Because you only get three substitutions per match, and wasting a sub on a player who has a yellow card (a common occurence) could hurt more than losing him to a second yellow card (a less common occurence).
Having to leave an injured player on the pitch could hurt a team much more than having a player sent off.
Hey, I found video of the Italian team practice!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3pnpjc2Xkkc&search=commercial%20soccer%20funny
Ah yes, I know this pretty well. You can tell I’m crazy, because I can’t even add 4 and 6. Besides this, I don’t really expect them to win the cup now, or in 2010. I do, however, expect them to play atleast as well as they did in 2002, getting to the semi-finals at the very least. I used “dominate” because I can never find the right verbs.
And, the way I see it now, both of those teams mentioned might very well win it this year. Brazil is having a hard time pulling it together, although they will of course do so in due time. At this moment, Argentina has worked together excellently, and Germany is scary good. They probably are all better than the US too, sadly.
But, sometime in the future MLS will not suck, America will like soccer, and we will have an intimidating squad. I just hope it happens in my life time.
I think that that is wishful thinking I’m afraid. I would approach the US team’s 2002 performance (losing in the quarter-finals) as an aberration, rather than something that can be replicated regularly in the near future (not until the MLS matches the big leagues as I mentioned earlier in the thread).
Are you watching the same tournament as the rest of us? Germany has been exceedingly lacklustre. Costa Rica is one of the weakest teams in the tournament, and the game against Poland was appalling.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but all the seeded teams are better than the US.
Maybe, but with your national focus on NFL and MLB, I don’t see it. Professional football will most likely remain a minority interest sport.
MLS needs more teams, more divisions with relegation and promotion, decentralised control of player contracts, no salary caps, greater attendance and TV revenue, a longer season, more international club competition (like Champions League, not just friendlies) and a proper system for developing home talent. These are the things you’ll find in the Premiership et al, and getting all of this will take lots of time and money.
Fifa has been briefing the referees on the need for consistancy this world cup. Any ref. not coming up tp scratch will be sent home.
It’s not only referees either, managers and players have been told what the guidlines were.
Mastreoni was an idiot, he threw away an advantage that the US has gained through the thuggish elbow from De Rossi.
Pope was a bit unlucky I thought, but he was pretty daft not to hold back when he got his first yellow card.
Here’s a bit about how the refs. were informed what FIFA required of them.
The US team were obviously fired up and out to make amends for their lacklustre performance in their first game, if they had kept their heads they could have beaten Italy yesterday.
The last group game will be interesting but Ghana looked pretty impressive against the Czech Republic and this is turning out to be a wide open group.
Dominate is really the word that bugged me. I would be happy with compete. There are some good young players so I think they will definately improve.
shoot, sorry about the spelling.
Is any of that really necessary, though? Why do US players need the US league to be one of the world’s best in order to compete? Why not just have the best US players go play for the best leagues abroad?
It’s not like European Olympic hockey teams are handicapped by not having a league that compares to the NHL. Or do they have one? Don’t most of the world’s best hockey players come to North America to play in the NHL?
Can’t the same idea work for US soccer players? Catch a scout’s eye playing for MLS and then go abroad to the real leagues to hone their craft, returning to the US every four years to compete in the World Cup? What’s unworkable about this?
(…asked the guy who genuinely has no clue, so please don’t read any snark or sarcasm into this post.)
Well, the European countries have excellent pro leagues that act as development leagues for their top hockey talent. Without a way of developing talent domestically it’s difficult to build a good national team years down the road. It’s too difficult for exceptional teenagers(by this I mean less than 18 years old) to go to Europe to play.
How does the dropoff between the NHL and the European pro leagues compare to the dropoff between the top European football leagues and MLS?
For example, (and these are complete WAGs,) if the NHL is a 10 then the European leagues are an 8, whereas if the European football leagues are a 9 (Brazil is better, right?) then MLS is a 4. Something like that kind of comparison, but more informed than my arbitrarily picked numbers.
Just trying to get some context.
