spoke about the development problems.

“You are the only country in the world that has the pyramid upside-down,” he said in his post mortem on the US’s World Cup exit against Ghana. “You pay for having your kid play soccer because your goal is not that your kid becomes a professional soccer player – because your goal is that your kid gets a scholarship in a high school or in a college, which is completely opposite from the rest of the world.”

The pay-to-play system still persistent at all levels of the American youth game is immensely crippling. Without money to pay for club fees, coaches, uniform costs and travel, players from lower-class backgrounds and immigrant families are often left behind. Equal opportunity still does not exist for anybody who wants to play.

In the US Soccer Development Academy, which was instituted in 2007 to encompass the nation in a higher level of competition at the oldest youth age groups, pay-to-play is slowly being eliminated, particularly among Major League Soccer clubs.

Still, youth clubs have no incentive for developing players for those clubs because they do not receive fees, in line with Fifa’s statutes on the transfer of youth players; the trickle-down effect from clubs that have money is nonexistent. The structure does nothing to reward excellence or punish failure.

At the highest levels, the pyramid is not only upside-down but also closed to all but a select few. MLS is a single-entity structure that allows no true free agency and places emphasis on carry-overs, in particular a reliance on the university system, from other American sports not subject to global forces, such as basketball and American football.

The discussion of instituting a system of promotion and relegation has become taboo to the point that suggesting it is a quick way to be labelled as an unrealistic radical. Instead of promoting competition and the arms race of player development that would follow, the league’s successes (and failures) are shared among all clubs, watering down the essence of a true football pyramid and never allowing ambition to flourish beyond the lowest common denominator.

Ironically, in a nation founded on ideals of free-market capitalism, the current system requires as little financial commitment as possible and discourages teams in the same league from competing for resources. American players at the World Cup are handicapped because they grow up in an environment not subject to the same forces of competition that forges players for their opponents.

Blaming the coach is shallow scapegoating that ignores the larger problem: by the time Klinsmann got his hands on the 23 players who wore the crest in Brazil, the majority had already been ruined.

Just before the World Cup, Klinsmann was handed a four-year contract extension that added the label of technical director to his duties. To this point, he has been outspoken about the changes that need to be made. Now that he holds the steering wheel, people in positions of support must let him make changes to the broken system whose product he is responsible for coaching.

Look no further than the team who knocked the US out on Tuesday for an example of the possibilities. With the profits from hosting Euro 2000, Belgium overhauled their development system to spawn the golden generation still kicking in Brazil. It can be done – and it can be done quickly.

The first step is for those in charge to buy into the real reason for change: footballing improvement, not economic windfall. Profits come as a result of the product on the field, but trying to circumvent the order will not win the US a World Cup.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ystem.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BDKJMU]

Oh, stupid me. I thought we gauged the USMNT team success by actual international play. Didn't realize we just needed to ficticiously beat historic USMNT to be making light year type progress. I'll pipe down now.

BTW, a lot of young people hate soccer too jackass.

You're the one that asked if we were any better now versus 1994. If you didn't care, why ask?

Hey, here's the numbers:

USMNT record in 90's: 72 wins, 75 losses, 52 draws - winning percentage 0.362
USMNT record since 2000: 138 wins, 64 losses, 47 draws - winning percentage 0.554

And to add to the info that tribe gave that you also skipped or dismissed regarding our ascendency in our own region (a region we couldn't qualify out of for 40 straight years)

Record versus Mexico through the '90's: 5 wins, 28 losses, 9 ties
Record versus Mexico since 2000: 12 wins, 5 losses, 5 ties

Doesn't really look much the same to me, but you know, I'm apparently a jackass for daring to answer your question differently than you had already pre-supposed.

That qualifying sh*t matters to the hardcore soccer fans, but none of it matters to the masses in the US who watch a few US games every 4 years. Here's what they see:
-the team made it the same distance they made it in 1994 and 2010.
-they didn't make it as far as they did in 2002.

The masses in the US aren't going to recognize a huge improvement until the team makes it further than has before, and that is the semis. All this arguement about improvement based on qualifying games versus a bunch of 2nd-3rd world Central American countries is pissing in the wind vis a vi the masses. Make the qtrs in 2018, and to the masses it's "Well, they're saying we already did that way back in 2002." And the masses in the US aren't going to recognize the US as a world power until we win one, or at least make the final. And that might or might not happen in our lifetime.

[tribe_pride]

You're the one that asked if we were any better now versus 1994. If you didn't care, why ask?

