If America got to the World Cup final, how many Yanks would watch it?

[partygirluk]

Say, as a % of those who watch the superbowl. Assume WC final is on @ peak hours.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Say, as a % of those who watch the superbowl. Assume WC final is on @ peak hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a % of those who watch the Super Bowl? That's a tough comparable. But I'd say 70%.

[TheGame1020]

I wish more Americans would embrace World Cup Soccer. I cannot wait for things to get underway in Germany. There is so much pride on the line, country vs country (compared to the somewhat boring in my opinion, olympics). The ultimate battle of nations is the World Cup. Hopefully, the US can continue to improve their showing in the World Cup.

Folks do yourself a favor and watch the World Cup.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish more Americans would embrace World Cup Soccer. I cannot wait for things to get underway in Germany. There is so much pride on the line, country vs country (compared to the somewhat boring in my opinion, olympics). The ultimate battle of nations is the World Cup. Hopefully, the US can continue to improve their showing in the World Cup.

Folks do yourself a favor and watch the World Cup.

[/ QUOTE ]

We ruled last time. Don't forget that. We have scoreboard on a LOT of countries.

[DougOzzzz]

I think there would be quite a bit of interest here if we made it to the WC. Interest in soccer would die down shortly after, though.

[Clarkmeister]

I just looked up some numbers.

86.1 million people watched last year's Super Bowl.

3.8 million watched the US vs Germany quarterfinal in 2002.

Now, be aware that it was 7:30 AM Eastern Time and 4:30 AM Pacific Time for the match, so it was very early and half the country wasn't even awake yet.

If it were in prime time, and the Finals instead of the Quarterfinals, I'd now guess we get to 40 million instead of my first guess of 56 million. So 50% of the super bowl audience.

[DougOzzzz]

I was one of those 3.8 mil. US played a pretty good game, could have won it.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
I was one of those 3.8 mil. US played a pretty good game, could have won it.

[/ QUOTE ]

We played maybe our best game ever, and definitely *should* have won it. We owned them and just got unlucky.

[air]

How many watched the Womens World Cup back in 2000? It will be more than that.

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there would be quite a bit of interest here if we made it to the WC. Interest in soccer would die down shortly after, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the fact that you don't even know that the US is *in* the WC, I'm a little dubious about your statement.

[mblax10]

[ QUOTE ]
How many watched the Womens World Cup back in 2000? It will be more than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

US Women vs. China in the 99 final drew 11 million households (I believe the best rating in America for a soccer game).

July 4, 1994 when USA played Brazil in the round of 16 at the Rose Bowl, drew a 9.3 rating (apx 9 million households?). I remember this game had a bigger media buzz than the USA-Germany game for a number of reasons (patriotic, USA as underdog vs. a top team, in USA, etc.)

I think if the USA makes the final in Germany, 30-40 millions households is reasonable. They are currently ranked #7 in the world and playing well, so this is possible.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there would be quite a bit of interest here if we made it to the WC. Interest in soccer would die down shortly after, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the fact that you don't even know that the US is *in* the WC, I'm a little dubious about your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bah, I meant to say the WC Final. I knew they were in it already (tied with Mexico atop the CONCACAF standings last I checked).

[jstnrgrs]

I would watch it even if it were on at 3am, and I am by no means a die hard soccer fan. I would guess that if the game were on during peak hours, it would be watched by about 15% of Americans. I think this is about 40% of those who watch the Supperbowl. This is certainly just a guess, and I hope it happens so that I could see the actuall numbers.

[jdl22]

You would get the die hard soccer fans and the die hard America, [censored] YEAH!!! types. That's a pretty high percentage.

The Super Bowl is a bit different, more of a religious thing. People that don't particularly like football will watch the SB because of tradition and the spectacle. In the case of the WC final people that didn't like soccer would watch just because they would want the US to win. These same people would be pissed aftewerwards if we lost even if it was the first match they've seen.

As for me I would watch and depending on the opponent may or may not root for the US to win. I used to strongly support the US, going to matches with Sams Army and all that but now I'm not really feeling it.

[mason55]

[ QUOTE ]
I was one of those 3.8 mil. US played a pretty good game, could have won it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. I was at Columbus Crew stadium every night/morning that summer. They had a tent set up and showed all the games. There was probably 500 people there all night, every night. For the game vs Germany they showed it in the stadium on the Jumbotron. There was probably 2000 people there starting at 5am. It was pretty amazing.

[mmcd]

7

[valenzuela]

Next year edition is on Germany so you can expect better ratings overall.
The final will be prolly around 3ET. Anyway the WC is the biggest sporting event on the world and its very unlikely for USA to reach the final Id expect like 50 millions depending on who they defeated to get there( ie: beating Sweden , Togo and Spain wont be as exciting as beating Czech.rep, Holland and Brazil)

[spydog]

30%.

Chicks watch Super Bowls because it's cool. Chicks don't watch World Cups.

Plus, 5% of the Super Bowl audience watches only for the commercials. I doubt the World Cup will have good commercials.

I couldn't care less when the US played in the WC last time.

After living in Europe for the last year I absolutely can't wait until the WC starts. Soccer rules! Er...football rules!! Go USA!!!

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Say, as a % of those who watch the superbowl. Assume WC final is on @ peak hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Does ESPN even cover sailing anymore?

[judgesmails]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish more Americans would embrace World Cup Soccer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I can never understand why soccer fans desire Americans embrace the sport.

