-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
Most Underrated (or Overrated) Team?
- Thread starter swezwakov
- Start date
Overrated: Galatasaray, Real madrid!! (ronaldo ,beckam WTF?? those guys have monstrosious stats!!!. Ronaldo have in shot 100 and 100!!! Holy **** wassup there?? Maybe 100 in accuracy, but 100 in power??)
Underatted teams: Boca juniors.
MOst Underrated player!!!!!: Carlos Tevez!! (Boca juniros)
He is the most promising youngter in america!! and
he have a miserable 62....when Cavenagfhi from river (who is not better than tevez overall) is 80!!!!!
Underatted teams: Boca juniors.
MOst Underrated player!!!!!: Carlos Tevez!! (Boca juniros)
He is the most promising youngter in america!! and
he have a miserable 62....when Cavenagfhi from river (who is not better than tevez overall) is 80!!!!!
Hydde - I totally agree about some of those players being overrated, ESPECIALLY Beckham. Talk about being benifited from joining a stacked team... he's not even close to as good as the ratings they give him. He has other assets that are more important to Real Madrid other than his playing ability (marketing...).
Ganxta - Definitely. Totally agree with that one. A lot of Eastern European / Asian teams are not getting the respect they deserve.
Ganxta - Definitely. Totally agree with that one. A lot of Eastern European / Asian teams are not getting the respect they deserve.
bennismalls
Youth Team
bennismalls
Youth Team
if borgetti, morales, arellano and some more arent good enough then u say soOriginally posted by #1 Stunna
1) the Gold Cup is the most important cup
2) that Mexican team USA beat was a club...with 3 players from other clubs...not what i would call my "A" squad.
first of all they didnt even play in the 2000 USA Cup cuz like i said earlier, it was the club UNAM with 3 or 4 players from other clubs:
* - indicates players from a club other than UNAM:
1 - Sergio Bernal
3 - Joaquín Beltrán
5 - Israel López
6 - Gerardo Torrado
14 - Christian Ramírez
17 - Raúl Alpizar
7 - Luis Ernesto Pérez *
8 - Paulo César Chávez *
9 - Horacio Sánchez
11 - Jesús Olalde
20 - Daniel Osorno *
see...it was a club with a few backups...thats not our "A" squad.
bennismalls
Youth Team
ok show me where u got that from
bennismalls
Youth Team
besides the last 2 times the 2 playewd america won 1 and then they drew earlier in april i think americans are one of the most fit soccer nations in the world
http://www.senorgol.nu/mexsel2000/0611mexvsusa.htm
and notice how it doesnt say "Mexico"...but rather "Combinado Mexicano".
bennismalls
Youth Team
ggood job but who told u not to bring ur all stars besides that u just dont want to admit that us are getting better and r good and drawing even with mexico kind of no more fighting ok peace
bennismalls
Youth Team
i just keep making mistakes huh? oh well anyway i really at first wasnt directing my comments at u it is the ppl that said that the is suck in which they dont. and i wanted to state that the us have world class talent.
First and foremost, I think the U.S. were lucky to get what they got as a rating. The U.S. have improved yes, but they have long ways to go to catch up with the great African sides (Cameroon, Senegal, Nigeria), South American, and European sides. It's history in these continents. Football or soccer whatever u want to call it. These are people who have been playing for a long time. They don't have stupid programs that soccer moms come and watch their children play. These people have heart whenever playing the game. True Talents. I mean did you see the Confederations cup? U.S. really sucked in it. France was 1st and Cameroon was 2nd. West African Teams in the year of '96 when Nigeria won the Olympics caught up to the European and South american teams. Now it's hard to say who will win. The ratings are more realistic in PES3. Senegal would destroy the U.S. 2 diff. styles, and Senegal has faster players and younger legs. I mean look, Freddy Adu is West African!!!!!!!! From that region as I assume with the regions in South America and Europe, kids start playing when they can walk. America should stop thinking everyhting they have is the best. I think that there are alot of overrated and underrated teams. However, I think that Senegal and Cameroon deserve 4 stars because of their accomplishemnts, Nigeria deserves 3.5, and France should be about 4 stars too Germany 4 England 4, Argentina 4/4.5, Brazil 4.5. Portugal was overrated they should be 3/3.5 because they only have 2 star players. Asia is doing well, Korea should get 3.5, Japan 3.5 etc. I think FIFA never rates teams well. I don't know why, is it mainstream they always go for, teams that were good in the past I have no idea. But in a country like the U.S. where soccer is not even valued highly and it's a game reserved for the middle class +, they don't deserve much on rating. Why should one register just to play soccer??? It's a normal game in every country. Poor kids can play!!!!! and it's usually the poor kids who perform better in the European nations, South American, etc. I mean these days, Cameroon can play England, Argentina to a draw, like they did before the world cup. In my opinion, Iran can still beat the U.S. The U.S. sure did get lucky no lie!!!!!
