Bear Down Wildcats

Yedlin got next

Future looks bright with Johnson, Yedlin, Green and hopefully Zelalem

Well Liverpool and US seasons both ended horribly.

NYCat wrote:Well Liverpool and US seasons both ended horribly.

US had chances. Including a great one to win the game in regulation.

Heartbreaking loss? Maybe, given our chances and it woulda been a big upset. I wouldn't say the season ended horribly though.

thenewazcats wrote:Future looks bright with Johnson, Yedlin, Green and hopefully Zelalem

It will be a new generation of soccer.

Johnson (27), Jones, Beckerman, Zusi (28), Bedoya (27), Dempsey, Landon, Howard, Cameron, Wondo,and Besley might not be on the team in the next world cup.

Green, Bradley, Brooks, Besler, Gonzo, probably have the next world cup booked unless injured.

The rest will also be in the air .

Allis makes a good point.




Lot of really athletic kids think they have a shot at the NBA.

Yeah, we got out of the group of death and lost in extra time to a team that was clearly more talented. The Wondo miss hurts but it's not like we lost a game we should have won based on 90 or 120 minutes.

OSUCat wrote:

thenewazcats wrote:Future looks bright with Johnson, Yedlin, Green and hopefully Zelalem

It will be a new generation of soccer.

Johnson (27), Jones, Beckerman, Zusi (28), Bedoya (27), Dempsey, Landon, Howard, Cameron, Wondo,and Besley might not be on the team in the next world cup.

Green, Bradley, Brooks, Besler, Gonzo, probably have the next world cup booked unless injured.

The rest will also be in the air .

I think Johnson returns for another WC. Maybe Bedoya, too. Landon's already not on this squad. Dempsey has been great but I can't see him making it again at his age.

Soccer is so damn boring. Worse than baseball even.

I can see why the rest of the world enjoys the sport but I'll never be able to enjoy it anywhere near as much as football or basketball.

Now that Team USA is out, let's go Germany! I can claim ethnic origins, right?

That was a helluva game from Tim Howard, and even though it feels like we should have won it or later tied I can't be too disappointed. This team was all heart, they never gave up after going down 2-0.

thenewazcats wrote:I think Johnson returns for another WC. Maybe Bedoya, too. Landon's already not on this squad. Dempsey has been great but I can't see him making it again at his age.

It is possible, but I'm not sure if Yeldin beats him out or not (hopefully we have better midfield options by then). Bedoya won't be any better than he was this world cup. What I meant by Landon, was that there hasn't been a year since what 2002? that Landon wasn't in the picture? Even though, he wasn't on this team (many wanted him to be) he wont even be in the picture. Dempsey plays on his touches not quickness or speed, its the ony reason he can maybe be a sub in the next world cup.

Overall, it will be a different style of team.


The U.S> World Cup was changed by the Altidore Injury.

I never get the purpose of telling soccer fans how boring the sport is. What's the motivation? You see people enjoying something and try to bring them down. Is that a personal insecurity thing?

OSUCat wrote:

thenewazcats wrote:I think Johnson returns for another WC. Maybe Bedoya, too. Landon's already not on this squad. Dempsey has been great but I can't see him making it again at his age.

It is possible, but I'm not sure if Yeldin beats him out or not (hopefully we have better midfield options by then). Bedoya won't be any better than he was this world cup. What I meant by Landon, was that there hasn't been a year since what 2002? that Landon wasn't in the picture? Even though, he wasn't on this team (many wanted him to be) he wont even be in the picture. Dempsey plays on his touches not quickness or speed, its the ony reason he can maybe be a sub in the next world cup.

Overall, it will be a different style of team.


The U.S> World Cup was changed by the Altidore Injury.

If he qualifies, Zelalem and Bradley will be in the midfield, Green up top, maybe with Boyd. I can see Yedlin and Johnson both on the outside on that back line. We didn't get to see Chandler in this tournament but he has a shot, too. I felt Johnson was one of the best for us in this tournament. Maybe he's not in four years but at 31 I don't see a huge dropoff.

Salty wrote:Soccer is so damn boring. Worse than baseball even.

