neither were there first teams but the us gave us americans some hope with all the goals that they scored.

Yeah, but what Arena needs to do is start grooming Beasely, Donovan, and Albright for the World Cup. Keep a close eye on these players this summer in Sydney.

How much longer are we going to depend on McBride and company? Cobi is 31, but he doesn't seem to be losing a step.

This could be a good year for the US. Let's see how they play in Sydney and the WC qualifying games.

i love mcbrides size and play making ability. maybe they should put him at mid because he's not a goal scorer. maybe he would be great at foward if we had a pure striker to put up with him. but without a great striker to put with him his lack of scoring is to much. cobi has been impressive though.

Why is it that everyone on this forum immediately second guesses coaches with these fledging children footballers? (Fifafanatic, though I have your comments in mind, please don't think I am reacting to only your sentiments.)

"The Italian Under-21's are could beat the S*** out of the seniors," "Why aren't Gareth Barry, John Harley and Joe Cole starting for England at Euro 2000?" Etc. Etc.....

Does anyone realize the training and experience it takes to be a consistent performer as an international and club professional? Regarding the Americans mentioned above, can't we give them a little time to mature? Have you all watched Chris Albright playing in MLS? I watch this kid every week, and he doesn't have a clue how to deal with MLS opposition - yet he's ready for the World Cup?

BTW, Fifafanatic, to which Beasely do you refer?

p.s. For all you "babe watchers", DC United's Convey just turned 17 and is clearly ahead of the "children" in MLS. He's made some impressions - but none of these kids are the finished article. Owen phenomena are rare indeed. (And he's not the finished article either!!!!)

Duke:

The reason why they aren't the finished product is because they aren't always given the opportunity.

Pele is a perfect example:

Pelé's soccer career started early. After playing in a few amateur teams like Baquinho and Sete Setembro, at the age of 11, while playing for an uncoached team called Ameriquinha, he was discovered by a former Brasilian World Cup player named Waldemar de Brito. De Brito recognized Pelé's skills and invited him to join the team he was organizing (Clube Atlético Baurú?). When Pelé was fifteen, in 1956, de Brito took him to the city of São Paulo to try out for the professional club called Santos Futebol Clube (SFC). That day, de Brito told the team directors that "This boy will be the greatest soccer player in the world."

Pelé's first show came on September 7, 1956, when he played in place of the center forward Del Vecchio. He came into the game to score the sixth of the seven goals in the 7-1 Santos victory. He scored his goal on the 36th minute, in a play between Raimundinho and Tite. The ball was given to Pelé in the box, and even though he was surrounded by defenders, he shot on goal and the ball went under goalkeeper Zaluar's body. Zaluar became famous as the first goalkeeper to take a goal from the great Pelé. From there, the trip to the summit was fast. In his first league game with Santos, he scored four goals. The next season, he was a regular starter and came out score leader of the São Paulo state league, with 32 goals.

Not long after Pelé's first season with SFC, Sylvio Pirilo, Brasil's national coach at the time, called Pelé to his squad. When Pelé was sixteen, on July 7th, 1957, he played for the first time for the Brasilian national team against Argentina's squad, and scored the one goal for Brasil in their 2-1 loss. And then the World Cup of 1958 came, and the world got to know the Black Pearl. His dazzling speed and rocketing shots made the jaws of many drop to the floor. All he had to do was walk onto the grass and the crowd would explode into wild batucadas and resonating chants. The nickname "The King" was given to Pelé by the French press in 1961 after he played a few matches with SFC in Europe.


It's not like a Pele comes around every day, but he was given the chance because they saw light in him. And about Owen...what are you talking about ? He may not be a finished product, but he is much more reliable than any other striker on England's team. A boy that scores 4 goals in a Premiership game is definitely talented and prepared for more.

If you do not allow players to develop, you are suppressing talent. Just because players are young does not mean that they cannot provide and present good results. If a player begins to play at around 26, he has a short time ahead of him. It is good to begin at a young age.

And about Mexico's loss. I don't consider this too shocking. We sent a club team to play, and the boys did well. These were young players that had never had a shot at international play, and their dreams were fullfilled. I hope some day to see these young players on the senior squad, and that they do just as well.

KappA

Excuses, Excuses http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif

Who is giving any excuses ?

This was expected you moron, everyone in Mexico knew they weren't going to win the Cup.

