D
DC
Guest
An advertising feature that is hated by almost all American advertisers, hence why the breaks in the other games continue. [/b][/quote]
Well yea that and because the breaks in the sports make it suitable.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
An advertising feature that is hated by almost all American advertisers, hence why the breaks in the other games continue. [/b][/quote]
Well yea that and because the breaks in the sports make it suitable.
S
St Helens RLFC
Guest
No.
Soccer powerhouses don't come bottom in their Copa America group.
Soccer powerhouses don't come bottom in their Copa America group.
D
DC
Guest
a powerhouse b side would..
in all fairness that wasnt a full strength usa squad bro
in all fairness that wasnt a full strength usa squad bro
A
American Springbok
Guest
From the U20 World Cup -
USA 1-1 Korea
USA 6-1 Poland (Poland Beat Brazil)
USA 2-1 Brazil (most exciting game of U20 WC thus far).
The US isn't there yet, but I'm just going to say DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THEM.
USA 1-1 Korea
USA 6-1 Poland (Poland Beat Brazil)
USA 2-1 Brazil (most exciting game of U20 WC thus far).
The US isn't there yet, but I'm just going to say DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THEM.
S
St Helens RLFC
Guest
If you were so good your B team would cope much better, bro.
B
Bullitt
Guest
Pwned.
D
DC
Guest
If you were so good your B team would cope much better, bro.
[/b][/quote]
Possibly but im pretty sure a england b squad would either come in 3rd or 4th
B
Bullitt
Guest
So now you're trying to say the USA is better then England?
Poor delusional fool...
Poor delusional fool...
D
DC
Guest
No, what im trying to say is that its hard to asses a teams strength when its not a full strength squad and im simply making a point that a lot of weakened sides wouldnt fair better than the usa did.
E
edinburgh_gunner
Guest
USA is far from becomming anything resembling a 'powerhouse' of football. Yes they've gotten better, and yes those u20 results are encouraging but they don't really mean very much. I find that age grade results are a very poor indicator of what a national side will be like in the future. These youth players mature and get better, or fail to progress past the level their currently at. Sure it's nice to see your youth sides do well, but I'm not caring that we've been beaten by Nigeria and Japan because I know our senior team would beat those sides (and the United States for that matter) and that is the level that counts in my book. The United States have done nothing, and I don't expect them to do anything for a while.
A
American Springbok
Guest
Some of those players on the US U20 team are already capped senior players, Michael Bradley and Freddy Adu among others.
Also, before our B-team (without key playmaker Landon Donovan, Damarcus Beasley, Clint Dempsey, Benny Feilhaber, and the rest of our European lineup) went 0-3 in group stages. The USA defended the Gold Cup, showing that we are the best North American side for many years to come... and we're STILL growing. Might I add that we did not only win those games, we CONVINCINGLY won those games (especially against Mexico).
Moreover, I, along with other football-crazy Americans, am starting to watch the MLS. That's going to be a league that will develop American talent for the superstar European leagues... and I believe that it is better than most Asian leagues, and most second tier European leagues (i.e. Ligue 2, Championship, etc.).
The MLS will never be a superstar league; that's not its purpose. The superstar leagues are in Europe, end of story. But the MLS will train more and more American talent to play (and play WELL) in Europe.
The results aren't here now, but the signs of success are.
Give us 10 years and we'll be there.
Also, before our B-team (without key playmaker Landon Donovan, Damarcus Beasley, Clint Dempsey, Benny Feilhaber, and the rest of our European lineup) went 0-3 in group stages. The USA defended the Gold Cup, showing that we are the best North American side for many years to come... and we're STILL growing. Might I add that we did not only win those games, we CONVINCINGLY won those games (especially against Mexico).
Moreover, I, along with other football-crazy Americans, am starting to watch the MLS. That's going to be a league that will develop American talent for the superstar European leagues... and I believe that it is better than most Asian leagues, and most second tier European leagues (i.e. Ligue 2, Championship, etc.).
The MLS will never be a superstar league; that's not its purpose. The superstar leagues are in Europe, end of story. But the MLS will train more and more American talent to play (and play WELL) in Europe.
The results aren't here now, but the signs of success are.
Give us 10 years and we'll be there.
B
BigTen
Guest
"...Give us 10 years and we'll be there..."
I heard the same thing said after the '94 World Cup. It is one thing to say it but another thing to actually go ahead and do it.
For a long, long time the USA have been over-rated as seen by the FIFA Rankings.
The USA will continue to qualify for the world cup (they are in the weakest qualification group that has direct entries) but will continue to fail to qualify for the second round.
And in ten years time people will stay be saying that in ten years time the USA will be a football powerhouse.
I heard the same thing said after the '94 World Cup. It is one thing to say it but another thing to actually go ahead and do it.
For a long, long time the USA have been over-rated as seen by the FIFA Rankings.
The USA will continue to qualify for the world cup (they are in the weakest qualification group that has direct entries) but will continue to fail to qualify for the second round.
And in ten years time people will stay be saying that in ten years time the USA will be a football powerhouse.