I can see why the rest of the world enjoys the sport but I'll never be able to enjoy it anywhere near as much as football or basketball.

Now that Team USA is out, let's go Germany! I can claim ethnic origins, right?

Soccer is definitely more watchable than American football. Basketball, though, is the greatest sport in the history of the world, so an unfair comparison with soccer.

The trouble with soccer is that the size of the field and the difficulty of scoring make it so that the weaker team can win on a random goal.

A related issue is that one of these FIFA World Cup teams could replace one of its starters with one of us, and it might make a difference in the outcome of the match. There's a reasonable chance that it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome.

If you replace a starter with one of us on a FIBA basketball World Cup team, the difference will be a 50-point swing.

Longhorned wrote: Soccer is definitely more watchable than American baseball.

Slight correction.

Longhorned wrote:

Salty wrote:Soccer is so damn boring. Worse than baseball even.

I can see why the rest of the world enjoys the sport but I'll never be able to enjoy it anywhere near as much as football or basketball.

Now that Team USA is out, let's go Germany! I can claim ethnic origins, right?

Soccer is definitely more watchable than American football. Basketball, though, is the greatest sport in the history of the world, so an unfair comparison with soccer.

The trouble with soccer is that the size of the field and the difficulty of scoring make it so that the weaker team can win on a random goal.

A related issue is that one of these FIFA World Cup teams could replace one of its starters with one of us, and it might make a difference in the outcome of the match. There's a reasonable chance that it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome.

If you replace a starter with one of us on a FIBA basketball World Cup team, the difference will be a 50-point swing.

NBA provides a true winner with the best of 7 playoffs. The NCAA Tournament often sees the weaker team advance in its single elimination format. Upsets aren't exclusive to soccer.

Every sport is boring besides CFB at this point for me, unless uofa is playing or I wake up early to watch some EPL, bundesliga (background watch) -- I won't watch any sport.

Merkin wrote:

Longhorned wrote: Soccer is definitely more watchable than American baseball.

Slight correction.

Baseball can hold its own with any sport IF you know the history and the nuances, and you grew up watching it with your dad (assuming you liked your dad). But you can't just grab somebody from Indonesia or the Netherlands or Malta, sit him down in the stands at Wrigley Field, and expect him to be entertained. An alien from outer space without any introduction other than learning the basic rules of the games would like American football more, soccer more yet, but basketball most of all.

thenewazcats wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

Salty wrote:Soccer is so damn boring. Worse than baseball even.

I can see why the rest of the world enjoys the sport but I'll never be able to enjoy it anywhere near as much as football or basketball.

Now that Team USA is out, let's go Germany! I can claim ethnic origins, right?

Soccer is definitely more watchable than American football. Basketball, though, is the greatest sport in the history of the world, so an unfair comparison with soccer.

The trouble with soccer is that the size of the field and the difficulty of scoring make it so that the weaker team can win on a random goal.

A related issue is that one of these FIFA World Cup teams could replace one of its starters with one of us, and it might make a difference in the outcome of the match. There's a reasonable chance that it wouldn't make a difference in the outcome.

If you replace a starter with one of us on a FIBA basketball World Cup team, the difference will be a 50-point swing.

NBA provides a true winner with the best of 7 playoffs. The NCAA Tournament often sees the weaker team advance in its single elimination format. Upsets aren't exclusive to soccer.

I have no problem with upsets. I love upsets. Everyone loves upsets. And I really, really like soccer. But compared to the impact of every player and every move you see in a basketball game, it's so much harder for an individual player other than the goalie, or an individual play, to affect the game. That makes it easier for the upset to come down to a random play that just goes the right or wrong way.

Longhorned wrote:I have no problem with upsets. I love upsets. Everyone loves upsets. And I really, really like soccer. But compared to the impact of every player and every move you see in a basketball game, it's so much harder for an individual player other than the goalie, or an individual play, to affect the game. That makes it easier for the upset to come down to a random play that just goes the right or wrong way.

You're saying an individual player in basketball can have a greater impact through team performance? Or for some reason a soccer player's individual play doesn't count toward their individual impact on the game? I'm not being a jerk here, I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand your point.

