WORLD CUP 2014 - BRAZIL

Szlia

Member
6,660
1,394
We need a psychoanalyst in this thread. This whole 'we suck, but we're better than you and would be the best if we wanted to' dance feels like a mix of paranoia and insecurity. If it can make you feel better, I watched this World Cup's coverage on swiss, french and english TV and they all had good things to say about the american team, praising its heart and fighting spirit and pleasantly surprised by the quality of some of the MLS players. Also, most neutrals actually root for the american team because in this context it is the underdog that gives it all and forces everyone's respect.

PS: The NBA champion has a main rotation of about 9 players, with two frenchmen, an argentinian, a brazilian, an italian and an australian. Global sport! Imagine that!
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
84,454
171,208
It's no surprise why soccer isn't more popular here right now. We need a top tier league that makes sense to us. Americans aren't going to tune into the Premier League and arbitrarily choose a team to root for from a list of teams that to us sounds like is from fucking Narnia or the Harry Potter universe.
This right here
 

Miele

Lord Nagafen Raider
916
48
The U.S. doing better in the World Cup than soccer powerhouse nations (England, Italy, etc) should be enough proof that we could probably dominate if our culture had gone that way a century ago.
There are two ways to be good at football, one of them is precluded to (most) national teams, which is "buy the best players". Some countries do this nonetheless, with naturalized players (they offer them citizenship, say Switzerland for example). The second way is to create a *healthy* culture of football, oh sorry, you call it soccer, by doing a bunch of things all together: promote your national league, which the U.S. did in the last few years and it shows, secondarily incentivate the local youth to play: schools, talent scouts and the youth version of the Major League Soccer, hell even having a B-team to compete in a B-championship where those that shine can go into the Main team is a well known and successful practice. Thirdly, make it appealing economically: last I heard, several years ago soccer in the U.S. wasn't well paid, maybe things changed recently, I don't know.

In response to Brikker I can tell you that Italy (unfortunately my country) and England (fortunately not my country, too much rain for my taste and food sucks) had some of the worst policies for their own national leagues in the last decade: yes, sometimes they can scrounge a decent team together (Italy 2006 and 2010), sometimes it's a hopeless endeavour (England), but what counts is that instead of nurturing their own clubs and young players, they went to purchase shitty players from all over the world and filled entire teams with non-locals, for example Inter in Italy a few years ago, or Arsenal in England, just to mention a couple blatant examples. The Premier League is nowadays a bloated and overrated championship, the Serie A has lost a lot of appeal since the crysis in Italy has cut down the funding considerably (top stars go play elsewhere, they have unsustainable contracts, whole league suffers because of that reason alone: less appeal, less tv money, etc.).

There are good young players in Italy, I can assure you that: they don't play in Italy anymore or are not considered for the national team because idiots take decisions or have a strong influence on who does.
England is in a similar situation: on paper they have a great team, in practice they can't play together. So you see a team like Germany (5 or 6 out of 11 are from Bayern Muenchen) that no matter what is always among the best or teams like Algeria, that have nothing to lose, play simple yet effective football and run like there is no tomorrow, which by itself is a big plus.

U.S.A. national team yesterday showed in my opinion that soccer has grown a lot in the US: the team was well organized, cohese and with a wonderful athletic preparation. Belgium was better technically by a good margin, but the americans played a very good game and would they have won, it would have been just as fair. Failing a goal at minute 92 didn't help the odds (the offside called was a fucking joke, but not scoring didn't help the complaint), or having to recover from a 2-0 with 105 minutes in the legs, yet they almost made it. US players are (culturally) unable to stay on the ground whining when they are fouled, which is a fucking big plus imo and makes each one of them a star already in this soccer world of baby bitches.

I'm sure they'll become progressively better. In the last 20 years they improved a lot already.
 

Quineloe

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,978
4,464
Will Howard play until he's 39? That's fairly old, even for a keeper. Would be a huge blow to have him retire now.
 

Neki

Molten Core Raider
2,726
397
39 is not that old for a goal keeper. Didn't Oliver Kahn play until his late 30s?

One thing about the USA national team I have noticed though is that they have never lacked good goal keepers (Tim Howard, Brad Friedel, Kasey Keller)

Also:

_75984792_sec464.gif
 

Elerion

N00b
735
46
Goalie is the one position on the field that benefits from much of the same skillset as other big american sports: Size, strength, jump height and hand-eye coordination. Both Howard and Friedel were active basketballers in their youth. It makes sense that the US is well suited to produce good goalies.
 

Quineloe

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,978
4,464
Kahn retired from the national team after the 2006 world cup, he just turned 37. Two years later, he retired from FC Bayern as well. Neither team had a proper replacement for him at the time.
 

Tenks

Bronze Knight of the Realm
14,163
607
Really exciting game last night. Even the regulation 90 minutes was exciting because Howard just decided he wasn't accepting any balls into his net. Then the overtime got me deflated really quickly then gave me a glimmer of hope. I still won't watch soccer casually since I find it rather tedious but every four years the world cup reminds me it is a really good spectator sport.
 

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
41,691
142,909
The people saying that youth soccer is where the US needs to focus are wrong. Youth soccer is huge in the US. The issue is that the transition from youth soccer to something in the teens is non-existent. Suburbs across the country have shit loads of kids under the age of 12 playing soccer. But after that, it's basically nothing. I played soccer for probably 7 years (age 4 to 11 or so), but I came to loathe it eventually.
 

Tenks

Bronze Knight of the Realm
14,163
607
I only played one season of soccer when I was young. I didn't really care for it and preferred playing hockey. I've never been very big on running.
 