Who cares anyway, Mexico had won it with their senior team 3 years in a row, just like the Gold Cup. It was time to give it up, a team cannot win forever.

Don't instigate arguments Emerson. Because I certainly was not. I was proud of how Pumas did in an international tournament. If they lost, too bad, at least Mexico had a chance to see where talent is present in young players today. That's all I care about.

KappA

Who is giving any excuses ?

This was expected you moron, everyone in Mexico knew they weren't going to win the Cup.

Who cares anyway, Mexico had won it with their senior team 3 years in a row, just like the Gold Cup. It was time to give it up, a team cannot win forever.

Don't instigate arguments Emerson. Because I certainly was not. I was proud of how Pumas did in an international tournament. If they lost, too bad, at least Mexico had a chance to see where talent is present in young players today. That's all I care about.

KappA

LOL, I'm not trying to argue, and I am NOT a big fan of the U.S. but you gotta admit that everytime the U.S. wins against a "good" team, the people form that country say "it our second team" So what, who cares? It's the best team that Mexico could send. U.S. would have won anyways, even if it wasn't Mexico's "second team" And the funny thing is, the people who say that it was their country's second team, also say the MLS sux. I remember those arguments back a few months ago. So the U.S. won, who cares if it was their second team. In 3 years in the record books, noone will say "the U.S. beat Mexico's second team" they will say "U.S. beat Mexico" And now, lets not argue, Germany's kicking Romania's ass, well not really, lol. Good game though.

Duke:

I brought out Pele because I wasn't thinking about how he was the best player the game has seen. I brought out information on him because he was one of the few in this world that had been given an opportunity.

One will not always get results like his, but if you do not look at him in a superhuman sense, then you will see what I mean. And besides, I just wanted people to learn a little more about him anyway. If anyone wants the link to that site I'll be glad to give it to them. It has his life story, videos, statistics, etc.

Emerson:

Mexico didn't even send their second team. It was a young team of players from a club team in Mexico named Pumas, with Mexican reinforcements from Atlas and other teams. How can you say that the U.S. would have beat our first team when it has been our first team that has beat the U.S. for the past 3 cups ? It's not the same; a team needs to be complete to show its full strength.

The U.S. was the only team in that tournament with a full squad. And before you bash me, take a look at Ireland, they didn't have Roy Keane and other key players. South Africa was ridden by injuries. So do some research before saying that these teams could not have done better.

KappA

Kappa,

A couple of things:

Firstly, I am in no way interested in "supressing talent," I think that is a gross exaggeration of my comments. And what is the example you give for rebutle? Pele?!?! Could you find any more exceptional example? Of course he bloomed through his exceptional abilities at a young age, and was awarded early opportunities - HE WAS PELE!!!

Next, I suppose you might bring further counter examples like Maradona, Best, even Ryan Giggs. Your examples actually support my argument. These are exceptional, rare talents. My frustration is that most people seem to think any youngster who scores a goal or has a good match will become the next Pele or Ronaldo. Why don't we just replace all the older players when they hit 23 (especially when they have a couple of bad matches) and put in promising teenagers?

Finally, I think you also misunderstand my comments on Owen. He is at present England's most dangerous striker (yes, Andy Cole fans, I said it,) and absolutely needs to start for England. My comment about him "not being the finished article" is a tribute to a rare talent whom I think is only going to get better.

BTW, Kappa, you are right on about U.S. cup. It's a rinky dink tournament, and testing ground for Mexico (even Ireland's) reserves. Any win for the U.S. national team is a good one, but U.S. fans best not read too much into that little tourny.

well, i think you're talking about the past, when you say that mexico has beaten the u.s. in the last 3 cups. look at the u.s. team now!

KappA:

The bottom line is that the Republic of Mexico was invited to send a team to a International tournament. They were representing the entire country, the people of Mexico, themselves and the "Tri-color" jersey. The Mexican Federation had their entire pool of players to chose from. Nobody said they couldn't send the "first team", nobody told them who to send, nobody prevented them from sending whoever they chose. I'm sure that honor and pride in terms of succes on the soccer field is very important to the whole country. That was the team that lined up wearing the "Tri-color" and the USA beat them...no if's and's or but's!!! Your comments are the worst kind of excuses because they imply that Mexico gave less than their best. If that is true then SHAME, SHAME, SHAME. You should not participate if you do not give your best. This reminds me of the person that tried to minimize Corinthians winning the World Club Cup and Vasco's performance there by saying that Man U. did not try. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME. Do not minimize the USA victory or the effort that the Mexican players put out by sayiong this game shouldn't count because it was not Mexico's best team. They wore the National Jersry and that's it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey Diablo2000:

I was proud of how Pumas did in an international tournament. If they lost, too bad, at least Mexico had a chance to see where talent is present in young players today. That's all I care about.

