It's more that it is too slow and uninspired. People just keep passing it around and never taking chances because they look afraid to take chances and make mistakes. Also no one is really into it, now I've seen maybe 12 or 13 games so I can't say I'm an expert but you watch and you just can't get into it plus that clock going down and games ending in whatever you want to call that thing is stupid. Also, please stop saying FIFA 99 and 2000 is too fast, it is perfect, you just don't watch English and Scotish football. Football in America and much of Europe is slow and too tactical, but I guess it's a matter of preference.

The biggest problem with MLS is that the regular season means so little. They play so many matches for no season title.
8 out of 12 teams make the playoffs. So they play for months just for League Cup seedings. It's stupid.
But...it's MLS' attempts to Americanize the game that have failed... not the players.

If you have watched any of the playoff matches, I'd hardly call them slow and uninspired. Some of the season matches... yes.

Frankly, the clock doesn't bother me.
The shootouts are hated by everyone, including the players, and this should be the last season of them.

As for FIFA99, and 2000 being too fast. They are WAY too fast. The marking is absurd. The keepers have hands of stone. The pitch is small compared to the speed of the ball. I watch English footie regularly, and I've not seen 8 goals in 5 minutes ever.
Even the Everton/Leeds match took all 90 minutes for each team to score 4... and that match was hardly typical.

No offense intended, but if you think the speed of English footie is anything like FIFA 2000 then I don't know what you are watching.

Well most of us would't want to sit there for 90 minutes playing a game in order to get a realistic result. I play it(fifa 99) at 10 minute halfs(i think reasonable amount of time to spend on one match) and get very realistic results as far as scores, yes even 0-0 from time to time.

Also the point of the backwards running clock: I'm watching an Arsenal game at Highbury and they show a shot of the stands and there's this big digital clock and guess what, it shows the game clock running backwards, just like MLS!!!

I watch English and Scottish soccer, I am Scottish. Fifa 99 was way too fast, it was a joke. To give you an idea of just how too fast it was Digitalsports.com had a piece about how when John Motsom tried to do a commentary on a Fifa 99 game in progress he gave up in despai, it was impossible.
Commentary on high speed ping pong is impossible
Mike

MLS my friends is as boring as a doorknob.I attended the very first Galaxy game and it was a disapointment.Most if not all its games are boring just thinking about it ZzZz... what, where, oh also mls is going to become a resting home for over the hill players,I just dont see this league progresing in the future because it lacks a very essential ingridient "passion"in everthing from the players all the way down to the fans and the frigging ballboy, 3 guys siging ole,ole,ole once every half an hour does not cut it besides that chant is old, theres no relegation and the league buys and distributes the players for each team how lame is that ,also all of the players that are not foreigners all came from playing in a university or college,the only thing this does is close the doors for many players. Maradona and pele came from very crapy houses and where too poor to even think of attending college .the United States is a big country with millions of people from all ethnicall backgrounds to choose from and they limit themselves to college players who are very robotic no wonder a small country like portugal has ten times more talented players. the u.s only has two talented players and their both goalkeepers friedel and keller thats all so make best with what you got and a last place in france 98 goodluck in the next qualifiers ...

[This message has been edited by Edoardo (edited 11-15-1999).]

Edoardo, you make some valid points.
The MLS and US Soccer do need to reach out into a wider spectrum of the population... and from what I have read, this is just now starting to get organized. The problem is that you have a very large country with very little in the way of infrastructure in place.
There is also probably a certain degree of political-economic descrimination engrained in what little system there is. (I would venture to say that a Pele or Maradona, had he been born in the USA, would have probably played basketball, and would never have been found.)

As for MLS lacking passion...yes and no.
If you watched that DC-Columbus series, you would have seen that there was passion in the stands and on the field. The heart Dallas showed against Chicago and LA was wonderful to watch. Not something often seen during the season, I concur. (See earlier post)

I can't agree with your assessment of the US National side though. They are not a world power by any means, but they are not just a goalkeeper either.
Claudio Reyna, before his injury, was making a huge splash at Rangers, and not just in the Scottish matches. Dick Advocaat is very high on him. I respect his talent evaluating more than any one on this forum.
What the US has been lacking is defensive depth and a good striking partnership.
What they have is a solid depth of midfield talent.

Hejduk, Sanneh, Reyna, Lewis, Moore, Jones...
these are all solid players.

American soccer is absolutely robotic and pathetic http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/wink.gif

Several points about MLS, and where I believe the league is headed.

First, it will NOT become a retirement home for every washed up pseudo-European star who wants end his career in the US. But you have to realize the investors are in business to make money. People aren't going to pay a great deal of money to watch a bunch of players that nobody's ever heard of. You have to give fans a reason to go to the games. If that means putting Jorge Campos in San Jose or Roberto Donadoni in New York - so be it. But I think the league is moving more towards developing young Latin American and Caribbean stars, anyway. I think in a couple of years, each team will have one "franchise" player that people will pay to see, and several young foreigners.

Passion - yes MLS lacks passion, but passion isn't something you cultivate overnight. It really takes years and generations to develop. It's not realistic to expect a passionate fan base for a team that hasn't even reached its fifth birthday.

As for the part about non-foreigners having to come from college, that's simply not true. It's easy for MLS teams to scout colleges, so that's where alot of players come from, but it's not a requirement. In fact, the Revolution have a player combine scheduled for December 4th.