H
Hazey
Guest
That is absolute ******** - the MLS, in it's current format, will never develop players to the same level at which European systems, and it will never be of the same standard - for explanation, see my detailed post earlier in the thread.
However, if you want further proof, take for example the World Baseball Classis staged in the US last year - it demonstrated that the supposed 'powerhouse' and 'home' of Baseball was actually severly lacking in it's talent pool, tactics and management due to the current situation of American baseball and it's league structure - and I'm a big fan of baseball!
B
BigTen
Guest
I guess that almost every country (certainly the big and wealthy countries) has the potential to become a powerhouse in any sport that they wish.
The USA has many strengths - they produce world-class athletes, have vast resources and are obviously sports-focused.
They also the weaknesses of having other sports that football has to compete with.
The key will be to do what Australian football is doing. Make sure that the domestic league is as strong as it can be and use that for a feeder to the top European league. And make it desireable for these players to represent their country when called upon.
And also encourage them to come back to the USA when they are approaching the end of their careers.
The USA has many strengths - they produce world-class athletes, have vast resources and are obviously sports-focused.
They also the weaknesses of having other sports that football has to compete with.
The key will be to do what Australian football is doing. Make sure that the domestic league is as strong as it can be and use that for a feeder to the top European league. And make it desireable for these players to represent their country when called upon.
And also encourage them to come back to the USA when they are approaching the end of their careers.
H
Hazey
Guest
This completely contradicts itself, regardless of the fact that it is complete rubbish that any big and wealthy country can become a powerhouse in any sport it wishes. If that was even remotely true, why is the US not World Leader at all sports, let alone the fact that the WBC and the recent Olympic games (where pro-basketball players were allowed to partake) both demonstrated that it isn't even close to being a world leader in two of the Big Three American sports??
This also contradicts itself - firstly, if the domestic league is strong, which is isn't and will never be if it continues to be run as American sports are run, then why would it need to be used as a feeder for top European sports? If America can supposedly become this World Leader in football, then it's league should be as good, if not better than European leagues. This is utter trash.
Secondly, if the American league was that strong, why would players be encourages to come back at the end of their careers? For starters, if the league is any good then they shouldn't be able to play in it, and secondly players should be encouraged when they are at their prime, not at the end of their careers.
B
BigTen
Guest
Hazey,
Seriously mate try reading my posts before responding to them.
"...I guess that almost every country (certainly the big and wealthy countries) has the potential to become a powerhouse in any sport that they wish..."
Notice the "has the potential" part of this sentence. Nowhere does it say that the USA can simply wake up and say that they are going to win the next world cup.
No contradiction there.
"...If that was even remotely true, why is the US not World Leader at all sports..."
Why should the USA be the world leaders at all sports? They may be the richest country but they aren't the biggest country and money doesn't guarantee success in sports as I am sure that you know. The reason that the USA are not world champions in basketball or baseball is the same reason why New Zealand are the world champions in AFL. USA basketball and baseball players simply do not care about the world championships and therefore concentrate on what they consider to be the biggest event in their respective sports i.e. world series. Ask an Australia rugby league player what they consider to be the biggest event in the RL calendar and they will say State of Origin.
"...Secondly, if the American league was that strong, why would players be encourages to come back at the end of their careers? For starters, if the league is any good then they shouldn't be able to play in it, and secondly players should be encouraged when they are at their prime, not at the end of their careers..."
Again the USA cannot click their fingers and suddenly have the best football league in the world. It may never have the best league in the world simply because all of the best players in the world play in Europe. Therefore the best thing for the USA to do is to ensure that their top players are playing in the best leagues in the world. When you are the best you won't to play the best because that will ensure that you play to the best of your abliity.
So it is almost a given that the USA, like Brazil, will have to export their players. The reason for encouraging the players to return to play in the USA at the end of their career is simple. Their experience and star appeal will help develop the local league.
I went and watched Melbourne Victory play Sydney United for one reason and one reason only.
Dwight Yorke - it is rare that I get to see a player of his calibre live and I made sure that I took the opportunity. Think of how positive it will be for the players of Sydney to train day in day out with someone of his experience.
I personally don't think that the USA will ever become a football powerhouse nor do I think they will become a rugby powerhouse - but to say that they don't have the potential is foolish!
Seriously mate try reading my posts before responding to them.
"...I guess that almost every country (certainly the big and wealthy countries) has the potential to become a powerhouse in any sport that they wish..."
Notice the "has the potential" part of this sentence. Nowhere does it say that the USA can simply wake up and say that they are going to win the next world cup.
No contradiction there.
"...If that was even remotely true, why is the US not World Leader at all sports..."
Why should the USA be the world leaders at all sports? They may be the richest country but they aren't the biggest country and money doesn't guarantee success in sports as I am sure that you know. The reason that the USA are not world champions in basketball or baseball is the same reason why New Zealand are the world champions in AFL. USA basketball and baseball players simply do not care about the world championships and therefore concentrate on what they consider to be the biggest event in their respective sports i.e. world series. Ask an Australia rugby league player what they consider to be the biggest event in the RL calendar and they will say State of Origin.