I think soccer is a team game where individuals, just like in basketball, can make a great impact on the outcome of the game. Messi, Neymar, Rodriguez and Muller are elevating pretty good teams to being the best. Ronaldo elevated a pretty awful team to a win, loss and a tie in the group of death. Even in basketball, a singular exceptional talent cannot overcome a horrible roster around him. Lebron never won it all with that cast in Cleveland. Ewing never won it all. Kevin Love hasn't even made the playoffs. If soccer were so much more prone to random events determining outcomes, there wouldn't just be 8 countries who have won the world cup and we wouldn't see the same teams, for the most part, succeeding in La Liga, EPL, Bundesliga and the Champion's League year after year. If anything, in a sport where one strike can be the only score in a game, an individual's impact can often be felt even greater than in other team sports.

thenewazcats wrote:

OSUCat wrote:

thenewazcats wrote:I think Johnson returns for another WC. Maybe Bedoya, too. Landon's already not on this squad. Dempsey has been great but I can't see him making it again at his age.

It is possible, but I'm not sure if Yeldin beats him out or not (hopefully we have better midfield options by then). Bedoya won't be any better than he was this world cup. What I meant by Landon, was that there hasn't been a year since what 2002? that Landon wasn't in the picture? Even though, he wasn't on this team (many wanted him to be) he wont even be in the picture. Dempsey plays on his touches not quickness or speed, its the ony reason he can maybe be a sub in the next world cup.

Overall, it will be a different style of team.


The U.S> World Cup was changed by the Altidore Injury.

If he qualifies, Zelalem and Bradley will be in the midfield, Green up top, maybe with Boyd. I can see Yedlin and Johnson both on the outside on that back line. We didn't get to see Chandler in this tournament but he has a shot, too. I felt Johnson was one of the best for us in this tournament. Maybe he's not in four years but at 31 I don't see a huge dropoff.

Jozy will still be up top in four years.

Merkin wrote:Allis makes a good point.




Lot of really athletic kids think they have a shot at the NBA.

That's the reason the US will probably always be second rate in soccer. Other countries have their best athletes play soccer. Ours don't.

Imagine if LeBron, Russell Westbrook, Adrian Peterson, Patrick Peterson, Iverson, etc grew up playing soccer primarily. We would frighteningly eviscerate the competition. Until priorities change, we'll be playing with a handicap.

The biggest problem for me with Soccer...all the big Euro leagues are in the Fall. I just don't have the sports TV time for football AND futbol.

Can we all just agree to resume this talk in about 4 years and put this thing to bed already?

Olsondogg wrote:Can we all just agree to resume this talk in about 4 years and put this thing to bed already?

Is it time for the WNBA already?

thenewazcats wrote:

Longhorned wrote:I have no problem with upsets. I love upsets. Everyone loves upsets. And I really, really like soccer. But compared to the impact of every player and every move you see in a basketball game, it's so much harder for an individual player other than the goalie, or an individual play, to affect the game. That makes it easier for the upset to come down to a random play that just goes the right or wrong way.

You're saying an individual player in basketball can have a greater impact through team performance? Or for some reason a soccer player's individual play doesn't count toward their individual impact on the game? I'm not being a jerk here, I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand your point.

I think soccer is a team game where individuals, just like in basketball, can make a great impact on the outcome of the game. Messi, Neymar, Rodriguez and Muller are elevating pretty good teams to being the best. Ronaldo elevated a pretty awful team to a win, loss and a tie in the group of death. Even in basketball, a singular exceptional talent cannot overcome a horrible roster around him. Lebron never won it all with that cast in Cleveland. Ewing never won it all. Kevin Love hasn't even made the playoffs. If soccer were so much more prone to random events determining outcomes, there wouldn't just be 8 countries who have won the world cup and we wouldn't see the same teams, for the most part, succeeding in La Liga, EPL, Bundesliga and the Champion's League year after year. If anything, in a sport where one strike can be the only score in a game, an individual's impact can often be felt even greater than in other team sports.