Hey, here's the numbers:

USMNT record in 90's: 72 wins, 75 losses, 52 draws - winning percentage 0.362
USMNT record since 2000: 138 wins, 64 losses, 47 draws - winning percentage 0.554

And to add to the info that tribe gave that you also skipped or dismissed regarding our ascendency in our own region (a region we couldn't qualify out of for 40 straight years)

Record versus Mexico through the '90's: 5 wins, 28 losses, 9 ties
Record versus Mexico since 2000: 12 wins, 5 losses, 5 ties

Doesn't really look much the same to me, but you know, I'm apparently a jackass for daring to answer your question differently than you had already pre-supposed.

That qualifying sh*t matters to the hardcore soccer fans, but none of it matters to the masses in the US who watch a few US games every 4 years. Here's what they see:
-the team made it the same distance they made it in 1994 and 2010.
-they didn't make it as far as they did in 2002.

The masses in the US aren't going to recognize a huge improvement until the team makes it further than has before, and that is the semis. All this arguement about improvement based on qualifying games versus a bunch of 2nd-3rd world Central American countries is pissing in the wind vis a vi the masses. Make the qtrs in 2018, and to the masses it's "Well, they're saying we already did that way back in 2002." And the masses in the US aren't going to recognize the US as a world power until we win one, or at least make the final. And that might or might not happen in our lifetime.

You just changed what the argument is about with your above comments. Nobody was arguing that the masses who don't follow soccer would look at the results of 1994 and 2010/2014 and make a certain comparison.

The argument that is being made is that the US team is a stronger team by a lot now than they were in 1994. If you look at the facts that have been laid out by those arguing that my previous statement is true, you will see that the argument is correct. The USMNT has improved a ton since 1994 as shown by the huge collection of results. When you look at individual games or only a small group of 3-5 games especially when the games are against different teams, you can never make a good statistical comparison. That is why looking at a larger range is important.

[GannonFan]

Good read on the problems with US soccer.

Until the player development system in the United States receives a major overhaul, the nation of seemingly endless resources and population will continue to fall short of its immense potential at the World Cup. That system, not a lack of talent or one coach at the senior national team level, is what holds the USA back from winning.

Before taking over as United States manager, working as a television analyst for ESPN during the 2010 tournament, Jürgen Klinsmann spoke about the development problems.

“You are the only country in the world that has the pyramid upside-down,” he said in his post mortem on the US’s World Cup exit against Ghana. “You pay for having your kid play soccer because your goal is not that your kid becomes a professional soccer player – because your goal is that your kid gets a scholarship in a high school or in a college, which is completely opposite from the rest of the world.”

The pay-to-play system still persistent at all levels of the American youth game is immensely crippling. Without money to pay for club fees, coaches, uniform costs and travel, players from lower-class backgrounds and immigrant families are often left behind. Equal opportunity still does not exist for anybody who wants to play.

In the US Soccer Development Academy, which was instituted in 2007 to encompass the nation in a higher level of competition at the oldest youth age groups, pay-to-play is slowly being eliminated, particularly among Major League Soccer clubs.

Still, youth clubs have no incentive for developing players for those clubs because they do not receive fees, in line with Fifa’s statutes on the transfer of youth players; the trickle-down effect from clubs that have money is nonexistent. The structure does nothing to reward excellence or punish failure.

At the highest levels, the pyramid is not only upside-down but also closed to all but a select few. MLS is a single-entity structure that allows no true free agency and places emphasis on carry-overs, in particular a reliance on the university system, from other American sports not subject to global forces, such as basketball and American football.

The discussion of instituting a system of promotion and relegation has become taboo to the point that suggesting it is a quick way to be labelled as an unrealistic radical. Instead of promoting competition and the arms race of player development that would follow, the league’s successes (and failures) are shared among all clubs, watering down the essence of a true football pyramid and never allowing ambition to flourish beyond the lowest common denominator.

Ironically, in a nation founded on ideals of free-market capitalism, the current system requires as little financial commitment as possible and discourages teams in the same league from competing for resources. American players at the World Cup are handicapped because they grow up in an environment not subject to the same forces of competition that forges players for their opponents.

Blaming the coach is shallow scapegoating that ignores the larger problem: by the time Klinsmann got his hands on the 23 players who wore the crest in Brazil, the majority had already been ruined.

Just before the World Cup, Klinsmann was handed a four-year contract extension that added the label of technical director to his duties. To this point, he has been outspoken about the changes that need to be made. Now that he holds the steering wheel, people in positions of support must let him make changes to the broken system whose product he is responsible for coaching.