Do you guys think that Zidane grew up rich??? heck no!!! and Ronaldo??? Diouf????? heck nooo!!!!! These guys grew up poor and were discovered by scouts. These are true soccer giants! Soccer will never be a big sport in this country if we leave it to only middle class and above. If it's not played on the streets, the U.S. will never be able to compete unless if we keep getting foreingers from other countries like we constantly do. Shame!!!!
Do you guys think that Zidane grew up rich??? heck no!!! and Ronaldo??? Diouf????? heck nooo!!!!! These guys grew up poor and were discovered by scouts. These are true soccer giants! Soccer will never be a big sport in this country if we leave it to only middle class and above. If it's not played on the streets, the U.S. will never be able to compete unless if we keep getting foreingers from other countries like we constantly do. Shame!!!!
"But in a country like the U.S. where soccer is not even valued highly and it's a game reserved for the middle class +, they don't deserve much on rating. Why should one register just to play soccer??? It's a normal game in every country. Poor kids can play!!!!!..."
(one of the most ignorant things I've heard in a while)
"Do you guys think that Zidane grew up rich??? heck no!!! and Ronaldo??? Diouf????? heck nooo!!!!! These guys grew up poor and were discovered by scouts. These are true soccer giants! Soccer will never be a big sport in this country if we leave it to only middle class and above. If it's not played on the streets, the U.S. will never be able to compete unless if we keep getting foreingers from other countries like we constantly do. Shame!!!!"
(second most ignorant thing I've heard in a while)
That was a post that had potential, but then completely lost it at the end. Comparing the economy of American to Brazil? What kind of a tool are you? OBVIOUSLY Brazil is going to have a much larger lower class than America, and obviously they are going to have players scouted there - its a pool of talent! It's the history of the country that is getting these players noticed, not the fact that they are poor and playing in the streets. I don't see too many players from Central America or the Caribbean being whisked away on a magic carpet ride to the Premiership or La Liga, correct? Those nations are just as poor, if not MORE poor, than Brazil. It has nothing to do with that.
The talent that Brazil basically "breeds" (I'm not saying this in a negative way - its just that its constantly there! Just when you think they've got the next Pele, another one pops up! It's discouraging...
) is not because of the poorness of the country, or the fact that they have to turn to playing in the streets. It has to do with the fact that the players are born with soccer in their blood, if you will. Playing it all the time, being a naturally born athlete, the conditioning, the intelligence - this is what makes a soccer player. Not his or her financial status. That was by far the most ludicrous statement I've ever even been asked to consider.
How about the fact that enrollment in youth soccer programs around the country continues to increase, while baseball and softball enrollment DECREASE. Why is this? A few reasons:
#1. Most American kids have the attention span of a rock. I'm one of them. I have a hard time staying on task in most things, as do most Americans (society creates this - that's another topic altogether).
#2. Parents see it as a way of getting their child good exercise. In a time where TV is the babysitter and videogames count as extra-curricular activity, a good hour or two, once or twice a week, of constant running is a nice break (not enough, either - I'm a track coach, so I know this really does nothing in terms of getting in shape). Plus, it makes the rascals tired. Nothing wrong with that.