It's not a question of individual v. team play. In a World Cup soccer match, a team can play with only 10 players for much of the match, and how much of a difference does it make? A 4-on-5 basketball game would create an unfathomable mismatch. The size of the players in relation to the area of play, the presence or lack of a devoted goal-tender, and specifications of the goals make for very different geometries in the two sports, and the dynamics of the geometry in basketball make for a lot more impact on the part of each player. In my opinion, that's one reason why basketball is a better sport. In a measurable way, more "happens" in a basketball game.

phenom5 wrote:The biggest problem for me with Soccer...all the big Euro leagues are in the Fall. I just don't have the sports TV time for football AND futbol.

Seasons last from Late August until Mid-May. Most games are also before our football is on TV, mostly due to the time change.

I'm a soccer fan once every four years. In general, I'm not a big fan of the sport, but in terms of viewing pleasure, Longhorned nailed it. Most American sports suck to watch thanks to all the TV timeouts. Ever seen a football game on TV where they take out all the dead time? Best damn thing in the world!

Longhorned wrote:

Merkin wrote:

Longhorned wrote: Soccer is definitely more watchable than American baseball.

Slight correction.

Baseball can hold its own with any sport IF you know the history and the nuances, and you grew up watching it with your dad (assuming you liked your dad). But you can't just grab somebody from Indonesia or the Netherlands or Malta, sit him down in the stands at Wrigley Field, and expect him to be entertained. An alien from outer space without any introduction other than learning the basic rules of the games would like American football more, soccer more yet, but basketball most of all.

I actually do know the nuances and such. I grew up a huge baseball fan, used to listen to the Detroit Tigers on the radio pretty much every game. I can still name most of the players on the 1968 World Series team. Mickey Lolich out pitching Bob Gibson? Who would have thought it? Baseball was by far my favorite sport. When I was in high school I used to coach little league baseball.

So what happened to my interest in baseball? I really don't know. Could have been all the strikes going on then, and lack of team loyalty. Maybe it was that I discovered the nuances of college basketball. Perhaps it was due to developing lack of interest in my part in any professional sport.

Chicat posted over at the TOS that the average NFL game has 11 actual minutes of play time. Unreal. How many times do they have to show the same play over and over?

I only developed a liking for soccer when my kids started playing it on rec leagues as children.

I love watching soccer. I can set my watch to 2 hours for game time, no commercials, and I know enough of the nuances to appreciate its beauty outside of the final score.

I love how it is a combination of team and individual and wish I would have been exposed to it as a child. I would really enjoyed playing or having learned those skills at that age.

I agree Merkin, outside MLB playoffs if the Giants are playing, I can't watch professional sports anymore. It seems too much like a infomercial around the cult of personalities at that level. Honestly, I find the NFL and NBA boring and I know enough of the nuances to make that judgement.

I believe professional sports lost their hold for me, when the feeling of the connection between city and team is lost. Maybe thats why I enjoy college and Euro/international level soccer, because that connection still appears to be present.

Heard that all MLS teams have to have a development academy in the city where they are located. thats sweet. Our talent isn't there yet, but it may eventually get there. Will be nice to see and observe that transition, if it occurs.

I still think the best professional sport to watch is the NHL playoffs - end-to-end action and great drama. But that's just me.

As far as Soccer goes I've recently grown to appreciate the game mostly from becoming a big fan of the EPL, which I think is the best league in the world when you look at all the world class talent in that league (it's also easy to watch since most games are on the weekend in the morning before NCAABB or NFL games start). I don't think the game is boring - there is tons of strategy once you learn the nuances of the game - and I counter the low scoring arguement with the fact that it's really hard to score goals and when they do occur it means something truly special.

While I like the direction the U.S. team is heading, it's still painfully obvious we don't possess the technical skills needed to make that next jump. But you can say that for a lot of countries.

If we could develop a Messi-like player who's skill level is really elite I think it would really help us get over the top.

Great post, esp wrt goals and skills, ECC. So much work into that goal, makes them very precious. Hence why everyone loses it (no matter what side your rooting for) when one occurs.