France 98 - I'm glad you brought that up. I'll still say to this day that the only game the US played poorly in was the Germany game. They weren't that bad against Iran or Yugoslavia, but they were a bit unlucky. Yes, they finished last, but I don't think that automatically means they were the worst team there. I'd also suggest that if you think the only two talented American players are Keller and Friedel, you haven't watched the US team play since France.

- Mike

Or even in France!

Hejduk and Jones drew quite a lot of international acclaim.
It led to Hejduk's move to Leverkusen...
Where from what I've seen, he's done ok.
He's getting very valuable experience and training.
Frankly, the embarrassments were the players like Lalas and Ramos who should have been phased out earlier.
Sampson wasn't wrong to look at players like Deering. He was wrong to start doing it in France against Germany!

Mike... who are they lining up to take the reins at New England? Clavijo?

jsbatch i agree you make very good points,revsnet let me get one thing clear i am not trying to bash the mls and i have been following the u.s national team since worldcup 94 .one thing that the american team has is overconfidence thats why they failed miserably in france and given that the new coach bruce arena does not have experienced enough for qualifiers or a world cup where after two games you can be eliminated i dont see a bright future ahead...know for my other point dont confuse good players with talented players therefore keller and friedel are the two best players.all theu.s midfield combined cant be compared to rivaldo hes a talent your strikers they can only wish they had half of Owen's talent but keller can be compared to schmeical,Chilavert you get the picture...abou the player recruitment the u.s is bias look at the rosters in their respective web pages it will tell you what college the player played for,I live in los angeles California and have played in parks all over and i have seen more talented players but they are never going to make it since the mls has their back on them.look at some of the greats they where founded by scouts in the slums.have you ever seen where Ronaldo used to live or Maradona,Pele i see a trend here...

Edoardo, you might find this site of interest. It's about the development of US Soccer and it's problems.
http://www.soccercommentary.org/

I wouldn't compare any American player with Rivaldo. But then again, there aren't too many players in the world I'd compare with Rivaldo right now.

Owen is a rare talent, though I might question what he's doing with that talent.
He could be so much more if he would work on some of his weaknesses, instead of being glorified for his strengths. Don't get me wrong. I admire his talent.

As for the future of the MLS and the US Soccer program... you might sneak a peek at the U-17 World Championships that are going on right now in New Zealand. The US has been very impressive going in to the tournament... undefeated in over 20 matches...

As for the college debate... remember that when the MLS started there was no organized youth recruiting system like in established soccer countries. The most obvious source of young, trained players was the NCAA. Look how quickly these players have supplanted the Lalas, Wynalda, Meola, Campos, Tab Ramos "stars" the league was founded on after WC94.
The reason DC United has been at the top of the league every season is because they landed some of the best of the college players to compliment their foreigners.
Arena knew that player base better than anyone.

But for the US and MLS to move to the next level, you are exactly right... a broader youth system will be a must.

Edoardo- the main problem with MLS as I see it is there is no reserve team system. Thats why young talent doesnt get picked up by these teams. So the only way is to play in one of the regional leagues or maybe the A-league if you're that good. But you're not going to change these things overnight it takes time!
The way they are doing it now is better than in the 70s. In the seventies NASL had a one American player per team requirement! How can a league succeed when there were practically no native players in the league, Cosmos had like two Americans in the whole team! I think the way to go is to keep the foreign player limit of 4, but do away with the salary cap so we can get some better players to come here, like George Weah who has expressed interest to come to play in New York.

Of course, they are right to be careful at bringing in high priced foreign talent.

A failure to do that is a big part of what killed the NASL also.

One of the big reasons NYNJ Metrostars have been so bad is that they have so much of their salary money tied up in players like Tab Ramos, who have done little for the club, due to injury or whatever other reasons.
I believe his contract is up again soon... maybe MLS will actually ask the club what they want this time. ;-)

I'm from the US and stopped following the MLS after the inagural season. In beginning the league, they kind of put the "cart before the horse," in that, taking players born of the US way of player development(high school, college, then professional) will not cut it in professional football. It may work fine for other professional sports in the US, but the MLS was a bit ignorant not to look at how it's done around the world. When most people are graduating highschool here in the US, at the age of 17, Paolo Maldini was making his debut for AC Milan.

This being the case, that Europe and South America churn out professional quality players at such young ages, should've been a warning sign to the creators of the MLS. No money will flow into the league because they don't develop good young Americans who can be sold for high prices to Europe and give MLS teams money to spend in return. So the league is destined to keep getting old superstars, past their prime, who just want to live in America for a couple of years. It is a ridiculous set up that is destined to fail.

There is a bit of a myth that "Americans don't know football." While it is true that many follow other sports, it is also true that many own satellite dishes and watch some of the best leagues in Europe. All of these American fans of British and Italian football are generally not going to pay money to go to an MLS game because we know what good football looks like and the MLS doesn't have it. Maybe a lot of the current MLS players could have been good had they gone through a European or South American style of football development. But they didn't and now they're mediocre at best. A few times I've even heard and read MLS commentators and writers comparing American defender Eddie Pope to Sol Campbell of England. Aside from having dark skin, they are light years away in skill and I think England would cry and riot if Eddie Pope somehow stood in for Campbell in the National side.

Here in America it is emphasized that one get a high school degree. This being the case, I don't forsee a lot of 14-17 year olds going through rigorous "football-first" academys which would make them great players. So the mediocre/poor league should fold with in a few years. I wish it wasn't like that but the creators of the MLS were arrogant in "doing it their way, the American way," with the lack of player development, the shoot-outs, and the communist transfer system in which the league determines which player goes to which team, and they will pay the price.