"...Secondly, if the American league was that strong, why would players be encourages to come back at the end of their careers? For starters, if the league is any good then they shouldn't be able to play in it, and secondly players should be encouraged when they are at their prime, not at the end of their careers..."
Again the USA cannot click their fingers and suddenly have the best football league in the world. It may never have the best league in the world simply because all of the best players in the world play in Europe. Therefore the best thing for the USA to do is to ensure that their top players are playing in the best leagues in the world. When you are the best you won't to play the best because that will ensure that you play to the best of your abliity.
So it is almost a given that the USA, like Brazil, will have to export their players. The reason for encouraging the players to return to play in the USA at the end of their career is simple. Their experience and star appeal will help develop the local league.
I went and watched Melbourne Victory play Sydney United for one reason and one reason only.
Dwight Yorke - it is rare that I get to see a player of his calibre live and I made sure that I took the opportunity. Think of how positive it will be for the players of Sydney to train day in day out with someone of his experience.
I personally don't think that the USA will ever become a football powerhouse nor do I think they will become a rugby powerhouse - but to say that they don't have the potential is foolish!
D
DC
Guest
The MLS is actually steadily growing over the past few years and more and more teams have soccer specific stadiums now. But i am not sure if it will ever be up to standards of the league championship, maybe league 1 but i highly doubt the league championship.
You are aware that sticking a bunch of superstars on a team and hoping they win isnt 100% guarantee a total victory. In baseball anyone can win on any given day. I dont get how you say we were lacking in a talent pool considering it had some of the best players in the league to date on the team..and several pitchers were held back from the competition, have it at the end of the season and i guarantee the USA would have rolled the competition. It had nothing to do with the league structure.
Our last olympic squad was far off from the dream team of the 90's :lol: . Sure there may have been a hell of a lot of talent on the basketball squad but professional basketball here is all about the individual and not about the team. Europeans won it for a simple reason... team basketball. Now put a bunch of college kids on the floor, say take the best college kids and put them on the floor they would probably roll the competition.. in college you play for the team and not for yourself, thats what they know and they could probably blaze most of the euro squads.
H
Hazey
Guest
BigTen:
That is exactly my point - it is incorrect to say that everyone large country 'has the potential', because if we are being realistic, they don't. Again, see my post on the previous page for explanation.
Because, according to you, rich and powerful countries have 'the potential' to be world leaders at any sport. So, if they are dominant in athletic, erm... golf? er... tennis? Then why aren't they dominant in the others?
DC:
It has everything to do with the league structure. As I said on the previous page, any form of sport that exists in a structure whereby every year, no matter what your finishing results/position the year before, you are garranteed to partake in the competition, and without possibility/fear of relegation, will ALWAYS be a weaker league than one where compeition for finishing places is strong because it is needed to survive in that league! I say you were lacking in talent pool simply because you were expected to win, and you didn't qualify past the semi's. If you read the article I posted, you note that some of the blame is attributed to, as you say, the reliance on big names, but the main weakness was the pitching.
As for your comments about college basketball players and the olympics, I ask you who would win if you pitted a proffessional team against a college team? The proffessional team, they are stronger, faster, fitter (taller? ) - thus, what chance would a college team have against pro European etc. basketball players? Little. However, I do agree with you that they lost due to the opposition playing defence and passing.
That is exactly my point - it is incorrect to say that everyone large country 'has the potential', because if we are being realistic, they don't. Again, see my post on the previous page for explanation.
Because, according to you, rich and powerful countries have 'the potential' to be world leaders at any sport. So, if they are dominant in athletic, erm... golf? er... tennis? Then why aren't they dominant in the others?
So, if they have the potential, they are sports focused, and they have massive resources, WHY won't they?
DC:
It has everything to do with the league structure. As I said on the previous page, any form of sport that exists in a structure whereby every year, no matter what your finishing results/position the year before, you are garranteed to partake in the competition, and without possibility/fear of relegation, will ALWAYS be a weaker league than one where compeition for finishing places is strong because it is needed to survive in that league! I say you were lacking in talent pool simply because you were expected to win, and you didn't qualify past the semi's. If you read the article I posted, you note that some of the blame is attributed to, as you say, the reliance on big names, but the main weakness was the pitching.
As for your comments about college basketball players and the olympics, I ask you who would win if you pitted a proffessional team against a college team? The proffessional team, they are stronger, faster, fitter (taller?
) - thus, what chance would a college team have against pro European etc. basketball players? Little. However, I do agree with you that they lost due to the opposition playing defence and passing.
B
Brodizzle
Guest
Because too much time and money is spent on the sports no one else plays....
G
Grandslam7805
Guest
no, they're not a powerhouse yet. They will be in years to come, but not anytime soon. The US are getting better, but they still have a long way to go. They didn't play that well in the Gold Cup, however they still won it. They did have a penalty in each of their last 5 matches in the Gold Cup , and then started off with one against Argentina in Copa America. I find it really funny that this happened, and the one against Mexico, was questionable whether Ching did get fouled or not. But the Refs in the Gold Cup were absolutely dreadful.
Similar threads