Look no further than the team who knocked the US out on Tuesday for an example of the possibilities. With the profits from hosting Euro 2000, Belgium overhauled their development system to spawn the golden generation still kicking in Brazil. It can be done – and it can be done quickly.

The first step is for those in charge to buy into the real reason for change: footballing improvement, not economic windfall. Profits come as a result of the product on the field, but trying to circumvent the order will not win the US a World Cup.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ystem.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The bolded part is important. Just in the last 2-3 years there's been a real big swell of kids participating in the academies that the MLS clubs have. That means you have kids practicing and playing for those academies, at no charge, while then also playing for their home soccer club. So they get regular training and access to very good coaches and it doesn't cost them a dime. And like I said, it's only just been getting off the ground recently and it's already seeing a huge response in terms of the number of kids doing it and the results of the teams that form out of those academies. That's the kind of stuff that will increase the quality of players being developed domestically over the next 10 years.

[89Hen]

Extra points for the difficulty of landing that one GF.

"Record versus Mexico through the '90's: 5 wins, 28 losses, 9 ties"

and Harvard has how many DI football National Championships through 2013? Not exactly sure what games from 1930-1989 have to do with this. The USMNT was 3-1-3 vs Mexico from 94-97... the relative period in question. You're not making a very strong case here for "light years" (Jon's words) or "throttle" (yours).

So the difference in winning percentage in the 90's (note, just that decade) versus since 2000 (i.e the 14 years up to now) is negligible? What is that, like a 53% improvement?

Without googling the USMNT game records and plowing through the data, I'm going to guess yes, it's negligible. I'm guessing a nice chunk of the losses of the decade were early 90's. I'm also guessing a large portion of the games are friendlies, which are meaningless. I do know this year they are 4-1-1 in friendlies and 1-2-1 in games that matter.

[89Hen]

Agreed though that many will not watch much more but if the past few weeks captures some more viewers for MLS, EPL and International games over the next few years, that is good.

Yes and yes. This should help interest, but not a big jump.

[89Hen]

That qualifying sh*t matters to the hardcore soccer fans, but none of it matters to the masses in the US who watch a few US games every 4 years. Here's what they see:
-the team made it the same distance they made it in 1994 and 2010.
-they didn't make it as far as they did in 2002.

The masses in the US aren't going to recognize a huge improvement until the team makes it further than has before, and that is the semis. All this arguement about improvement based on qualifying games versus a bunch of 2nd-3rd world Central American countries is pissing in the wind vis a vi the masses. Make the qtrs in 2018, and to the masses it's "Well, they're saying we already did that way back in 2002." And the masses in the US aren't going to recognize the US as a world power until we win one, or at least make the final. And that might or might not happen in our lifetime.

I'm one of the masses, albeit in the top 10% of the masses.

[GannonFan]

The Brits love talking about US soccer. Here's an article from the BBC on why we're going to take over the world.