Vexapor very well said!!! I belive you have proven me right on all the points i was trying to make. Jsbach and Polishpower how do you expect the mls to improve when they have a person who used to work for the nfl and doesnt have a clue what football is er soccer is,to promote the league..also i have played at college level and the coaches are not experianced they have never played proffesionaly before.This is what i experianced first they were looking for the most conditioned players they made my ass run for two hours( after this i had lost partial fealings in my legs and was gasping for air)then we had to do sprints and a cardiovascular work out(at this i was only standing because my shoes were properly laced)we concluded with a ten minute scrimige, the next day we had to run an obstacle course that was taken from a video on how the German National team trains, this took about fourty five minutes then we had to run up and down the stands for twenty five minutes( at this point i was ready to call it quits my body could not take more punishment but since i have balls the size of grapefruits i continuded) finally we hit the field this is what i was waiting for ,well it was a really crapy game since every one was too tired to play.I only got about ten minutes playing time.after the game the coaches made the cuts.a two day try out where only the most physically fit made the team.This was a disapointment these guys were looking for track & field,decatholon athletes and not footballers,i will agree that conditioning is a very important aspect of the game but you can get it from training you can not get talent the same way,your born with it...so i ended up beign soar for the next two weeks and in case you are wondering no i did not make the team i know a real tragedy but on the bright side the team lost all of their games and since the school doesnt care of their soccer program the coaches are stil here..... .

Vexapor, there is a lot of truth to what you said, though I don't think it's the whole story.
If soccer in the US depends on kids devoting their lives to soccer instead of education, it will never succeed here. There is more of an emphasis placed on finishing school and not enough professional opportunities, so rightfully so.
But I don't think it depends on this.
Where MLS is succeeding is in attracting some very talented players from Latin America and the Carribean. (like Stern John and Ariel Graziani) These players may only be around for a year or two before the money leagues notice them (John is already gone) but while they are in MLS, they are great to watch, and giving American players an international education.
Obviously American players on average will not compare to those churning out of football factories in England or Germany, but the colleges are doing a better and better job as time goes. Reyna, Hejduk, Sanneh, Keller, are all "cutting it" in Europe right now. They may not be young enough to develop into Rivaldo's or Zidane's, but they give the US a good solid core to help develop the next wave (Landon Donovan, DeMarcus Beasley... etc. See the U17 US team that just won their group at the World Championship and now advance. They are undefeated in 23 matches.)

You are right in that the MLS founders made mistakes and tried to be too American.

Edoardo, I will take a "wait and see" stance on the new MLS commissioner. So far, since the NFL man has come on, they have taken steps to fix many of the mistakes Vexapor and you brought up. Hopefully his commercial experience will bring a better attempt to promote and package the league. ESPN's overall coverage is criminal.

I'm curious as to what college you went to. There are a few programs like Indiana, Virginia, UCLA, Maryland, Santa Clara, St. Louis, Rutgers, that seem to be doing a very good job. Obviously this level is not maintained yet at all colleges... not even at all Div. 1 programs, but with the MLS existing now, and NCAA soccer growing quickly with more money coming into it, I'd say the future will be better.

Having testicles the size of grapefruit must be very painful. :-)
(What college was it? Sounds like they have things backwards. The conditioning cv training should take place AFTER the tryouts... although I would expect you to be in good cv shape before hand.)

MLS' problems are cultural as much as anything else. America is the only country in the world I can think of where soccer in an "elite" sport. Soccer, apart from some Hispanic communities here, is largely a white, suburban sport, which, as a black American, greatly frustrates me. In the rest of the world, soccer is "the people's game." The people's game here is basketball, and to a lesser extent, football.

Soccer needs to try what golf has done since Tiger Woods has hit the scene. It needs to open up to people who live in communities that lack playing fields and money. As long as it remains the sport of mothers driving SUV's, and players whose sisters go to ballet lessons, it will continue to be mediocre and worse, will continue to get disrespected by the mainstream media in this country as a game wimpy foreigners who dive play. Just imagine the skills and creativity Michael Jordan or Allen Iverson on an American soccer field!

So, here's my two cents worth: MLS was created full-blown out of the head of US Soccer and the teams deposited across America and we were told these are the teams - and the players - we are to root for. So, I - in Southern California - am supposed to cheer for the Galaxy. Why? What connection does the Galaxy have to Los Angeles? So the powers that be say, 'OK, we'll put some UCLA players on it.' Wrong - wrong - wrong. How many non-student fans ever attended a UCLA soccer match? None. Look, baseball (and football and basketball) took DECADES to grow in popularity as professional sports. Their parks - or arenas - were all stuck in the center of the cities; their players were visible in the community. Which is why Brooklyn (Dodgers), Baltimore (Colts) and Boston (Celtics) had such strong followings even as the leagues were floundering about. MSL is trying to avoid the growing process. What business in the world has ever succeeded without going through that process?

