Futbol Talk

[Pakuni]

OMFG.
#COYS

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Man I love football.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

LUCASSSSSSSSSSSS!

COYMFS!

[Galway Eagle]

Wow

[JWags85]

2 English clubs against near impossible odds, both without their talismanic leading scorers, both climb mountains in the last 40 min.  Unreal

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Imagine not liking football.

The US needs to do something to make the MLS a viable league. The competition doesn't even compare.

[JWags85]

Imagine not liking football.

The US needs to do something to make the MLS a viable league. The competition doesn't even compare.

I'm afraid until they adopt promo/relegation, it will never happen.  MLS controls the clubs, distributes players, subsidizes salaries, its inorganic.   The MLS has come so far, and its pretty remarkable, but as it stands, it will never get much higher on a global comparative scale than it is and it will remain a cushy salary for aging European stars and an easy paycheck for guys who just aren't quite good enough to jump to a top Euro league.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Imagine not liking football.

The US needs to do something to make the MLS a viable league. The competition doesn't even compare.

Volleyball and stuff.

COYS!

[21Jumpstreet]

Absolute madness, a bonkers two days of futbol!

[brewcity77]

Women's World Cup kicking off today and the Gold Cup coming next Saturday. The USMNT wasn't good against Jamaica and, other than Pulisic, seems pretty underwhelming. So they'll probably do just enough to come up short, making a final and losing to Mexico.

[JWags85]

Women's World Cup kicking off today and the Gold Cup coming next Saturday. The USMNT wasn't good against Jamaica and, other than Pulisic, seems pretty underwhelming. So they'll probably do just enough to come up short, making a final and losing to Mexico.

But the US U-20s are in the quarters and there is a TON to be excited about on that squad.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

What's the reason Sargent was left off both squads?

[JWags85]

What's the reason Sargent was left off both squads?

Prime example of the continued dysfunction and lack of a cohesive plan within US Soccer.  He was thought to be ready for the USMNT given his 7 caps and his potential, so it was pretty clear he was intended to be on the Gold Cup roster, hence him not playing with the U-20s.  But then Berhalter decided he didn't play enough during the Bundesliga season and left him home.  Including Tyler Boyd and Jonathan Lewis above him is absolute insanity.  Sure he might not be peak sharpness, but this is one of your figured future stars and you're passing up this opportunity for training and exposure for him.  Baffling.

[brewcity77]

This response seemed more appropriate here:

There is a lot of "this is the way we do things here" mentality, IMO, with how some of US Soccer operates.  US Soccer feels like a division of a successful company, but that division is getting destroyed against its competition but they refuse to adapt or mirror whats giving the competition the edge, and stick to their established way of doing things.  Both the structure and decision making is part of the same toxic tree.

I think this is well stated, and I think the structure and decision making is linked. There's a US belief that the way we do things is fine. Bringing in Klinsmann was viewed as a home run hire from the top. Some were skeptical from the start, but on paper it's a big, splashy move.

What comes next? Gulati forces Klinsmann to adhere to the US way of doing things. If you're going to go for flashy change, then go for it. Instead, it was a half measure. You get flash without substance.

Then we finally start embracing some of those development ideas. Players going overseas early gives us what appears to be a wealth of young talent like Pulisic, McKinnie, Adams, Miazga, Sargent, etc. We see plans for stateside player & coaching development. And then we pick a former Arena assistant from the MLS to lead them. Substance without flash.

Whether it's having a spark without tinder or tinder without a spark, neither will lead to an explosion of results. The structure is too antiquated & too slow to adapt and the decisions that result from that have continued to come up short. I see two paths to success. Stick with the old American development and get coaches like Arena & Bradley who make chicken soup out of chicken bones, or be willing to fail and allow a revolution from the bottom to the top. That type of revolution is why the women are so successful.

[Pakuni]

That type of revolution is why the women are so successful.

By how is the structure of the women's system markedly different than that of the men's? They seem almost identical to me, expect the men have nudged closer to a European model with MLS club-sponsored academies and the like.

I see the woman's success far more a result of cultural/societal factors than anything systemic. Americans have embraced and encouraged women in team sports far earlier and far more substantively than pretty much any other country, with a couple of exceptions in a couple of sports (volleyball, perhaps?).