All the cards were justifiable. Blame Pope & Mastro for being incredibly stupid. They saw how that game was being called and should have adjusted.
Still, the Italians go down very easy, don’t they?
Very proud of the guys!
The U.S. could be a dark horse contender in 2010. But we’re still a ways from being a real power. Getting closer and closer though. And it won’t take the MLS being as strong as the Premiership. There are countries who are among the elite that don’t have leagues nearly as strong as England’s (Argentina, Brazil, Holland etc.).
Not Mexico.
Ah, I think I’ve found another thing soccer needs for Americans to really be interested. Unlimited substitutions. Or at least on-the-fly line changes.
Why is there always this laundry-list of what a sport “needs” for Americans to be interested? Are all your other sports identikit copies of each other? I’m sure the American public can cope with the occasional different rule. FWIW, there used to be unlimited substitutions allowed in some international friendly matches (because the number was informally agreed between the competing teams). The resulting matches were so embarrassingly shit that FIFA cracked down and imposed an absolute limit of six (higher because teams use friendlies to try out new formations and combinations).
Nah, the Brazilian league is a fair bit weaker than the major European ones (Spain, England, Italy all very close), and the best Brazilians tend to end up in Europe. Those three are the tops, with Spain’s league edging it over the other two. I don’t really know where MLS would fit in to the grand scheme of things, because we just don’t get MLS televised over here. I’d be quite surprised if any of the MLS teams at the moment were more than average 2nd division English level, though.
( That’s “The Championship”, for anyone playing along with England’s increasingly stupid domestic league-naming system, which runs something like:
Premiership
Championship
Superbship
Didn’tTheyDoWellship
WinningIsn’tEveryship
Ship of Fools )
I would agree with that assesment.
Why? Americans deal with limited substitutions in baseball just fine.
FWIW, I’m one who thinks the U.S. made a better showing in the Czech Republic game than the score indicated. I’m also predicting here that the U.S. will advance to the next round.
Team GD PT
USA -3 1
Ghana 0 3
Czech Rep 1 3
Italy 2 4
If the US beat Ghana and Italy beats Czech Rep, then yes the US will go through. But even if you beat Ghana, if Italy lose to Czech Rep you’ll need either the Czechs or the US to score a whole raft of goals for you to go forward on goal difference.
Thanks for the response; it helps me get a feel for the situation.
I guess the Brazilians are a textbook example of what I was getting at. Does MLS really need to become great in order for the US team to become a force to reckon with? I wouldn’t think so, based on how Brazil’s league has been described compared to how well Brazil traditionally has been doing in the World Cup. Surely the US could go the same route as Brazil, no?
Honestly, I don’t think there is any way that MLS can build the fanbase first and then have it translate into impressive World Cup runs; I think that’s backwards if you look at it realisticly. The (aging) US team will need to actually win it all to spark MLS’s popularity, or at least put on a good showing in the finals. Really, the team would need to (roughly) make the quarterfinals in three consecutive World Cups, preferably winning it all in one of those appearances.
If the US could manage that, which would generate periodic interest for 16 straight years, (counting the four after the third hypothetical World Cup), that would probably spark enough interest for MLS to start growing some wider roots in the American psyche.
Of course, we could technically already be in that streak right now; didn’t the US make it to the final eight in 2002? If by some miracle they could beat the odds and repeat that performance this year, and then maybe get to the finals in 2010? I’d think that would generate enough interest by 2014 that MLS might actually be followed casually by the average US sports fan.
Elsewhere I’ve noted many reasons why I don’t think soccer is all that popular in America, but in all honesty, winning fixes everything. It’s hard not to care about a great team that represents your country, you know? Give us a great team, and the popularity will follow. Until then, for many reasons, I don’t think soccer will have much support in the states. But I don’t think that fact alone will prevent the US from mounting some impressive runs in the World Cup.
Yep, but it isn’t a highly unlikely possibility, the first not the second. Italy defeating CR is a decent possibility as is the US beating Ghana. Likely, no, but I wouldn’t say it would be miraculous eithher.