The United States did better than expected at this year's World Cup. But experts say that's just the beginning - bright times are ahead for the USA team.
It was called the Group of Death - Team USA's seeding for the 2014 World Cup saw them up against tough competition, with many analysts predicting the Americans would get pummelled from the first kick-off.
But they exceeded expectations by making it through to the knockout round, and losing 2-1 to Belgium in extra-time.
Although they got further in 2002, reaching the last eight, this time the team's never-say-die spirit earned them plaudits from across the football world.
Don't mistake this strong showing for a bit of dumb luck. Analysts say the US will be a serious competitor in future World Cup tournaments.
There are three factors necessary for football success, according to 'Soccernomics: Why England Loses, Why Spain, Germany, and Brazil Win, and Why the US, Japan, Australia - and Even Iraq - Are Destined to Become the Kings of the World's Most Popular Sport'.
Those factors are a big population, a strong economy, and a fervent fan base. For years, the US has had two out of three - a big population from which to draw top talent and the money to support a training infrastructure and elite football community. But with little interest from most Americans, talented athletes and top dollars went elsewhere.
In terms of football, the USA "was missing the know-how", says Simon Kuper, the book's co-author. "It was quite low, but it has risen very rapidly."
And thanks to the following five factors, the US can count on rising football fortunes.
1. Development
Until very recently, Team USA had a specific way for cultivating stars. "We would identify them at a young age and send them to a place called the residency program," says George Quraishi, founder and editor of the football magazine Howler.
From ages 14-18, the players would live together, train together and play together. It was an expensive proposition, and a risky one.
"It was basically saying we are going to place a bet on these players," says Quraishi, and stick with them throughout their careers.
Now the US has a system more like Europe's. Promising youth play in development squads for Major League Soccer (MLS) teams, creating a dynamic, deep pool of talent.
2. Recruitment
US coach Jurgen Klinsmann has made a big push to recruit American players raised in football-strong countries such as Germany.
Jermaine Jones, who scored against Portugal, is one of those recruits, and has been singled out by Klinsmann for the professional edge he brings to the team - something he gained by competing at an elite level in Germany for years.
"An American who lived in the US and developed here, likely went to college and was playing at a low level at the age of 22, when Jermaine Jones had been scrapping and playing against professional players since he was 16," says Quraishi.
And due to the growth of MLS, America is producing more top talent.
"In 2010 we had six players from our entire league competing in the World Cup, with four on the US team," says Dan Courtemanche, executive vice president of communications for Major League Soccer.
"This year, we have 22 players in the World Cup, 10 competing for the US."
3. Demographics
Demographers predict that by 2043, non-Hispanic white Americans will no longer be in the majority. Hispanic populations are on the rise, and with them the profile of football in the US.
Shifting demographics have also increased the amount of football on display for US audiences.
"US soccer is a large mosaic - people watch Mexican soccer or Salvadorian soccer. There are all sorts of things going on which the MLS is only one small part," says Kuper.
Among the millennial generation in the US, "soccer" is the second-most popular sport, after US football and tied with basketball, according to Courtemanche. Among those even younger - 12-17 - baseball and soccer are tied in popularity.
"The combination of millennial and immigrants bodes well for the future of soccer in our country," he says.
4. Experience
World Cups are won by teams with a lot of World Cup experience - this isn't a competition that yields surprise victors.
In Europe, good teams often don't make the cut - like Sweden this year - because they play in a more competitive qualifying group.
Team USA, playing in the less-competitive Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football, doesn't have that same challenge.
"We would have to mess up big time not to make it," says Quraishi. And every time Team USA plays, they increase their institutional knowledge.
5. Globalisation
When he spent time in Los Angeles as a child, Kuper was practically cut off from the sport he loved.
"There was one soccer programme on once a week showing old European games," he says. "It was very hard for a child living in the US 30 years ago to know what good soccer looked liked,"
Americans can now access football via satellite, the internet, and global travel.
In 2014, "it's easy to follow Real Madrid and Manchester United," says Kuper, and with that, develop enthusiasm and understanding for how top football is played.
While Team USA can always be counted on to be organised and technically skilled, they often lack creative spark. That flair for play develops at a young age after watching, re-watching, and imitating the great moves of favourite players.
As Americans are exposed to good football more consistently, expect the next generation of professionals to not just know the game, but play it with style.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28025640

[89Hen]

The argument that is being made is that the US team is a stronger team by a lot now than they were in 1994. If you look at the facts that have been laid out by those arguing that my previous statement is true, you will see that the argument is correct. The USMNT has improved a ton since 1994 as shown by the huge collection of results. When you look at individual games or only a small group of 3-5 games especially when the games are against different teams, you can never make a good statistical comparison. That is why looking at a larger range is important.

Friendlies don't mean shit. The ONLY games that matter are WC games period.

[GannonFan]

The argument that is being made is that the US team is a stronger team by a lot now than they were in 1994. If you look at the facts that have been laid out by those arguing that my previous statement is true, you will see that the argument is correct. The USMNT has improved a ton since 1994 as shown by the huge collection of results. When you look at individual games or only a small group of 3-5 games especially when the games are against different teams, you can never make a good statistical comparison. That is why looking at a larger range is important.

Friendlies don't mean ****. The ONLY games that matter are WC games period.

Wait, I thought you were one of the masses?

Friendlies with full squads do matter, no matter how many times you try to tell yourself they don't. In addition to things that matter, there's also World Cup qualifiers, there's qualifying for the Olympics and the Olympics itself (the Olympics are restricted to younger players, with some exceptions, but it's a good barometer of where the national team is headed), there's the CONCACAF Gold Cup which comes up next year - the winner goes on to the Confederations Cup in 2017 which is the pre-eminent tournament in the runup to the next World Cup, and there's also the Copa America Centenario in 2016, which the US is hosting, that will see a major 16 team tournament (all 10 South American sides and then 6 CONCACAF teams, two of which are automatically the US and Mexico). But like you said, you're part of the masses and you try to ignore the other stuff that matters as well.

[89Hen]

Friendlies don't mean ****. The ONLY games that matter are WC games period.