Learn to read, f*cknut. I posted that earlier. I said I could care less. EVERYONE IN MEXICO KNEW PUMAS WASN'T GOING TO WIN THE CUP. IT WAS EXPECTED. It would have taken a miracle for a club team of young inexperienced players to have won an international cup. Get that through your head already. If you want to bash me more or if it satisfies you, the U.S.'s soccer federation is going to sue the FMF for not sending their first squad. Now leave me alone as I already have determined my standpoint on this issue.

KappA

Guys, this whole topic wasn't started so you guys can argue over who's thread makes more sense. These threads are as bad as the guys from Europe post http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif (Turkey will tear England to pieces!! you know what I mean)

Bottom line is this, US won, Ireland, Mexico, and South Africa lost.

Personally, I didn't like how Mexico dealt with this situation. Not even Lapuente showed up for the Cup!!! What was his excuse, he was preparing for the WC qualifing games as well? I think they had enough of losing this year and didn't want to make it a clean losing sweep for Lapuente and his team in the year 2000. Save some face and his job. I say don't invite Mexico for a while. Another country can use the 450,000 dollars. Let Canada play next year, they earned it. See what it would cost to have Columbia or Argentina to play? The Cup doesn't revolve around Mexico, it revolves arounf the game.

Ahemm... The Nike U.S Cup in a sense, does revolve around Mexico... here are some reasons >>> FAN ATTENDANCE. It is no mystery that the Mexican Nat team can put more arses in a stadium in the U.S than the U.S Nat team... TV DEALS >>> American t.v stations dont give a rats ass about footie.. Only two stations in english were broadcasting the Nike U.S Cup. This in a country were you can get up to 500 channels !!! With Mexico in the tourney, The U.S spanish t.v stations are more willing to pay $$$ to transmit the games. THREE TIME CHAMPIONS. Mexico had won this tourney three time in a row. They were the team to beat and beign the U.S bigest rival makes them a key player in the cup. Just think what a World Cup would be without the Tetra Campeao "BRAZIL". While the USSF can invite other countrys, in the past high caliber teams like Brazil, Germany, and England have participated. They wont bring in as much $$$ as Mexico... If they did then Mexico would have never ever been invited. Various Styles thinks that if Nike wants to make more $$$, they should rename the cup to "The Nike MEX Cup"... Here are some fan attendance numbers from Mexico games played in the U.S >>> MEX vs ARG 90,000+ fans. Mexico vs Brazil 90,000+ fans. Mexico vs U.S 100,000 fans, in the same stadium U.S vs Denmark 20,000 fans. Get the picture !!! Now Mexico sent in a Club Team with the Mex Nat jersey but Both Ireland and Republic of South Africa had sent their B'teams. Only the U.S has their starting players. So why do you think that the USSF is upset only with Mex for not sending their starters. One reason and one reason only $$$. So know they dont want to pay up.. This my friends is called "EXPLOITATION"... The USSF should be happy that Mexico did not win this cup for a fourth consecutive time and that the U.S finaly beat Mexico. It had been 6 long years since the U.S defeated the Tri-colors !!! NOTE to the USSF: Quit beign tight asses and pay up. The FMF wants their 750,000 $$$ for participating. The money is to be paid in packs of five and ten dollar bills. the new ones too... If not, then good luck with your next edition of the U.S cup. because were are not going. so dont expect your fan attendance to be higher than 25,000... "NUFF SAID"

"The FMF wants their 750,000 $$$ for participating. The money is to be paid in packs of five and ten dollar bills. the new ones too... "

Various Styles, I couldn't help but smile when I read this. Thanks for the color commentary.