#3. Compare soccer to baseball and softball. How interesting is this for a kid who is six years old and playing T-Ball, having to sit there... while each kid gets their turn... and nobody keeps tracks of the outs... and nobody can field anyways, so any hit is almost always a home run... IT SUCKS. I've been there. In soccer, though, you're always in motion, always on the go. What's more exciting for a kid?
#4. It can be played year round (provided the child has the chance to play indoor soccer). Baseball isn't indoors, basketball isn't outdoors (as far as MOST recreational programs). Those are typically one season sports (I'm writing this from New England, so obviously, I understand that other areas of the country can disagree with this). Soccer, though, is year-round, and the child will always be able to be a part of the organized sport.
#5. While the inner-city numbers aren't there yet, they will be soon. Street soccer is becoming ever more popular in most urban cities, and many national tournaments are highlighting this exciting and challenging sport.
Aside from all this, sport companies are trying to get the child's attention on what they need to do to play soccer better. I don't know if anyone has seen any of Nike's ads in EuroSport's mailer, but they are not only FUNNY AS HELL, but they also are trying to serve a purpose (aside from connecting Nike with being a funny brand that sells soccer shoes). All the ads mention Brazilian soccer, and the games that they play, and how they emphasize one-v-one, not the team sport, in youth soccer.
This isn't something that someone just happened to come across one day in Brazil. It's just logic - if the country can't afford to organize a league of players, and yet everyone wants to play, what do you do? Play when you can! If there's only two of you, play one on one! Just play, damn it!
Compare this to the mentality of youth soccer coaches in America. They emphasize soccer as a team sport, to never try to beat players one on one (I've heard many coaches say this, and its a disgrace - "Why didn't you pass it? He was open! Don't try to beat him one on one!"). Its just a carry over from other sports that are popular in America - without his line, a quaterback can't do Carlos; without a point guard with good vision, the forwards and centers won't have open looks at the hoop; without a setter, how can someone spike the ball; without his team behind him, the pitcher is toast; etc., etc., etc. Most of the major market sports preach the team game, but soccer has to have the element of selfishness.
Don't believe me? One of my town's former coaches at the area high school gave me a bunch of Coaching magazines. An article in one issue was reviewing the World Cup in 1986, and it stressed what the U.S. needed to do in order to improve and have a chance. It said that passing was ok, but most goals scored in that World Cup were scored on something like 3 or less passes. Next, the also mentioned that most goals were scored on two or less touches. Finally, they stressed that most goals were scored inside the 18 (or something to that effect). I don't have the exact numbers, but I can get them if someone really gives a crap. So the summary was that we needed to coach our kids to be more selfish in an attacking position, use less touches, and strike from within. Makes sense, yes?
The fact that a country has a crummy economy does NOT mean that it can have better soccer players than America, nor does it mean that a poor player in America can't play on a good team or get scouted. Its not in our blood yet to have it that way, the proper style of soccer isn't being stressed, etc.
Freddy Adu's mother is working at the Home Depot in his home town, where she's been working since they came to America (if I'm not mistaken). He isn't from a wealthy family. He was given an opportunity to play on a big stage with a travel squad and shone (shined?). He hasn't proven himself on the biggest stage of all yet, but he's done pretty well so far, hasn't he? Time will tell if he can ever be in the same league as some of AMERICA'S best, let alone the best in the world (but I should mention that when he was 14, his U-17 squad scrimmaged the Chicago Fire and beat them 2-1 with Freddy getting a goal and an assist).
I'm so bothered by this comment the most, I think - "But in a country like the U.S. where soccer is not even valued highly and it's a game reserved for the middle class +, they don't deserve much on rating." It's the most illogical, ludicrous, and dense comment I've heard in soooooooooo long. I was beside myself reading it, I really was. If that was your intention, to create such a rush of emotion and fury towards such a juvenile and poorly thought out comment, then well done - you've succeeded. If it was supposed to be an intelligent insight towards the situation of soccer in American versus the situation in other nations, that was really one of the most pathetic comments that I've ever heard. It's a shame. A poor shame.
