Fitness! Pay attention. Forget the fact that the U.S. is producing better players than ever (and more of them), it’s only fitness that gave us any kind of edge. And all the European and South American players have lost their fat.
Some ignorance just can’t be fought.
I think stating that fitness (and it would help by defining what one means by being “fit” - are we talking about being in tip-top playing shape, or physically rested to play the World Cup or what?) oversimplifies the situation.
From a purely physical prowess perspective (in terms of natural physical ability), the US can (in many cases) compare favorably with other nations (speed, strength, jumping ability, etc.). However, from a technical perspective, the US still lags behind.
Now, if yout are equating physical prowess with fitness, then your argument is stronger. But it is weakened by making the claim that somehow the South Americans and Europeans have become “more fit” (that is, now have a greater amount of natural physical prowess) - which is ludicrous.
And the reason it’s ludicrous is that by the very nature that football is the #1 sport in many countires, there’s a natural propensity for the best athletes to play football. Which isn’t the case for the US - athletes with exceptional physical abilities has a much wider range of options available to them.
Look - the very best football teams (Brazil, Netherlands, Germany, England, Italy, Argentina, France, Spain) have players that have both exceptional physical and technical abilities. That a team like the US might do well in a particular competition may be due to several factors. One of which MAY be due to the team (as a whole) having a greater amount of natural physical ability than the other team (as a whole). However, the US isn’t going to be considered as part of the top echelon until it demonstrates on a sustained basis that it has both physically gifted and technically proficient players. The physical part is covered; it will be the technical part that propels the US into the top echelon (and who knows whether that will happen or not - remains to be seen).
In any event - the US may be “pants”, so to speak, relative to the very best national teams in the world. 11th in the FIFA rankings is likely too high; but we are definitely in the top 20. However, we do have the potential to be a very good footballing nation (in terms of international competition). Again, whether we ever acheive that potential remains to be seen.
If I can interject on his behalf, I’m pretty sure owlstretchingtime was really referring to stamina. Which certainly is something that isn’t acquired overnight, nor over a period of months.
(BTW, Ipswich still five points clear, but Shefki’s out, so my usual pessimistic rants will probably come true - Wigan in March will be a desperate scrap, and Sunderland will beat us at home yet again, to give us the delight of the playoffs. Mark my words.)
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
If I can interject on his behalf, I’m pretty sure owlstretchingtime was really referring to stamina. Which certainly is something that isn’t acquired overnight, nor over a period of months.
Well, that makes it a bit better. But still not enirely convincing. Players can build up their stamina over time. But this is done with a combination of playing more games (while physically fit), periodic resting (so as not to become physically rundown), and age. Older, physically fit players have much more stamina than younger players of comparable fitness.
However, the US players don’t play as many games as their Euro/SA counterparts. So the US stamina levels should be lower. What I think makes a difference is the physical toll that so many games has on Euro/SA players. The US has an advantage as they don’t play as many games.
Now, if the argument is that European and South American players are given enough playing time (to build up stamina) coupled with enough rest (to offset becoming physically rundown), then I would agree (with regards to the fitness issue).
Kind of of on a different tangent.
In yesterday’s Everton/Chelsea game, Everton was given a free kick abuot ten yards from the top of the box to the right, actually a pretty good position for a go at goal. But then the referee moved the ten yards closer tot he very edge of the penalty area, due to dissent, and now it actually became harder to go for goal, since the goal is too close to get a nice curve=y shot. Is there nothing that allows Chelsea to decline the extra ten yards?
(BTW, I may have the teams mixed up, I saw four games on Satruday, but the question is basically the same.)
Yes he was.
Look at football videos from 10 years ago and you will notice that the pace of he game is considerably slower, which is how little fat chaps like Maradonna got the time to play. The yanks came into this era with fast powerful players and as such got results - they played to their strengths.
However the rest of the world caught up with this and can now match the septics for speed and stamina. However not only are the rest of the world as fit - they’re also good with the ball. THis isn’t true of the Americans, so they’ve lost the one thing that gave them a competitive edge.
It’s also why the American players aren’t playing for anything other than two bob (or two guilder) clubs abroad.
I’d say that the free kick on the edge of the box is in a better position, although there is not much in it. Just because it is closer, there is less time for the goalie to react etc. Takes a fair degree of skill to bend one over the wall at pace from such a short distance though, skill that was not in evidence from Arteta when he struck the shot on Saturday. There is no way of a team declining the extra ten yards as far as I am aware.