Yes, Mexico is the team to beat around here, but that doesn't give them a right to try to pull out like they tried to do. The suggestion of club players to represent was a last resort effort. Here, you read:

"Obviously the biggest problem was the Mexican team fiasco. U.S. Soccer had entered into a three-year contract with the Mexican Soccer Federation calling for Mexico to provide its full national squad for this year and for two years to follow. The U.S. wants Mexico in the tournament because it is our primary competition within CONCACAF, and because of the sizable ticket-buying Mexican population in this country.

Three weeks before the tournament began, there was total upheaval in the Mexican Federation. New president Alberto de la Torre came in and decided to shake up the national team because of unhappiness at it recent showings -- Mexico's loss in the Gold Cup and their failure to qualify for the Summer Olympics.

He sacked Hugo Enrique Kiese, head of the national team commission, and announced he was considering the future of national team coach Manuel Lapuente. In firing Kiese, he attacked Kiese's signing of the three-year deal with U.S. Soccer, and the decision to play in the U.S. Cup.

Two major things had occurred since the contract was signed. CONCACAF moved up the start of World Cup qualifying from September to July under pressure from world governing body FIFA to better comply with its new international calendar. At the same time, the Mexican professional season had to be extended by several weeks because of weather and scheduling problems. These two factors meant that players from the four of the top Mexican teams would be unavailable for the U.S. Cup because they were still involved in the league playoffs, and that Mexico's World Cup camp would have to begin the day after the U.S. Cup so players who might be available would have no rest between their club season and World Cup.

De la Torre tried to get Mexico out of its contract. At first he asked U.S. Soccer to reschedule the competition to a more convenient time for Mexico, maybe late August. U.S. Soccer's reply was obvious. Then he reportedly said, OK, we just won't come, get someone to replace us. He was then reminded of a possible lawsuit, and what FIFA's response might be -- such as disqualifying Mexico from World Cup qualifying. As this was going on, de la Torre was pressured to back down on Kiese's firing and reinstated him.

Kiese was told to somehow deal with the U.S. Cup problem. He flew to Chicago and made a proposal. For Mexico's first match against Ireland in Chicago, it would field a team made up primarily of the Mexicans on club team Pumas of UNAM, the highest-ranking team in the Mexican League not still playing, and he would augment the Pumas line-up with a few other quality players. Then for the subsequent match against South Africa in Dallas, he would guarantee that the Los Angeles Galaxy's Luis Hernandez would play. Finally, for the final match against the U.S. at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., more quality players would be added, including regular national team starters.

"We reluctantly said yes," said Hank Steinbrecher, U.S. Soccer's secretary general. "But we reminded them pretty forcefully the potential consequences of their failure to live up to their agreement."

So the tournament's rules were changed. Any team could add players to its roster up until the Thursday before the Giants Stadium finale. Reportedly, U.S. Soccer officials met with the Mexicans in Dallas on the Thursday morning after Mexico defeated South Africa 4-2. Now the Mexicans' attitude had changed. They said they simply could not get any additional players willing to play, so they would not be adding to their roster.

Moreover, since at that point Mexico was tied for the tournament lead, the Mexican Federation thought its players were doing quite well. The Mexican Federation also said that Hernandez would be rejoining the Galaxy and would not be coming to New York. Talk to Major League Soccer about this if you have a problem, they said.

So the match was played in the New Jersey Meadowlands with the mostly Pumas lineup and the U.S. won handily 3-0. U.S. Soccer officials were privately livid, but could do little.

"They are clearly in breech of their contract with us," says Tom King, U.S. Soccer's chief operating officer. "We are evaluating what remedies are available to us."

Reportedly, these remedies include not paying Mexico for their participation this year and declaring the contract void as to the next two appearances. "I would think it a safe bet you will not see Mexico invited back for some time," King said

Reportedly U.S. Soccer is also considering not giving Mexican league teams permission to play matches on U.S. soil, something foreign teams must have even before paying exhibition matches..."

Mexico and the US have a 3 year contract for Mexico to participate in the Nike Cup and for Mexico to suit up their National squad. Ireland and South Africa were invited to participate in this years cup.

Mexico violated their contract by not suiting up there full squad. And you still think they should be paid.

[This message has been edited by fifafanatic (edited 06-17-2000).]