Besides, why would Korea and Japan have a higher rating, in your mind? Because they "are doing well"? I must've been asleep whenever any announcer or manager mentioned the deep history of those nations, and how they play on the street, and are poor, and they have all their lower class players on great teams.
What you write down isn't the spoken word, its written. You can re-read your message and edit as necessary, and nothing will ever really be "set in stone", so to say, until you hit the "Submit Reply" button. I strongly recommend that you think about what you have written before you send it out to be read by the masses. Otherwise, it just makes you look like a fool.
So, in closing, I just want to say I disagree. OBSCURE REFERENCE: The movie "High Strung", very obscure movie... in it, one of the characters has a fantasy about how he's going to stand up to his boss's wife, who he hates. When they finally come face to face, he says to her, "No, no no no. Wait a second. You're WRONG. You're racist, and you're WRONG." Good movie (until the end). Don't think I'm calling anyone a racist. You're just wrong.
(one of the most ignorant things I've heard in a while)
"Do you guys think that Zidane grew up rich??? heck no!!! and Ronaldo??? Diouf????? heck nooo!!!!! These guys grew up poor and were discovered by scouts. These are true soccer giants! Soccer will never be a big sport in this country if we leave it to only middle class and above. If it's not played on the streets, the U.S. will never be able to compete unless if we keep getting foreingers from other countries like we constantly do. Shame!!!!"
(second most ignorant thing I've heard in a while)
That was a post that had potential, but then completely lost it at the end. Comparing the economy of American to Brazil? What kind of a tool are you? OBVIOUSLY Brazil is going to have a much larger lower class than America, and obviously they are going to have players scouted there - its a pool of talent! It's the history of the country that is getting these players noticed, not the fact that they are poor and playing in the streets. I don't see too many players from Central America or the Caribbean being whisked away on a magic carpet ride to the Premiership or La Liga, correct? Those nations are just as poor, if not MORE poor, than Brazil. It has nothing to do with that.
The talent that Brazil basically "breeds" (I'm not saying this in a negative way - its just that its constantly there! Just when you think they've got the next Pele, another one pops up! It's discouraging...
) is not because of the poorness of the country, or the fact that they have to turn to playing in the streets. It has to do with the fact that the players are born with soccer in their blood, if you will. Playing it all the time, being a naturally born athlete, the conditioning, the intelligence - this is what makes a soccer player. Not his or her financial status. That was by far the most ludicrous statement I've ever even been asked to consider. How about the fact that enrollment in youth soccer programs around the country continues to increase, while baseball and softball enrollment DECREASE. Why is this? A few reasons:
#1. Most American kids have the attention span of a rock. I'm one of them. I have a hard time staying on task in most things, as do most Americans (society creates this - that's another topic altogether).
#2. Parents see it as a way of getting their child good exercise. In a time where TV is the babysitter and videogames count as extra-curricular activity, a good hour or two, once or twice a week, of constant running is a nice break (not enough, either - I'm a track coach, so I know this really does nothing in terms of getting in shape). Plus, it makes the rascals tired.
Nothing wrong with that. #3. Compare soccer to baseball and softball. How interesting is this for a kid who is six years old and playing T-Ball, having to sit there... while each kid gets their turn... and nobody keeps tracks of the outs... and nobody can field anyways, so any hit is almost always a home run... IT SUCKS. I've been there. In soccer, though, you're always in motion, always on the go. What's more exciting for a kid?
#4. It can be played year round (provided the child has the chance to play indoor soccer). Baseball isn't indoors, basketball isn't outdoors (as far as MOST recreational programs). Those are typically one season sports (I'm writing this from New England, so obviously, I understand that other areas of the country can disagree with this). Soccer, though, is year-round, and the child will always be able to be a part of the organized sport.
#5. While the inner-city numbers aren't there yet, they will be soon. Street soccer is becoming ever more popular in most urban cities, and many national tournaments are highlighting this exciting and challenging sport.