Everyone on here is making some excellent points.

jsbach, I didn't mean that to rival the rest of the world, US youth will have to sacrifice education in favor of football- but I can see how that came across in my post. What I meant was, that in some other countries, somehow at a very early age, these kids know they want to become professionals and the best of these kids go to football academies. These academies are like bording schools where they probably get a better education that at public school but they also live their lives outside of the classroom around football. Michael Owen graduated from one such academy, among others. I just can't see a 12-13 year old American entering into such a commitment. It seems like here in the US (in general) we don't really know what we want to do for careers until later than this. There's nothing wrong with that, except when it comes to football, those early teen years arecrucial to development and you can never quite make up for that lost time. It really is a credit to the players you mentioned who are playing well in Europe that they reached that level by not going through the "normal" process of becoming footballers.

Blue Moon,
You hit the nail on the head. If football made its way into urban US cities, as more than a highschool sport, and it was played with the frequency of pick-up basketball games, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion and the US would be a feared team by all.

The sad reality is, is the circumstances of space. Basketball courts in cities do not take up much space and they are cheap as hell to maintain. Because football fields are larger and much more expensive to maintain, we won't be seeing them increased in US urban areas. Another big difference is, even if kids in urban settings in other countries don't have fields to play on, they play in the streets. Most of the Brasilans grew up playing in the streets, as did Zidane. Now, I live in New York and I can't think of a single street here where a bunch of kids could get a game going and not be flattened soon after! So it is cultural and even to some extent structural with the lack if space and city layouts. It's really a shame because I think NFL football and basketball are kind of pushed on the black community in the US. But the reality is, the chance of becoming a professional in those sports is almost nothing. However, if the MLS holds up against my predictions, maybe the big picture will become apparent and people will see that there is a greater opportunity to play football not just in the US but around the world. (Personally, I think Barry Sanders would have been an excellent footballer!)

gmartinz,
I couldn't agree with you more. I went to the first MetroStars game and never went back since. I feel no connection to the team and it has nothing to do with their pathetic play. It is so gimmicky with it's laughable attempt to appeal to New York and New Jersey by calling themselves the "New York/New Jeresy Metro Stars." Even bringing in Donadoni and strategically placing him with the team because of the large Italian-American community here was pathetic. I can't even name all of the teams in the league anymore. I can't say that sitting at the 50,000+ capacity Giants Stadium, next to 9,000 people appeals to me much either!

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I'm going to try to respond to several points all at once.
----------
Edoardo wrote: "one thing that the american team has is overconfidence thats why they failed miserably in france and given that the new coach bruce arena does not have experienced enough for qualifiers or a world cup where after two games you can be eliminated i dont see a bright future ahead."

Well, I don't think overconfidence was a real problem for the team in France. The fact that they couldn't put the ball in the net was. I thought they badly outplayed Iran at times, but they hit the woodwork three times. I also think the formation was a big problem. 3-6-1 called for Thomas Dooley to have too much responsibility. He was nearly single handedly responsible for both goals against Germany, and the go-ahead goal against Iran.

And please don't ever confuse Steve Sampson with Bruce Arena. If the US can get to the World Cup with Sampson at the helm, I'm sure they won't have any problem doing it with Arena there.

-----------
Edoardo wrote: "look at some of the greats they where founded by scouts in the slums.have you ever seen where Ronaldo used to live"

I agree, but this is the US, not Brazil or Argentina. Generally, if you're 17 years old and you're a good player, you end up going to college. That's just the way it works here, and that's why MLS teams spend a vast majority of their time scouting colleges.

----------
PolishPower wrote: "the main problem with MLS as I see it is there is no reserve team system."

Something that may change this winter. Look for MLS to announce some sort of reserve team/youth development system, possibly in conjunction with the USSF or the A-League.

----------
Vexapor wrote: "taking players born of the US way of player development(high school, college, then professional) will not cut it in professional football. It may work fine for other professional sports in the US, but the MLS was a bit ignorant not to look at how it's done around the world."

You can only work with what you've got. Would it be good to have a league full of kids that have been professionals since the age of 16? Sure. But there aren't any Americans that fit that description. They really had no choice in the matter. They had to work around the system that was already in place.

----------
Vexapor wrote: "All of these American fans of British and Italian football are generally not going to pay money to go to an MLS game because we know what good football looks like and the MLS doesn't have it."

This is a pretty silly argument. How's MLS supposed to improve if nobody shows up? It's the classic "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The fans want better players, or they won't show up. But if they did show up, then the league could afford better players.

----------
Vexapor wrote: "So the mediocre/poor league should fold with in a few years."

What's a few years? Two? Five? 20? If you listen to what the investors are saying, they're in this for the long haul. A few more soccer specific stadiums, and this league should be pretty profitable.

----------
Edoardo wrote: "how do you expect the mls to improve when they have a person who used to work for the nfl and doesnt have a clue what football is er soccer is,to promote the league."

I think you underestimate the new guy. He lived in Europe for six years, I'm pretty sure he's at least somewhat familiar with the game. Besides, he seems like the type of guy who could sell ice to an Eskimo.

----------
A few other points, before I end the world's longest post:

Playing fields - A number of national media articles recently have pointed out that there's a severe shortage of soccer fields in the US. There's currently a bill before the US House that would call for the construction of over 1400 soccer fields around the country.

Stadiums - soccer specific stadiums are about to be announced in New York, Chicago, Colorado, Los Angeles, Washington, and posibly even Tampa. The faster MLS gets away from NFL stadiums the better.

"Most of the Brasilans grew up playing in the streets, as did Zidane. Now, I live in New York and I can't think of a single street here where a bunch of kids could get a game going and not be flattened soon after! So it is cultural and even to some extent structural with the lack if space and city layouts."