Your point on technical skills is the biggest rebuttal to the "well if Lebron and Adrian Peterson played soccer, we would be the best in the world." NFL and to the extent the NBA are games of strength and force, soccer is a game of technical skills. That is not to say you couldn't groom a Lebron into a soccer giant (you could), but most people who make that argument tend to overlook these technical skills.

Some other questions: do we have the coaches to developing these technical skills at each stage of development? I don't know enough to say one way or the other. Also, in the US, soccer is largely a upper middle class sport and a way for people to pay for college. In Latin American and Africa, its upward mobility for your family. Two completely different motivations that may somehow influence how children learn the game, in ways I'm not sure I can articulate (hence teams that are explosive but have suspect defenses). Yes, Europe is different, but it is the dominate sport there, so that may play a role.

These are just musings, points for discussion. Not sure how much I believe all of the above, but some thoughts that have come to mind.

CalStateTempe wrote:Also, in the US, soccer is largely a upper middle class sport and a way for people to pay for college

Not in my 'hood. I live in a community with a very large immigrant population and the Mexican soccer leagues at the local parks are huge, uniforms and all.

Also the NCAA limits soccer scholarships to 9.9 per school, and very few soccer players get full scholarships. They are usually split. I have a niece getting a half scholarship as a keeper to play at some school in Texas, and she set a record at her high school in Tucson for the number of shutouts she had. My brother has to pick up the other half of the costs.

Thanks for the clarification Merkin.

Yes, you're correct, San Matro and Albany in the bay area have some fierce Latin American leagues.

I guess, my hope is that some of the children in the youth leagues could find a way to the radar of USA soccer. Would be huge for the team, so much creativity and technical skill.

I believe we are on the way to seeing more and more of our best athletes choosing soccer over the other main stream sports.

CalStateTempe wrote:I love watching soccer. I can set my watch to 2 hours for game time, no commercials, and I know enough of the nuances to appreciate its beauty outside of the final score.

And that's exactly what basketball needs to learn from soccer. Realize its full potential as a game of flow by following the the sponsorship model of soccer, and do away with the commercial breaks.

CalStateTempe wrote:Great post, esp wrt goals and skills, ECC. So much work into that goal, makes them very precious. Hence why everyone loses it (no matter what side your rooting for) when one occurs.

Your point on technical skills is the biggest rebuttal to the "well if Lebron and Adrian Peterson played soccer, we would be the best in the world." NFL and to the extent the NBA are games of strength and force, soccer is a game of technical skills. That is not to say you couldn't groom a Lebron into a soccer giant (you could), but most people who make that argument tend to overlook these technical skills.

Some other questions: do we have the coaches to developing these technical skills at each stage of development? I don't know enough to say one way or the other. Also, in the US, soccer is largely a upper middle class sport and a way for people to pay for college. In Latin American and Africa, its upward mobility for your family. Two completely different motivations that may somehow influence how children learn the game, in ways I'm not sure I can articulate (hence teams that are explosive but have suspect defenses). Yes, Europe is different, but it is the dominate sport there, so that may play a role.

These are just musings, points for discussion. Not sure how much I believe all of the above, but some thoughts that have come to mind.

I liken it to hockey where Canadians have a distinct advantage as kids play on ponds growing up. They acquire the "creative" techniques at an early age which turns into those special technical skills as they get older.

Having said that, American-born kids have certainly made up ground in hockey over the last 25 years (with a lot of players coming from warm weather states like CA, FL, AZ, etc...) which means the gap could certainly close in a similar fashion in Soccer.

CalStateTempe wrote:Great post, esp wrt goals and skills, ECC. So much work into that goal, makes them very precious. Hence why everyone loses it (no matter what side your rooting for) when one occurs.

Your point on technical skills is the biggest rebuttal to the "well if Lebron and Adrian Peterson played soccer, we would be the best in the world." NFL and to the extent the NBA are games of strength and force, soccer is a game of technical skills. That is not to say you couldn't groom a Lebron into a soccer giant (you could), but most people who make that argument tend to overlook these technical skills.