[JWags85]

By how is the structure of the women's system markedly different than that of the men's? They seem almost identical to me, expect the men have nudged closer to a European model with MLS club-sponsored academies and the like.

I see the woman's success far more a result of cultural/societal factors than anything systemic. Americans have embraced and encouraged women in team sports far earlier and far more substantively than pretty much any other country, with a couple of exceptions in a couple of sports (volleyball, perhaps?).

If the USMNT is a failing division of a company, the USWNT is a startup with tons of venture capital infused into it in an attractive market.

The US can throw millions at the mens team, but they are still running a race from behind globally.  Even if they don't have quite as much money, these countries have been developing talent and teams cohesively for 50+ years or longer.  The women, as I mentioned in a previous post, is a relatively new space with this only being the 8th WC ever.  And the US was a player from the beginning, largely because, as Brewcity mentioned, the US is a far more receptive and robust supporter and enabler of women's sports on a large scale.  So instead of trying to play catch up, other countries are trying to replicate what the US has done.  A healthy budget and fantastic marketing doesn't hurt. 

[Pakuni]

The US can throw millions at the mens team, but they are still running a race from behind globally.  Even if they don't have quite as much money, these countries have been developing talent and teams cohesively for 50+ years or longer. 

Excuses, excuses.
Pablo Escobar threw a bunch of money at the Colombian soccer program in the late 80s and within a matter of years turned it from a program that had qualified for one World Cup in its history into one that's consistently been ranked in the top 10-15 in the world. It's been 25 years since the U.S. hosted the World Cup and the program isn't significantly better off today than it was then.

Croatia didn't exist as a country 30 years ago and today they're 5th in the FIFA world rankings.

The notion that the U.S. can't be good at soccer because it's bound by the history of 50 years ago is nonsense.

[Warrior Code]

Forgive me if this question is stupid, but as someone who likes soccer but doesn't follow it much I don't know the answer: is the Champions League a bigger deal than the Premier League? I know Liverpool was close to both, so was the Champions League a "consolation prize" for finishing second in the standings? Or would that have been the ultimate goal all along?

The competition structure in European soccer is so different than the sports here in America -- we have one championship (Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, etc.) that is the clear-cut goal. European soccer has several cups of varying importance.

I'll hang up and wait for your answer.

[drewm88]

Forgive me if this question is stupid, but as someone who likes soccer but doesn't follow it much I don't know the answer: is the Champions League a bigger deal than the Premier League? I know Liverpool was close to both, so was the Champions League a "consolation prize" for finishing second in the standings? Or would that have been the ultimate goal all along?

The competition structure in European soccer is so different than the sports here in America -- we have one championship (Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, etc.) that is the clear-cut goal. European soccer has several cups of varying importance.

I'll hang up and wait for your answer.

Champions League is generally a bigger deal as it has all the "champions" of top European leagues ("champions" because it's more than that--e.g., the top 4 from the Premier League qualify), but it's not necessarily a unanimous opinion. Some may prefer the Premier League title because it's the reward for a full season of work and comes over your top rivals.

It's somewhat akin to a college football team finishing 2nd in their conference but winning the CFP.

[Its DJOver]

Forgive me if this question is stupid, but as someone who likes soccer but doesn't follow it much I don't know the answer: is the Champions League a bigger deal than the Premier League? I know Liverpool was close to both, so was the Champions League a "consolation prize" for finishing second in the standings? Or would that have been the ultimate goal all along?

The competition structure in European soccer is so different than the sports here in America -- we have one championship (Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, etc.) that is the clear-cut goal. European soccer has several cups of varying importance.

I'll hang up and wait for your answer.

TBH it really depends on the team.  I know Liverpool fans that would have gladly traded the Champions League for the Prem.  The gap between Premier League titles is far greater than the gap between Champions league titles (last won Prem in 1990, Champions League in '05).  I know Man City fans that would have traded all four of their trophies (yes I count the Community Shield) for the Champions League, because they've won all of the competitions except the Champions League before.  Ownership brought in Pep specifically to win the Champions league.  IMO winning the Premier League is harder because it's 38 games over 9 months, but being able to say that you're "Champions of Europe" sounds more impressive that "Champions of England".  To each their own.  Doesn't really answer your question but hopefully it provides a little more insight.