Aside from all this, sport companies are trying to get the child's attention on what they need to do to play soccer better. I don't know if anyone has seen any of Nike's ads in EuroSport's mailer, but they are not only FUNNY AS HELL, but they also are trying to serve a purpose (aside from connecting Nike with being a funny brand that sells soccer shoes). All the ads mention Brazilian soccer, and the games that they play, and how they emphasize one-v-one, not the team sport, in youth soccer.
This isn't something that someone just happened to come across one day in Brazil. It's just logic - if the country can't afford to organize a league of players, and yet everyone wants to play, what do you do? Play when you can! If there's only two of you, play one on one! Just play, damn it!
Compare this to the mentality of youth soccer coaches in America. They emphasize soccer as a team sport, to never try to beat players one on one (I've heard many coaches say this, and its a disgrace - "Why didn't you pass it? He was open! Don't try to beat him one on one!"). Its just a carry over from other sports that are popular in America - without his line, a quaterback can't do Carlos; without a point guard with good vision, the forwards and centers won't have open looks at the hoop; without a setter, how can someone spike the ball; without his team behind him, the pitcher is toast; etc., etc., etc. Most of the major market sports preach the team game, but soccer has to have the element of selfishness.
Don't believe me? One of my town's former coaches at the area high school gave me a bunch of Coaching magazines. An article in one issue was reviewing the World Cup in 1986, and it stressed what the U.S. needed to do in order to improve and have a chance. It said that passing was ok, but most goals scored in that World Cup were scored on something like 3 or less passes. Next, the also mentioned that most goals were scored on two or less touches. Finally, they stressed that most goals were scored inside the 18 (or something to that effect). I don't have the exact numbers, but I can get them if someone really gives a crap. So the summary was that we needed to coach our kids to be more selfish in an attacking position, use less touches, and strike from within. Makes sense, yes?
The fact that a country has a crummy economy does NOT mean that it can have better soccer players than America, nor does it mean that a poor player in America can't play on a good team or get scouted. Its not in our blood yet to have it that way, the proper style of soccer isn't being stressed, etc.
Freddy Adu's mother is working at the Home Depot in his home town, where she's been working since they came to America (if I'm not mistaken). He isn't from a wealthy family. He was given an opportunity to play on a big stage with a travel squad and shone (shined?). He hasn't proven himself on the biggest stage of all yet, but he's done pretty well so far, hasn't he? Time will tell if he can ever be in the same league as some of AMERICA'S best, let alone the best in the world (but I should mention that when he was 14, his U-17 squad scrimmaged the Chicago Fire and beat them 2-1 with Freddy getting a goal and an assist).
I'm so bothered by this comment the most, I think - "But in a country like the U.S. where soccer is not even valued highly and it's a game reserved for the middle class +, they don't deserve much on rating." It's the most illogical, ludicrous, and dense comment I've heard in soooooooooo long. I was beside myself reading it, I really was. If that was your intention, to create such a rush of emotion and fury towards such a juvenile and poorly thought out comment, then well done - you've succeeded. If it was supposed to be an intelligent insight towards the situation of soccer in American versus the situation in other nations, that was really one of the most pathetic comments that I've ever heard. It's a shame. A poor shame.
Besides, why would Korea and Japan have a higher rating, in your mind? Because they "are doing well"? I must've been asleep whenever any announcer or manager mentioned the deep history of those nations, and how they play on the street, and are poor, and they have all their lower class players on great teams.
What you write down isn't the spoken word, its written. You can re-read your message and edit as necessary, and nothing will ever really be "set in stone", so to say, until you hit the "Submit Reply" button. I strongly recommend that you think about what you have written before you send it out to be read by the masses. Otherwise, it just makes you look like a fool.
So, in closing, I just want to say I disagree. OBSCURE REFERENCE: The movie "High Strung", very obscure movie... in it, one of the characters has a fantasy about how he's going to stand up to his boss's wife, who he hates. When they finally come face to face, he says to her, "No, no no no. Wait a second. You're WRONG. You're racist, and you're WRONG." Good movie (until the end). Don't think I'm calling anyone a racist. You're just wrong.