Some other questions: do we have the coaches to developing these technical skills at each stage of development? I don't know enough to say one way or the other. Also, in the US, soccer is largely a upper middle class sport and a way for people to pay for college. In Latin American and Africa, its upward mobility for your family. Two completely different motivations that may somehow influence how children learn the game, in ways I'm not sure I can articulate (hence teams that are explosive but have suspect defenses). Yes, Europe is different, but it is the dominate sport there, so that may play a role.

These are just musings, points for discussion. Not sure how much I believe all of the above, but some thoughts that have come to mind.

The technical skills thing is exactly my argument. If we took all of our best athletes (who hone their technical skills in the skills of basketball, football, etc.) and they honed them in and played just soccer from an early age...that would make us the best soccer nation in the world

ASUHATER! wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:Great post, esp wrt goals and skills, ECC. So much work into that goal, makes them very precious. Hence why everyone loses it (no matter what side your rooting for) when one occurs.

Your point on technical skills is the biggest rebuttal to the "well if Lebron and Adrian Peterson played soccer, we would be the best in the world." NFL and to the extent the NBA are games of strength and force, soccer is a game of technical skills. That is not to say you couldn't groom a Lebron into a soccer giant (you could), but most people who make that argument tend to overlook these technical skills.

Some other questions: do we have the coaches to developing these technical skills at each stage of development? I don't know enough to say one way or the other. Also, in the US, soccer is largely a upper middle class sport and a way for people to pay for college. In Latin American and Africa, its upward mobility for your family. Two completely different motivations that may somehow influence how children learn the game, in ways I'm not sure I can articulate (hence teams that are explosive but have suspect defenses). Yes, Europe is different, but it is the dominate sport there, so that may play a role.

These are just musings, points for discussion. Not sure how much I believe all of the above, but some thoughts that have come to mind.

The technical skills thing is exactly my argument. If we took all of our best athletes (who hone their technical skills in the skills of basketball, football, etc.) and they honed them in and played just soccer from an early age...that would make us the best soccer nation in the world

I don't think that's right, exactly. Aren't our basketball players basically too tall for soccer? Lebron, Jordan, etc. needed basketball to realize their athletic potential. The soccer players are from a different batch.

Longhorned wrote: I don't think that's right, exactly. Aren't our basketball players basically too tall for soccer? Lebron, Jordan, etc. needed basketball to realize their athletic potential. The soccer players are from a different batch.

What Wiki says about height in soccer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_in_sports


For wide, central and attacking positions the players are generally relatively shorter. Many of the best players in history have been shorter than average and in many cases gained an advantage from their low center of gravity, e.g., Maradona 1.65 m (5 ft 5 in)); Roberto Carlos, Santi Cazorla 1.68 m (5 ft 6 in); Garrincha, Lionel Messi, Romário 1.69 m (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in); Puskás, Makélélé, Iniesta, Xavi 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) and Paul Scholes 1.71 m (5 ft 7 in). However, height is generally considered advantageous for some forwards who usually aim to score with their heads, such as Tor Hogne Aarøy, Jan Koller, Stefan Maierhofer and Nikola Žigić (2.02 m (6 ft 7 1⁄2 in)) as well as Peter Crouch (2.01 m (6 ft 7 in)). In some cases forwards with supreme technical ability and pace are also tall, such as Cristiano Ronaldo (1.85 m (6 ft 1 in)), Kaka (1.86 m (6 ft 1 in)), Zlatan Ibrahimović (1.95 m (6 ft 5 in)), with their height being seen as an added bonus for their heading ability, which adds to their completeness, something desirable in modern top-level football forwards.

Height is often an advantage for central defenders who are assigned to stop forwards from scoring through the air, as exemplified by players like Matej Bagarić (2.01 m (6 ft 7 in)), Per Mertesacker (1.98 m (6 ft 6 in)), Brede Hangeland (1.99 m (6 ft 6 in)), Christoph Metzelder (1.94 m (6 ft 4 1⁄2 in)) and Christopher Samba (1.93 m (6 ft 4 in)).[5] There are, however, central defenders who aren't of above average height, such as Franco Baresi (1.76 m (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)), Fabio Cannavaro (1.76 m (5 ft 9 in)), Javier Mascherano (1.72 m (5 ft 8 in)) and Iván Córdoba (1.73 m (5 ft 8 in)).