Wait, I thought you were one of the masses?

Friendlies with full squads do matter, no matter how many times you try to tell yourself they don't. In addition to things that matter, there's also World Cup qualifiers, there's qualifying for the Olympics and the Olympics itself (the Olympics are restricted to younger players, with some exceptions, but it's a good barometer of where the national team is headed), there's the CONCACAF Gold Cup which comes up next year - the winner goes on to the Confederations Cup in 2017 which is the pre-eminent tournament in the runup to the next World Cup, and there's also the Copa America Centenario in 2016, which the US is hosting, that will see a major 16 team tournament (all 10 South American sides and then 6 CONCACAF teams, two of which are automatically the US and Mexico). But like you said, you're part of the masses and you try to ignore the other stuff that matters as well.

1998 WC qualifying record: 8-2-6... 11-3-2 this go round. I guess you are used to 1-0 games, so maybe that's light years in soccer years.

[JMU DJ]

Without googling the USMNT game records and plowing through the data, I'm going to guess yes, it's negligible. I'm guessing a nice chunk of the losses of the decade were early 90's. I'm also guessing a large portion of the games are friendlies, which are meaningless. I do know this year they are 4-1-1 in friendlies and 1-2-1 in games that matter.

Friendlies don't mean shit. The ONLY games that matter are WC games period.

Also, since I know you are still learning about the game, what's going on in Brazil right now is the "World Cup Finals." That's what you're watching. I know it's been mentioned already by BDK that the average fan like yourselves don't follow the qualifiers or care about them, but those are matches that mean something. They aren't friendlies. Think about it like the regular NCAA season. Die hards watch college basketball from tip off through the tourney. The average fan only cares about it when it's time to fill out their bracket. All the games that led up to the tourney matter, I don't care about them, but I know they mattered to the teams who got there.

Going from the group (3rd) stage on:

Qualifying for 2014 World Cup: 11-2-3
Qualifying for 2010 World Cup: 11-2-3
Qualifying for 2006 World Cup: 10-4-2
Qualifying for 2002 World Cup: 8-4-4
Qualifying for 1998 World Cup: 8-6-2
Didn't have to qualify for 94.
Qualification before 94 was a different format, but to qualify for 1990 we went 5-4-1

Looks like an upward trend to me

[GannonFan]

Wait, I thought you were one of the masses?

Friendlies with full squads do matter, no matter how many times you try to tell yourself they don't. In addition to things that matter, there's also World Cup qualifiers, there's qualifying for the Olympics and the Olympics itself (the Olympics are restricted to younger players, with some exceptions, but it's a good barometer of where the national team is headed), there's the CONCACAF Gold Cup which comes up next year - the winner goes on to the Confederations Cup in 2017 which is the pre-eminent tournament in the runup to the next World Cup, and there's also the Copa America Centenario in 2016, which the US is hosting, that will see a major 16 team tournament (all 10 South American sides and then 6 CONCACAF teams, two of which are automatically the US and Mexico). But like you said, you're part of the masses and you try to ignore the other stuff that matters as well.

1998 WC qualifying record: 8-2-6... 11-3-2 this go round. I guess you are used to 1-0 games, so maybe that's light years in soccer years.

How did we do in the World Cup that year? Should be easy for you to find since you feel that World Cups are all that matter. Oh, period.

[DSUrocks07]

Good read on the problems with US soccer.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ystem.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The bolded part is important. Just in the last 2-3 years there's been a real big swell of kids participating in the academies that the MLS clubs have. That means you have kids practicing and playing for those academies, at no charge, while then also playing for their home soccer club. So they get regular training and access to very good coaches and it doesn't cost them a dime. And like I said, it's only just been getting off the ground recently and it's already seeing a huge response in terms of the number of kids doing it and the results of the teams that form out of those academies. That's the kind of stuff that will increase the quality of players being developed domestically over the next 10 years.

I'm going to try to convince my son's mother to look into getting him into the Union's futures program in three years. Since they live in the region. That's also why I'm hopeful that MLS can gain a foothold in the southeast, specifically Miami. But also with Orlando City and Atlanta coming on board over the next couple seasons.

MLS is finally figuring it out, its not about wins and losses, its about growing the sport in the US. The Big 4 don't need to worry about that because the market is saturated by their leagues already.

I'm hopeful that one day the talk will not be about one guy being left off the roster (Donovan), but how several players were left off the roster because of how deep the USMNT is across the board. I want to see OUR B-team playing in tournaments and being successful.