Being a Brazilian I could help here:
From 5 to 14 I only play soccer at regular fields at School. But we played soccer eveywhere, at street, at beach, at my yard (really small). If We didn't have a filed or enought played we play penalties at my room...

Most of the young, poor players, play at street and... uh... rock (really, really bad fields...) they only meet a field when they play for a club. But after 10 years playing with rocks, control the ball at a field, with a beautiful grass is pretty easy...

I just have to disagree with one point, about the fact that we are in a vicious cycle at work here in that if people don't go to games, MLS can't get good players because they will have no money. One of the investors in the league Lamar Hunt is I believe 5th richest man in the world, a multi-billionaire? Also I heard rumor that MLS spends more money on advertising than on player acquisitions.

So I think the money is there, but for some reason the league tied it's own hands at the outset, determined to spend the least amount of money possible. I heard that most average players in the league make only about 35 thousand per yer, I think very low wage for a professional athlete in USA.

Also the anecdote about the college soccer team I agree with you, I only played high school level and coaches do seem to put more emphasis on conditioning than actual soccer skill and tactics.

Also I think there is no way you can ever expect a person to master ball control skills if he begins to play at age of 15 or 16, this is why many American players have pretty atrocious ball control. Just imagine someone trying to learn to dribble a basketball when they are 15. These kinds of skills have to be picked up at very young age.

[This message has been edited by PolishPower (edited 11-17-1999).]

If MLS is spending more on advertising, then I don't know where they are spending it!
The promotion of the league is almost invisible outside of the team cities.

Lamar Hunt has ownership in a few of the teams. If I understand the system correctly,the player acquisition money doesn't come from team ownership, it comes from the league coffers.
This is to prevent an NASL-like suicidal chase for foreign talent it can't afford to support. The purpose of MLS is not to bring the Ronaldos of the world to the US. It is to groom US players and establish the sport so that someday, US players will be on a par with those around the world. Judging from the U-17 squad's recent track record, the US is making some progress.

As for starting at age 15 and 16... Where did this number come from? Even when I was a kid, I started playing soccer around 7 years old. That was just through a local league.
That was back in the early 80s. It's come a long way since then.
The US has youth soccer in huge numbers... It is the biggest youth participation sport in the USA. What is missing is an organized infrastracture that feeds the talented players into an MLS based youth training system and leagues.
Most kids are playing soccer at some time in their lives these days. The problem is that the coaching hasn't caught up universally to the numbers yet.
AND... there is a tendency for kids to stop playing when they reach adolescence... in favor of American football or basketball... due to the social structure of this country.
In other words, they are playing at 7 years old, but quitting before 16.

jsbach,

I agree with your points on the youth leagues in the USA. I started playing when I was 8 and played through high school and then some club teams. I only wish I had the opputunity that MLS presents for kids today and of course ODP if you are good enough. I also coach and agree with you on the coaches not catching up. I got invloved last year in coaching in my town and this year decided to help run the program to try and turn it around. We have 14 teams in age groups rangin from 5-13. Of the 14 teams we have 5 coaches, myself included that really know the game and of those 5, 3 of us coach 2 teams at different levels. That has to change if the US is ever going to catch up to the rest of the world. If the kids dont get proper coaching at a young age they will not be at the level they need to be when they get older. But there is talent there we just need to identify it and tap into it.

Finally Edoardo has come back to the forum.First off revsnet a sign of overconfidence is you beleaving the new mls commisioner who doesnt have a clue on soccer can help the league,like the u.s team they went to the worldcup overconfident,you count the number of shots they missed but forget the other teams also missed shots,and personally i dont think it's fair to blame steve sampson because all of their old players could not hack it anymore(due to injuries and from what they said low level competition from playing in the mls) and their new players were inexperienced and not ready for top notch competition . as for bruce arena,dont be fooled by the u.s teams victories they were against b teams and the time they played full strengh teams they didnt win 0-0 against bolivia and paraguay and a 1-0 defeat against Mexico in concacaf cup and they lost 2-0 again in the confederates cup,not only this but the media doesnt care they praise victories against mediocre teams in other countrys this would be critisism up the ass..a little sugestion to the ussf if the u.s does not beat mexico in the upcomming u.s cup change the name of the cup i dont think true u.s soccer fans can stand to see mexico win the cup for a fourth time in a row...also revsnet you said that if a player is 17 and is good he ends upgoing to collegetats just the way it works here...at 17 in other countrys you are all ready in the reserves..besides i have watched college soccer on tv and it stinks i have seen better games and players in local leagues around my house memo to the mls this is where you scout for players!!!! almost forgot odp blows it is bias did you know that claudio reina was not accepted into odp!!! i wonder how many more like him have been turned down...

What do you mean USA fans can't stand to see Mexico win the US Cup? I for one don't mind it because I know that Mexico is a better team, if you get beat by a better team then hats off to them. When USA starts to lose to teams like Cuba or Guatamala thats when I will get upset.

[This message has been edited by PolishPower (edited 11-18-1999).]

I think overconfidence and optimism are two different things.