[JWags85]

Excuses, excuses.
Pablo Escobar threw a bunch of money at the Colombian soccer program in the late 80s and within a matter of years turned it from a program that had qualified for one World Cup in its history into one that's consistently been ranked in the top 10-15 in the world. It's been 25 years since the U.S. hosted the World Cup and the program isn't significantly better off today than it was then.

Croatia didn't exist as a country 30 years ago and today they're 5th in the FIFA world rankings.

The notion that the U.S. can't be good at soccer because it's bound by the history of 50 years ago is nonsense.

I'm not making excuses, Ive literally crapped on the US Soccer program and how its run in both threads.  You're being willfully ignorant to the macro factors. 

Croatia came from Yugoslavia.  A country that had a fanatical and proud soccer culture and history.  Dinamo Zagreb is a stalwart, and before huge money came into the sport, they were winning European cups with regularity.  The framework and passion was there.

Colombia is also a fanatical soccer nation.  Resources helped them take the next step from underfunded disarray to what its become.

Each of those countries have kids playing soccer in whatever form they can from birth and worshiping the sport.  Talent is identified from a young age and cultivated holistically.  Getting kids that solely focus on soccer in the US didn't really start until the last decade on a greater scale.  It was more kids realizing it was their "best sport". The US hosted the World Cup and while fun and well covered, it was more of a curiosity.  If the US approached soccer the way they approach Olympic sports, results would follow. 

Klinnsman's whole push was to get the US to focus, promote, and develop soccer through the youth ranks in a way that could attempt to mirror other countries.  That was pushed back on, resisted, and here we are.  With another antiquated, mediocre mentality driven coach.  The US needs to think differently and creatively to get to the next level, and unfortunately they've shown no desire to on a consistent scale.  They have the resources and the potential talent pool to be great, they just need to get their sh** together.

[Pakuni]

I'm not making excuses, Ive literally crapped on the US Soccer program and how its run in both threads.  You're being willfully ignorant to the macro factors. 

The so-called "macro" factors are being used as an excuse to cover for two decades of minimal progress and poor decisions. The state of American soccer 50 years ago should no longer be used to justify the state of American soccer today, and that's how it comes off to me every time you or Brew or someone else cites our lack of soccer tradition for our lack of soccer success.
The US Soccer Federation has enough resources, public support and a big enough player pool to overcome whatever historical hurdles you think lie in their way. They haven't because of poor leadership and poor decisions, nothing more.

p.s. I hope you never "literally crapped" on the soccer program. That would be gross and could get you arrested.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

In other news Copa starts tomorrow. As much as I hate to admit it, Brazil probably heavy, heavy favorites to win it.

Who ya got?

[brewcity77]

By how is the structure of the women's system markedly different than that of the men's?

It's the comparative structure. Title IX around since 1972, which gave the USA a 20 year headstart developing players. We literally had a generation that grew up playing the sport in 1991, and another generation behind them that had a headstart on everyone else.

When 1991 hit, for most countries it was the genesis of women's competitive soccer. They didn't have schools or clubs dedicated to training at nearly the level we did. And while we haven't won every time out, we've never finished worse than 3rd. That means we have 7 medals, the next closest nations are Germany and Sweden with 3 each. So the next two most prolific nations haven't accomplished as much combined as the USA.

The Olympics, the other major international competition, has been even more USA dominated. We've won 4/6 gold medals since the inaugural competition in 1996 & also have a silver. So in 13 total major women's tournaments, we've won 7, taken 2nd twice, and third 3 times.

Others are catching up. European clubs have added women's teams, Brazil has built from the grassroots, but we started with an edge that we have yet to cede. When you compare that to how the men's team was basically hatched from whole cloth in the 1980s, they were always behind the 8-ball while the women were always a few laps ahead of the field.

[jesmu84]

Too many people with their hands in the cookie jar in US soccer for much to change.

Similar to how it took relatively a long time to move away from the BCS.

People care more about their financial situation vs us soccer succeeding as an organization.