Fifafanatic: The USSF should not be pissed off. In the last two Nike Cup editions mexico has NOT sent their full squads. half of the team was usually filled with rookies. So on what basis does the USSF decide who is and who isnt on the Mexican Nat Team. FIFA should be looking the other way also. In Confederations Cup 99. fRANCE declined participation. Their excuse was no diffrent than Mexico's. In the end Germany took their place. Why is it then that the USSF could not have gottened another team. If they wanted a team that will be a key player in Concacaf WC Qualifying, then for Half of what they pay Mexico they could have gottened CostaRica or Honduras even Canada fully dressed with all their starters in next day air express !!! They didnt want too, so thats the USSF problem. Mexico eer the Tri-Pumas played some descent games, put asses in the staiums, helped MLS games in attendance and in the end lost to the U.S... What more can you want, Bragging Rights !!! So pay up... and because the check has been put on hold, the FMF expects to recive a complimentary gift when the payment is made in full. do not send a fruitbasket it will be returned... PS, by the USSF denying the FMF clubs or nat team participation of friendlys on U.S soil they will only hurt the fans and the promoters because the FMF has money up the wazooo... They will be getting money from MEXICOS up comming participations in WC Qualifiers, Copa America, and Confederations Cup 2001, 2002 they will be in the WC and by 2003 it will be time for Copa America again. $$$, it is very clear that the FMF is booked almost untill 2004, maybe by that time Nike will be sponsoring Mexico and the ban will be lifted !!!

Fifanatic:

For the past three years, Mexico had sent their best team. This time, even after reading what happened, you still manage to remain ignorant to the fact that:

A) Mexico's league finals STILL had not finished
B) Club America, which fields many national players, was still playing in the Libertadores cup
C) Players need to rest

Mexico does not have to please the U.S., it has its own commitments and tournaments to play in. Why are you not complaining about South Africa and Ireland not sending their best teams ? Why aren't you whining about Roy Keane not playing ?

Football players are humans too. They aren't robots. Just because the U.S. made an agreement with Mexico to have them play in their cup does not mean that the Mexican players should not have a time to rest. They are entitled to spending time with their families before embarking on a 2-year journey towards World Cup qualification. Why don't you put yourself in their position ? It's not always about fun and games, and a player can get exhausted. Be more considerate for God's sakes.

TeKNoS

Teknos, if it isn't you again,

Well, the reason no one is complaining about Ireland and South Africa is because they were invited, key word being invited. Mexico and the US have a 3-year contract for both squads to suit up there full squads.

Please do some research before you start calling people ignorant. It only shows who the ignorant one is.

If Mexico couldn't honor their contract, they should have not agreed to one. It doesn't matter how you put it, a contract is a contract, and by not honoring one, you must face the consequences.

Yes, Mexico has had a difficult time this year, but the way they dealt with the situation was wrong. Hell, Sanchez was even complaining. They didn't have their equipment and gear until a few days before the first game. The roster wasn't even set until the final week.

I can go on and on, but what for, you'll still have your opinion and I'll have mine. That's the beauty of living in a free country. So enjoy your freedom of speech and I'll enjoy mine.

fifanatic:

The issue is over. Mexico will most likely be sued. Maybe then you will be happy. It doesn't really matter if Mexico isn't invited again. Oh well, the U.S. cup., may we shed tears because we have been banned.

What I want is for people to stop bashing on our team. If they looked at it from my side, which was one with pride rather than disappointment, maybe you would understand. Contracts are contracts yes, but we have our own league, which mind you, is more successful than the MLS, and we don't have to arrange things around to suit the USSF's desires.

We are committed to other things other than exhibitional tournaments. One of our teams made it to the Libertadores cup, which is the celebration of Central American and South American football. What difference does it make as to which players take part ? It's a country, there are many who can play. Oh well, we lost to the U.S. They should be rejoicing instead of complaining and threatening. If they ban Mexico, I could care less. I'd just like for this to be over and let our players get ready for World Cup qualification. They don't need this treatment and threats from the USSF or FIFA.

TeKNoS

wait wait, the Mexican league is better than the MLS? mmmm, right, in the attendence maybe. Let's see, which "stars" or known players play in that league? Even Hernandez went to the MLS, I guess it's more competative.

Wait wait...you consider washed up 38-40 year old men, e.g. Lothar Matthaus, and starting amateurs that no other team wants anymore "stars" ? Oh and mind you, these old guys have played on MUCH more successful teams before coming to the MLS. It's a retirement central for many. LoL And we've had Americans coming down here before, e.g. Mike Sorber (Pumas), Marcelo Balboa (Leon). So think before you speak.

TeKNoS