I watched most of the Mexico-US matches over the last 5 or so years, and although the US still lose more than they win, the fact is they have evolved into what are now very competitive, intense, and yes... passionate matches. Mexico has a long history in the sport, and while the US is not better than them, they are getting closer to equal. All things considered, that's a pretty quick growth.
Let's face it... most of the friendlies going on these days are with "B teams." The US has been trying just as many new, inexperienced players as anyone else.
The point is, today's B team has an effect on tomorrow's A team.
After Paraguay's accomplishments in France, how can you call them mediocre?
Are Germany and Argentina mediocre?
The US lost their latest match yesterday to Morocco in Morocco. The final was 2-1. From what I read, it was a dynamite end to end match. Hadji scored the winner on a questionable penalty.
Should they be embarrassed to lose to Morocco? Heck no. Morocco is a strong team that has been at the top of African football for a while. (qualified for 2 world cups in a row) Hadji, Chippo, Naybet... these are good players. A great experience. Next up is a rematch with Iran. Should be a fun one.

As for 17 year olds... I think that a lot has changed in the last few years. There are now more options available. Europe is starting to scout out young Americans. (ie O-Brien - Ajax, Donovan and Thorrington-Leverkusen) MLS is establishing a youth system as we type.
Today, college is only one option. That wasn't true 4 years ago.
When you say the MLS and US Soccer need to do more than scout the colleges, you are right.
It seems that they are now starting to do this.

jsbach i think you didnt understand me i never said paraguay is mediocre i said that when ever the u.s team played a full strenght team it has not been able to win,argentina and germany were b teams and beating them doesnt count since they had to make a long journey and then play the next day while the u.s trained for a whole month.the mediocre teams are the central american/carabeean teams the u.s beats and gets high praises, this is where their "overconfidence" comes from.Polishpower if the u.s was my team i would be pissed if the same team kept kicking our ass over and over again and to top it off each year for the past three years win the only cup the us plays in since the ussf decided it was too good to play in the copa america(jsbach the u.s victory in 95 over argentina was a true victory unlike the recent one, big diffrence here..)I guess what i am trying to say is if the u.s cant win their own cup why are they still "confident" enough to claim that the u.s will win the world cup by 2010...one more thing i clearly remember reading about Doug logan saying that in 5 years the mls was going to be in a top level like english premiere league and italian serie A,so i guess next year the mls is going to be SMASHING !!! all of this to me sounds like "overconfidence" optimism is too much of a nice word in this case...This is my idea for the mls to suceed and it will work since fifa lets the mls bend the rules.My idea is for the mls to become "co-ed" you know like in little league where both boys and girls can play in the same team.I guarandamntee that Mia Ham will be able to draw bigger crowds than cobi jones and brian mcbride combined,think of the posibilities the ref can have like a pink card and there can be special rules like it's mandatory that three girls have to be in the field at all times hey NFL guy are you getting this down DANG(insider joke)this is some profitable $hit if you know what i mean....

[This message has been edited by Edoardo (edited 11-18-1999).]

Yesterday, at www.cnnsi.com, one of the MLS administrators, or the president, decided to change the rules of MLS alike or the same as the Fifa's one... No more SHOOTOUT.
The reason was that nobody liked the "Americanized-football" or "soccer," even in the USA.

The final score in friendly matches means very little. It's all about how you play during them. The only matches where the final score really matters for the "A" team are W.C. qualifiers and the W.C. itself.

Edoardo:
You need to differentiate between what the "talking heads" (Logan, Rothenberg, etc.) say and what knowledgable fans say. Obviously we aren't going to win the W.C. in 2002, but after that... France was crap in 1994-- they didn't even qualify for the W.C.
And yet who holds the trophy now-- France. Czechloslovakia was no world power in the early 90's, but the Czech Republic made it to the finals of Euro 96. Am I saying the U.S. will win the Cup very soon-- No! What I am saying is that America, and I do not think this is idle boasting, has the greatest atheletes in the world (see NFL and NBA), and sooner or later that will translate into some soccer success. There are 250 pound linebackers that can run as fast as Michael Owen or Ronaldo (Chris Claborne of the Detroit Lions comes to mind). Forget linebackers, could you imagine Randy Moss, who runs 100m in less than 10 seconds as a 6 ft. 4in striker? If you had defenders with the bodies athletic ability of Grant Hill, Kevin Garnett, no team would ever score from a corner. The trick is to get these type of guys to play soccer.

Also, there is no shame in losing to Mexico. I personally watched us DESTROY Mexico's A team 4-0 at RFK in 96. Should Paraguay be ashamed if they lose to Brazil 9 out of 10 times-- no.

I don't think the U.S. bombed out of France b/c of overconfidence. It was naivete. No team in the world that I can think of play a 3-6-1. Also, there was a lot of disunity in the side (like Holland in 94). That is why Sampson is gone.

I do agree with you that there is a lot of hot air coming out of the Commissioner's office and from U.S. Soccer. We should admit our shortcomings and address them rather than lie to the public and make promises we can't deliver. This isn't Europe or South America-- pretending we'll be that good so soon would be like Brazil thinking they'll be able to lose by less than 30 points against a NBA All-star team in Sydney.

When I said "optimism" I was referring to hoping that the NFL man will add some commercial viability to the league.
If Logan said what you quote him as saying, he was clueless.
I would call it "hyperbole" or in other words, political bullsh$%.
:-) Obviously the MLS won't be the FAPL. But hopefully it will continue to become a better league, with more talented players and coaches.