DiddleySquat

Bronze Knight of the Realm
458
17
By age 11 a good scout could spot a potentially professional soccer player. So structurally the US needs a) a scouting network and then b) some structure (soccer academies or whatever) to help those kids develop into professional soccer players.

There, you have your plan to develop into a top notch soccer nation. I'm betting Klinsmann made the same analysis already though.
 

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
15,094
-1,049
Violence at a soccer match? ONLY IN AMERICA LOL AMIRITE????
 

Asshat Brando

Potato del Grande
<Banned>
5,346
-478
It's no surprise why soccer isn't more popular here right now. We need a top tier league that makes sense to us. Americans aren't going to tune into the Premier League and arbitrarily choose a team to root for from a list of teams that to us sounds like is from fucking Narnia or the Harry Potter universe.
You don't choose arbitrarily as there is really only a handful of options unless you want to root for a team that really has no chance to win anything. Not to say that rooting for Swansea or Hull City is bad, but unless you're from those areas I would think it's a bit sadistic. So for any American bandwagoner and as I fellow one myself here are your options with my brief opinion of each one:

Arsenal - Called the Gunners, have a pretty good history of winning throughout their existence and play a nice offensive brand of football though they've only won 1 trophy in the last 8 years. They're owned by Stan Kroenke, an American, who supports the managers plan to never spend money on any player unless they have no other choice. He's considered a genius by some though and therefore gets away with it even though his most successful team wasn't built that way. Located in London, they play at the Emirates which is a big plastic bowl, main rival is Spurs. Best players are Mesut Ozil, Aaron Ramsey, and Santi Cazorla

Chelsea - Called the Blues, they had no history of winning anything until Roman Abramovich bought them and turned them into his personal play thing starting in 2002 with about $1bn spent to build a team of stars. Since then they've won the league twice and the champions league once. This is never good enough for Roman and he fires the manager on about a yearly basis. They're now managed by Jose Mourinho who doubles as the most successful manager in the world while probably being the most hated as well, he may have the early onset of Alzheimer's with his paranoia which makes sense as he's probably about to be fired this year as well. They're located in London and play at Stamford Bridge with their main rival being Arsenal and their best player is Eden Hazard though Mourinho is trying to coach any offensive tendencies out of him.

Everton - Called the Toffees, they have a long history of being 2nd best to Liverpool in everything. Their current owner is Bill Kenwright who made his money as a theatre and play producer and scrounges for pennies every year just to pay the bills. They're currently coached by Roberto Martinez who's thought of as a young and bright coach on his way up, unfortunately for Everton he'll be moving on to better pastures next year. They are located in Liverpool, their home stadium is a wood barn called Goodison which is seperated by about a mile from Anfield and their biggest rival is Liverpool. Their best player is Tim Howard as Ross Barkley will be sold to Manchester United before he ever realizes his potential.

Liverpool - Have no nickname, they are the 2nd most successful team in England behind Manchester United as they haven't won a league title since 1989. They're currently owned by Fenway Sports Group who own the Boston Red Sox, this is actually somewhat fitting as Boston and Liverpool share a lot of similarities. FSG is currently trying to turn around the club which were almost bankrupted by the previous American owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillette. Currently led by Brendan Rodgers who most feel is one of the best young coaches in the world, he has the team play a very attacking style of football with a young and improving team. The team is located in Liverpool which is 20 miles from Manchester in the Northwest of England, they play at Anfied which is about to be expanded and their main rival is Manchester United. Their best player is Luis Suarez who when not biting people is trying to transfer to Spain to play for Barcelona or Real Madrid.

Manchester City - Called the citizens, they were good in the 1960's, then sucked until bought by the Royal family of Abu Dhabi about 7 years ago. They now use their various state and affiliated entities to funnel money to the club to circumvent fair play restrictions which didn't exist when Abramovich bought Chelsea. They're the richest club in the world and can buy basically any player they want. They've won 2 out of the last 3 league titles and want to eventually have worldwide soccer dominance through their affiliated clubs NYCFC and some Australian shithole team. They're located in Manchester which is in Northwest England and play at the Etihad which they can't fill even as champions, their biggest rival is Manchester United and they're team is awesome but mostly highly paid mercenaries with their best players being Yaya Toure and Sergio Aguero.

Manchester United - Called the Red Devils, the most successful team in England, they're currently owned by the Glazer family who are Americans and own the Buccaneers. The teams fans hate the owners though as they bought them at the height of the financial boom via a leveraged buyout where they didn't spend any of their own money and just heaped debt on the club which was debt free at that point but now own 300m pounds which is down from 700m. This has restricted their spending on players to a large degree as the debt payments have taken up a huge yearly chunk of their budget. Even with that said they've still won the league 7 times since 2000. Their legendary coach, Sir Alex Ferguson, just retired last year and the team just had it's worse finish since 1989. They're located in Manchester, play in the largest club stadium in England which is Old Trafford and their biggest rival is Liverpool. Their best player is Wayne Rooney and Adnan Januzaj, lololol.

Tottenham Hotspur - Called the Spurs, they haven't won a cup in 30 years or the league in almost 60 but you wouldn't know it by the way the club and fans act. The team is owned Joe Lewis who is a Brit billionaire and is run by Daniel Levy who is actually Doctor Evil in disguise. Every year the team sells its best player in the thought that they can then re-invest that money in the squad to make it better as a whole and then compete for titles, unfortunately for Spurs that never seems to work and now this year there is no one even good enough to sell. They just hired Mauricio Pochettino to coach the team which is a shame as the previous coach, Tim Sherwood, seemed to really have something about him. The team is located in London, they play at White Hart Lane and their biggest rival is Arsenal. They have no good players worth mentioning.