#1 Stunna has it right, too, about the Mexico not bringing good players to a cup because its worthless. Why else would Brazil send their U-23 squad to the Confederations Cup? In most nations eyes, if a cup isn't worth the time of their stars (OR THEIR HEALTH, which is much more important), then why send them? Even the U.S. tends to not have its full squad with them in most Cups, or World Cup qualifying. Its only when its a dire game that they resort to using their best, or if the U.S. Soccer Federation decides they want to leave a tourney with some hardware that they send in the best... 
(gasp!) Wait! Isn't that what ALL COUNTRIES DO? As stupid as it sounds, CM4 can teach the average fan a lot more about the game... it pits you in the situation of the club or national manager and you have to decide when to send the best or when to send the next group in. Fun game. Check it out sometime, if you're into the manager side (I'm an obsessive tactician when it comes to soccer).
(gasp!) Wait! Isn't that what ALL COUNTRIES DO? As stupid as it sounds, CM4 can teach the average fan a lot more about the game... it pits you in the situation of the club or national manager and you have to decide when to send the best or when to send the next group in. Fun game. Check it out sometime, if you're into the manager side (I'm an obsessive tactician when it comes to soccer).bennismalls
Youth Team
u took the words out of my mouth. besides the way africans play soccer is selfish i was schooled in nigeria in a skool with international students. they dont pass enough, they use formations like 4-2-4 brb with more on african soccer i am half
What the heck?
Where is this correlation between demographics and football coming from?
I think I understand your point, but there is no reason to suggest that a middle-class or upper-class kid is less athletic or a worse football player than a poor kid. What you ought to imply is that soccer is not yet popular enough to transcend the demographics in the US. How they makes us a poor footballing nation, I have no idea.
You could very well point out the concentration of athletic talent is glamorized and sucked up by other sports here like baseball, football and basketball. Considering what you're saying, it makes perfect sense the NBA is dominated by "poor", black kids who grew up on the street.
Buddy, be honest. 10 years ago, everybody thought very little of Cameroonian and Nigerian squads, or African nations in general. Not until their strings of success internationally was there a great influx of African talent into Europe. Heck, Senegal's claim to fame is their 2002 World Cup run. These nations have not always been strong sides, or even big contenders. They have recently emerged.
It seems absurd of you to deny the same recognition or possibiliy to the United States. There seems to be a stigma against the US being a powerful, if not respectful national team side.
As for the Confeds Cup, I would hardly say the US sucked. Rather, they failed to impress. I give credit to their opponents who were very strong, rather than knocking America. We did tie Cameroon and lost by one to Brazil and Turkey. That's stiff competetion. Seems to me, you wouldn't consider the US able to beat those sides anyway. Essentially, you deny the right of America to be considered a contender against those sides, and when they lose you knock them. It seems awfully unfair and contradictory to have no expectation for a squad and then harp on them for losing to tough competetion. Either the US was a contender in all their games or they didn't suck, but never really had a chance to begin with. Which is it?
And what about these foreigners we constantly keep getting? Where did you pull that out? David Regis? Preki? Freddy Adu? C'mon. That's a little off-base. Neither Regis or Preki ever had a substantial impact on US soccer and both were naturalized. So, what foreigners were you referring to? Regis married an American in France and was eligible for citizenship. Preki lived and played indoor soccer here for countless years, earning his citizenship. And for all good's sake, Freddy was NOT recruited to come save American soccer. He immigrated and became a citizen legally.
Concerning Mexico, who cares what squad Mexico brought to the game? They lost.
Should I assume they brought Leon plus 2 other no good players to the World Cup when the US beat them?
Get over. The US won, handlely. Mexico has no dominance in this region.
As for cultivating US talent, the goal of US soccer and MLS is to give quality first-team experience to youngsters out of high school, and some college, with professional contracts and money to get their education later. The best example of this program? Tim Howard. Other products are DaMarcus Beasley, Bobby Convey, Eddie Johnson, Santino Quaranta, Kyle Beckerman, Eddie Gaven, Memo Gonzalez and now, Freddy Adu. Typically, these players are members of the US youth national teams, though some opt for college and others Europe.