As for friendlies...So does Morocco's defeat of the US yesterday not count because the US team had to travel to Morocco and the US were also missing their best strikers? A friendly is a friendly. All teams experiment. I'm more encouraged with the way the US is playing. The 98 US team was far better than the 94 team, even though they didn't accomplish as much. All the 94 team did was bunker in. Boring. Bora-ing. The 98 team played an entertaining style, and while they choked against Germany, they really deserved better out of the Iran match, and even the Yugoslavia match.
The earlier comment about Sampson tactically botching the Germany match by putting too much on Dooley was spot on.
If he wanted to focus the defensive structure on Dooley, he should have tried it earlier.
Dooley was a solid defensive midfielder a few years ago, but he should never have been handed the role he was given in that match. He didn't have the legs for it.


The US is unlikely to win the World Cup by 2010. I wouldn't say it's impossible, though.
Seeing the advances they've made since 94, in another 11 years, who knows?

At the same time, qualifying will be more difficult because CONCACAF is going to be given fewer team slots.

As for the US Cup... it would help if they stay away from southern California as home to the competition. (no offense, Edoardo... I'm from a family of Californians...)
If we're going to play Mexico in LA, we might as well hold the match in Mexico City.
It's a home match for them.
Portland, DC, and Boston have proved to be better locales for "home" matches.
But, any way you slice it, Mexico is still the better team. But the line has moved closer.

Since you brought up the women... The US Women have dominated the sport and deserve respect. I think the MLS did a poor job at capitalizing on the success of the Women's World Cup... but when it comes to creating acceptance of soccer as a youth sport, what they did can only help the boys and men as well.
I know you were being sarcastic, but they are trying to get a pro women's league off the ground. Personally I hope they succeed.
The more soccer balls bouncing around out there, the better.

Edoardo what are you talking about Mexico keeps on kicking USA's ass? Did you watch any of the WC 98 qualifiers between Mexico and USA(by the way, real games...) You would not make such statements if you did watch those games. And what the games they lost now they got their asses kicked?, as I remember it they lost 1-0 to Luis Hernandez goal in 85th minute! Get your fact straight before you make such statements.

Absolutely, PolishPower! http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif

The last two times the US and Mexico met, it was for Cup competition (not World Cup), so both times each side pretty much fielded their full squads - although in the first of the two, the US had Tony Meola and Zack Thorton in goal... not even the US's #1 and #2 goalkeepers (Kasey Keller and Brad Friedel).

Both times the games went 0-0 until Mexico scored IN INJURY TIME! And the Mexican press went so far as to say that both games were "Superclasicos" (Super Classics)... and how often does the Mexican press compliment America in anything?!?

Unfortunately, there was a bit of overconfidence by both Steve Sampson and the U.S. team going into World Cup '98. Steve Sampson stuck only with certain players without doing what Bruce Arena is doing now... trying out ALL the talent available to him (younger players, older players, etc.) via MLS and players playing overseas. Granted, Sampson didn't have as much pre-qualifying time as Arena does for this experimentation, but he did have some. In the end, the U.S.'s debacle in France was in a very strange way the best thing to happen to U.S. soccer - it broke that overconfidence U.S. Soccer was feeling, and like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, a better team came out of it (Eddie Lewis, Zack Thorton, and several other of the younger U.S. players came on board AFTER World Cup '98). Of course, everyone realizes that U.S. soccer has a long way to go to truly be a contender on the world stage, but at least it's actually improving step-by-step instead of hanging their heads low while listening to the Edoardos of the world claim that they suck, that they should quit, blah blah blah. http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/frown.gif

And the new commisioner of MLS doesn't have a soccer background... but that's not what MLS hired him for. He has deputy commisioners handling the day-to-day soccer operations for the league, while he concentrates his strengths on what the league desparately needs... marketing! The league has been horribly marketed so far in the last four years, and it's his job to fix that in a big way. Maybe NFL Europe isn't greatly successful, but his NFL marketing experience should help him market to an American crowd... and if there's something the NFL definitely knows how to do, it's to market to an American crowd. Isn't it strange how it took a "non-soccer man" (the new commisioner) to convince the owners of MLS to eliminate the stupid shootout, to allow draws and to introduce the countup clock with ref-controlled time? Don't forget, the shootout was originally introduced by a supposed "soccer man" (Sunil Gulati)!


-G




[This message has been edited by Goodsport (edited 11-19-1999).]

Please see new topic thread...
"MLS article... attempt #2"

(attempt 2 because the 1st one didn't work. It crossed with another posting...)

Goodsport settle down im not trying to bash the u.s what im dong is constructive critisim.Also i never said that the u.s sucks and that they should quit.One more thing "all the Edoardos of the world",theres only one Edoardo,suave,smooth(a real lady's man) and even refreshing behold it is I. so dont mix me up with the rest it's like drinking kool-aid with no sugar...Therefor i belive you were not beign much of a "goodsport" on your blatant remarks regarding my persona so you owe me an apology... Moonboy (sonds cooler than blue moon wich can easily be confused with blue balls) your claim that the u.s has the greatest athletes in world is very arrogant,and using football players in footy games is unreal,just because their tall and fast and strong does not mean they are going to have the ability to twist & bend the ball at their will, it is not the same to rush for yards carrying a football than dribbeling one with your feet.jsbach i read the second attempt topic you posted,honestly i see a turn for the better and hope it helps the mls. polishpower maybe i went a little far with saying that they get their asses kicked so "maybe next time" would have sounded more politicaly correct.Goodsport one more thing mexico vs the u.s is not a superclassico a clasico yes but super no it came close to one but the u.s failed to follow. let me refresh your mind it was a match were alexi lalas was kicked in the gnads and to add insult to injury mexico was given a free kick this was in a u.s cup game.the u.s never returned the favor say they would have done it in aztec stadium and then all hell would have broken loose,that would have given it the super in superclassicos because now theres more reasons to want to beat a team or to really hate loosing to them...i watch too much wrestling and have an urge to close this topc with a catch frase like "and thats the bottom line cause stone cold said so" but i dont have any music to follow it so a simple cheerios would have to do.CHEERIOS

[This message has been edited by Edoardo (edited 11-19-1999).]