Goalkeepers tend to be taller than average because their greater armspans and total reach when jumping enable them to cover more of the goal. Examples of particularly tall keepers include Kristof Van Hout (2.08 m (6 ft 10 in)), Vanja Iveša, Željko Kalac, Goran Blažević, Andreas Isaksson, Edwin van der Sar (1.97 m (6 ft 5 1⁄2 in)), Petr Cech (1.96 m (6 ft 5 in)), Vladimir Stojković and Doni. In addition, there are examples of successful goalkeepers who are not significantly taller than average, such as Jorge Campos (1.68 m (5 ft 6 in)), Óscar Pérez (1.72 m (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)), René Higuita (1.75 m (5 ft 9 in)), Fabien Barthez (1.80 m (5 ft 11 in)), and Iker Casillas (1.85 m (6 ft 1 in)).

Zelalem and Green are athletic enough and I expect their technical skill to be world class in four years. Not on a Messi or Ronaldo level but enough with the other pieces on the team to seriously compete for a deep run. If Yedlin can improve his already impressive skill, he's going to be a beast in four years as well.

As the concussion issue continues to erode (American) football, soccer will be the sport that benefits most in the US. To me, that's sad because football is my favorite sport, but I do look forward to the day when the Europeans and Latin Americans fear the US on the football pitch. This World Cup was very good to us. The European newspapers are throwing around terms like 'heroic' and 'valiant' which you don't really hear connected with US Soccer very often.

[youtube]fDh9bOYCyG4[/youtube]

Very impressive post Katz.

If you want to read a fairly bad bleacher report article on the top 10 mistakes USMNT made at World Cup, here it is.

Jozy has a grade 2 hammy tear, but bring him on the field against Belgium!

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2118 ... cup-finals

Nice write-up Katz, lots of salient points regarding the current state of American soccer. However, I find your comparison of Major League Soccer to major European leagues to be disingenuous. MLS, as an organization, is still going through its awkward adolescence whereas leagues like the Bundesliga (est. 1963) and La Liga (est. 1929) predate the NFL-AFL merger. With some more time to grow and garner more fans, the league will see the cash flow increase, which will attract more top-flight (or at least better-flight) talent. Attendance numbers already compare favorably to other leagues around the world. Here's a chart I found showing the numbers from the 2012 season:

Rank League Average
1 Bundesliga (Germany) 42,387
2 Premier League (England) 35,719
3 La Liga (Spain) 28,138
4 Serie A (Italy) 23,176
5 Primera División (Argentina) 22,491
6 Liga MX (Mexico) 21,559
7 Major League Soccer (USA & Canada) 18,807
8 Ligue 1 (France) 18,731
9 Chinese Super League (China) 18,702
10 Eredivisie (Netherlands) 18,405

Are there still some adjustments needed to start competing with big boys, like an increased minimum salary and a relegation league? Sure. Does the elite youth talent placement in America need to shift from college teams to club team academies? Absolutely. But there's a solid foundation and a lot of upward mobility for Major League Soccer. Hopefully, the passionate support for the USMNT advancing out of the "Group of Death" in the World Cup will turn some eyes to the local product. I'm not holding my breath on that one, though.

Longhorned wrote:It's not a question of individual v. team play. In a World Cup soccer match, a team can play with only 10 players for much of the match, and how much of a difference does it make? A 4-on-5 basketball game would create an unfathomable mismatch. The size of the players in relation to the area of play, the presence or lack of a devoted goal-tender, and specifications of the goals make for very different geometries in the two sports, and the dynamics of the geometry in basketball make for a lot more impact on the part of each player. In my opinion, that's one reason why basketball is a better sport. In a measurable way, more "happens" in a basketball game.

I get what you're saying now. I guess that makes sense. Still, I think taking one player away in soccer does have an impact, just like it does in hockey. Just look at Portugal after losing Pepe, getting crushed by Germany. I have no way of getting the info, but I would guess that the outcome of tied games that see one side lose a man heavily favors the team with 11 players remaining. That's just a guess, though. You do have a point, particularly about more measurable events occurring in a basketball game.