I think the ten yard advance for dissent comes from Rugby, where field position is critical. Any chat to the ref and he just moves the ball down the field, which tends to shut people up pdq. It doesn’t have quite the same power in football, although it is a step in the right direction to quell the non-stop pissing and moaning that comes from the players.
Back to the Everton game; what a tit James Beattie is :mad: And what a bollocks of a man Mike Riley is (me, pissing and moaing at the ref 
). Sending someone off after EIGHT minutes is very harsh, notwithstanding the red-cardable nature of the offence. A stern talking to and a yellow would have at least produced a competitive game.
I agree that it’s a great advance. It can even be applied in rugby simply for the failure to fall back the initial ten yards fast enough - now that would shut up the footballers.
From memory Norwich won the league cup and went down one year. It was a double whammy as that was the season that Heysel happened so not only did they go down but they also got banned from Europe. (Norwich aren’t exactly famous for their hooligan element!)
There’s a practical way of declining it. Set your players up as you normally would. Then, instead of taking a shot on goal, pass the ball back five-ten yards. This gives you the shot, where you want it, with the ball moving, and the disruption that’s likely to cause to the wall will help confuse the keeper. It’s a harder shot in some ways, because of the dynamics, but the movement will help you.
You’re spot on. After winning the Milk Cup (as it was), they lost eight games out of nine. Heh heh 
You may want to compare what Americans were accomplishing a decade ago playing in Europe versus what they are doing today before spouting off about stuff you don’t really understand. You can also compare U.S. international results then & now. And check out the level of play in the MLS then & now.
Or don’t. When one’s mind is so tightly shut, it would probably be fruitless.
Not to mention that World Cup 2002 was MUCH less than 10 years ago, when, supposedly, the Euro clubs matched the US in fitness.
It’s an ostrich syndrome I’ve seen with many European football fans. They can’t get their minds around the US’s success recently. The one sport they could bash the US one was soccer. We were pitiful, but now, in the aftermath of WC94 and the positive influence MLS has had (not to mention making the brilliant move of hiring Bruce Arena, the best coach in US soccer history, to coach the national team) have made the US a power to be reckoned with. The Euro fans just CAN’T come to terms with it, so they have to make up excuses. It has to be a fluke, or luck, or ‘stamina’.
The talent of US soccer is rising and MLS has allowed more college soccer stars to improve their skills to the point where they can compete in Europe. More Americans are moving to European top level teams than ever before. I think Donovan and Beasley will do great things in Europe, for one, which will open the door further.
The national team as well gets better and Euro fans will just have to deal with the fact and not hide their heads in the sand.
Too right. The type of behaviour typified by Manchester United (they were at it again on Sunday) needs to be dealt with. Football could enter the 21st century here as in other areas (e.g. technology) by borrowing ideas from other sports (cricket and rugby come to mind). With regard to the moaning and “chat” (cynical attempts to influence the referee), only the captain should be allowed to talk to the ref - and that only to seek clarification, not to express dissent. Okay, so Roy Keane would still have a way to manipulate refs, but no system is perfect.
As a United fan, I was hoping Riley would turn a blind eye to Beattie. But he insisted on mugging the frog twice, and let Riley catch up before applying the coup de grace. Headbutts seem to be flavour of the month. At least Silvestre was man enough not to do it behind Llungberg’s back.
Wol, did you see Robbie Fowler’s knee accidentally collide with Gary Neville’s head? If he’d made better contact, Gazza might have got the face job he’s been saving up for - for free. Talking about Neville, I notice that Keegan’s first touch still leaves a lot to be desired.
Did anyone see the Palace v Gunners game last night?
I thought it was a real shame they had to stop it after only half an hour played. I think Arsenal were lucky to get away with a goaless draw. The Eagles looked like they were going to break through at any moment and I would have loved to see how the rest of the game panned out.
:rolleyes:
There appears to be a certain reluctance on behalf of the tea-dodgers to accept reality. As I have said I don’t think that the USA are rubbish - you’re better than Belgium. But a major power? You’re having a laugh. Geography is not your friend in that the competitive matches you play are against two bob islands. However this is a sterile arguement - you think you’ve got 11 Peles, I think you’ve got 11 Hateleys. We’re not going to agree.
And Mr Thornhill - I’d like to kick Neville in the head. (His dad is called Neville Neville don’t ya know?)
What happened in that one last night? I would have loved to watch it, but it was Valentine’s day and I need to stay married.
The South London derby finished:
Plumstead Pikies 5, Palace 1.
THe filth were on fire and could have got a dozen.
But they didn’t actually stop the match, did they? What, do they have a “mercy rule” in the Prem?
Ok, just read the match review, it takes a while to get used to the ironic English humor.