I have only one comment to Blue Moon:

You said France didnt qualify for WC 94 and so they sucked, yet 4 years later won the world cup. I think this comment is really ingorant on your part because if you knew how strong European football was you would never make such a comment. Let me tell you that every time there is a world cup or Euro championship there are teams that don't make the tournament which very well could have done very well, if not won if they qualified.

Proof? In 92 Denmark does not qualify for Euro championship yet are picked to replace Yugoslavia which is banned from the competition. Denmark goes on and wins the championship!
More Examples:just remember that the team that knocked out France from WC 94 was Bulgaria, and Bulgaria finished that cup in 4th place. Plus think about 98, Croatia, Italy, Yugoslavia all had to go through wild card qualifier to get to the cup and all those teams did very well in France. Plus some very good teams always miss the cup like Portugal and Russia in 98 or England and France in 94.

Thought you might all be interested in this one... another good omen for the future of US Soccer.


U.S. 3, Mexico 2
November 19, 1999

AUCKLAND, New Zealand (AP) - The United States came from a goal down to beat
Mexico 3-2 Saturday and advance to the semifinals of the under-17 world soccer
championship.

Mexico's Hector Vallejo scored in the third minute but the U.S. team took a 2-1 lead
just before halftime on goals by DaMarcus Beasley and Jordan Cila.

Kyle Beckerman made it 3-1 with a goal five minutes into the second half before Yered
Yanez narrowed the gap with Mexico's second on 71 minutes.

The "superclassico" comment was a quote of the Mexican press. - Not Goodsport's own categorization.

To Polish Power:

Polish Power:

There is no need to insult me just because we don't agree. I am a lawyer and I debate people all of the time, but I don't accuse them of making "ignorant" comments. It is quite disappointing to read this from you.

Back to our debate: Did you read the French newspaper headlines when they failed to qualify for WC 94? Even their own journalists thought they sucked. Michel Platini thought they sucked. Does Platini not know anything about soccer?

You said many good European sides don't qualify. The Welsh failed to qualify due to a last minute goal they allowed-- would you say they were any good? I will not argue that the 20th best European side is better than almost anyone outside Europe with the exception of Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Nigeria and a few others. What I was saying is that results matter, and based on results, you would have to say that the French came out of nowhere to win WC 98. Jacquet almost got fired right before the tournament. Some wanted him gone during the group stage. They struggled to beat a scrappy Paraguay side that had little firepower upfront but a tough defense. They didn't do too much during Euro 96 either (quaterfinals?).

I anticipate your response-- just try not to call me any names or say my comments are "ignorant."

Let's take it from another perspective:

US Soccer(not football)is in the upswing
after the disaster of last years and the 70's when they had their league filled with over the top European Stars.
remember the US CAN be there in about 35/40 years as serious Soccernation.
They have the best sports facilities of the world and it shows.
hardly any Hooliganism when going to a soccer match in the US, why? mentality!
Americans are very sport-mindend compared to us Europeans and Asians.
BUT the problem always was that the US thinks that it can market Soccer just like any other Sport in the US, like NBA Basketball,NFL Football, NHL Icehockey and MJL Baseball.
1 BIG different!:

These are all TV sports!
look at the way it's played:
all intermissions in between and therefore exellent for investestors and sponsors.
Soccer is not like that, It is a ongoing game 45 minutes with only 15 min break in between.
anf the most important thing is!

Soccer = a game of the people!the mass
every little child, from China to Mongolia, to South America, to Afrika, and so on is familar with that round thing you kick at.
Only in the US they are familliar with that
semi-banana thing, wich you trow at each other.
therefore, it wil take such a time to get adjusted into the US society and it's mentality and hopefuly culture.

Just few commens to Blue Moon:

Platini had very good reason to criticize France in 94, why? He was their coach in Euro 92 where they were considered one of the favorites and failed to win a single match. Platini was blamed for using defensive tactics and was forced to resign! so you think he didnt love to stick it to them two years later? This was a France team which had Ginola, Papin, and Cantona, all world class players I think all would agree.
France made the Euro 96 semi-finals where they lost to Czech Republic on penalty kicks and were one of the favorites to win the Cup in 98 based not only on fact they were home team but also had world class players at every position.

One more point, large segment of the press in Europe is there just looking for controversy,they will support a coach one month and next month call for his head, notice the saga of Kevin Keegan in the past year.

Finally I didn't say that you were ignorant, just said that your characterization of France team of early 90s as "crap" was ignorant, because they were not "crap" by any definition of that word.

PolishPower:

I agree with you about Keegan and the press. One minute he is a genius and the next minute he is an imbecile.

I also now agree that my characterization of France in 1996 as "crap" was perhaps a bit harsh. "Disappointing" or "underachieving" would probably have been a better description. Maybe I should say "their performances were crap" instead of "they were crap."

These debates really make the day go by a little faster.

As fun as this discussion has been, we really are doing it in the wrong forum.

How about we move this to the Soccer Forum...
(via Soccer Gaming also)

I've started a thread on the Cup final.