Our population prefers "Amercian" football and most of us don't care if anyone else likes the sport.

Same thing with Canadians and hockey. They seem to be desperate for Americans to learn to love the game. I don't know why they care who likes the game and who does not.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wish more Americans would embrace World Cup Soccer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I can never understand why soccer fans desire Americans embrace the sport.

Our population prefers "Amercian" football and most of us don't care if anyone else likes the sport.

Same thing with Canadians and hockey. They seem to be desperate for Americans to learn to love the game. I don't know why they care who likes the game and who does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it feels a bit cheap to win something that we are not interested in. We all know that if soccer was big in the US, the US would dominate - just like any other sport we care about.

[judgesmails]

[ QUOTE ]
We all know that if soccer was big in the US, the US would dominate - just like any other sport we care about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure about that. Nobody else cares about the sports "we" care about (football, baseball, basketball). So of course "we" dominate these sports - nobody else really plays them.

Soccer is played by almost every nation and I don't think any one nation could ever really dominate the sport over a long period of time.

I don't know much about soccer, but from the little exposure I have been subjected to it seems there are a handfull of countries who consistently turn out the best teams (Germany, Brazil, Italy, England ?). But nobody really dominates the sport. I don't think the US could ever dominate this sport because of the democratic nature of the game.

[DougOzzzz]

I think basketball and baseball are pretty big sports world-wide. Maybe that's why we don't dominate them like we used to, though.

Maybe we wouldn't "dominate" soccer, but I am pretty sure the US would be more likely than any other country to be the best team. I think the way the WC is set up you'd have to be MUCH better than everyone else (or very lucky) to dominate.

[TheNoodleMan]

You have to factor in all those idiots that watch the Super Bowl for the commercials. Soccer doesn't stop for commercials, so right away you lose that whole demographic.

[utmt40]

Who cares???

[IggyWH]

I'm not a soccer fan at all, but last world cup I used to get up at like 5 in the morning to watch the USA matches.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was one of those 3.8 mil. US played a pretty good game, could have won it.

[/ QUOTE ]

We played maybe our best game ever, and definitely *should* have won it. We owned them and just got unlucky.

[/ QUOTE ]


for real, anyone who watched that game knows that if it weren't for Micheal Ballack being the world class player that he is, the US would've gotten to the semis

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]

Soccer is played by almost every nation and I don't think any one nation could ever really dominate the sport over a long period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

eh, wrong. THere is a reason that only 7 nations have ever won the title, and that 5 have ever won multiple titles. So I think that would definetly mean that a small group of nations could dominate year-in-year out



[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about soccer, but from the little exposure I have been subjected to it seems there are a handfull of countries who consistently turn out the best teams (Germany, Brazil, Italy, England ?). But nobody really dominates the sport. I don't think the US could ever dominate this sport because of the democratic nature of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]


obviously you don't know much, so don't try to pretend that your opinion is rooted that much in fact. YOu make an observation about how few nations dominate, and then try to say that the democratic nature of football lends itself to this not happening. Football is very undemocratic and is driven by money. It is a testament to Argentina and Brazil for them constatnly churning out some of the best players in the world when their domestic clubs are raided all the time of their best players to bigger european clubs

[KDawgCometh]

hopefully I'll be there /images/graemlins/smile.gif. I completely readjusted my sleep schedule in 2002 for the WC and watch MLS and English Prem all the time, so, I'm definetly gonna be watching

[judgesmails]

I specified that I did not think any ONE nation could dominate, especially the US. I then used an observation that there are a handfull of nations that are consistently strong. Not any single nation that wins all, or most, of the time.

Domination, to me, is something like the Soviet Union winning in hockey almost every year from 1964 through 1980 or the US winning most international basketball competitions until recently. Not Brazil winning one year, Argentina the next, Italy the next, France the next, then Germany, then Brazil again.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
I think basketball and baseball are pretty big sports world-wide. Maybe that's why we don't dominate them like we used to, though.

Maybe we wouldn't "dominate" soccer, but I am pretty sure the US would be more likely than any other country to be the best team. I think the way the WC is set up you'd have to be MUCH better than everyone else (or very lucky) to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's this country in South America I think it's called Brazil.

As far as football is concern there is Brazil and then there's everyone else.

Even if the US invested every sporting resource into its team it would never reach that level.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]

As far as football is concern there is Brazil and then there's everyone else.

Even if the US invested every sporting resource into its team it would never reach that level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disclaimer: I know nothing about "football."

However, how can you say the US would never reach that level, when at best we put 3% of our "sporting resource" into soccer now, and still are competitive on the international level?

[KDawgCometh]

Brazil have won 5 titles, and there hasn't been a WC final since 90 that hasn't had them in the final, sounds like domination to me.

They have also won all of their titles in the post world war era which is where many fans draw the line on being the modern era. SInce 1958 they have won all of those 5. In under 50 years they have done that, considering the level of play across the world, that is as close to utter domination that you will get

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As far as football is concern there is Brazil and then there's everyone else.

Even if the US invested every sporting resource into its team it would never reach that level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disclaimer: I know nothing about "football."

However, how can you say the US would never reach that level, when at best we put 3% of our "sporting resource" into soccer now, and still are competitive on the international level?

[/ QUOTE ]

It really quite easy actually.

There are countries who invest gross amounts of money into the game and they are not able to replicate what occurs in Brazil. You can argue that countries like Italy, Germany, France etc whilst of a differing approach and pedigree are bottom line as good. I disagree

The reason is simple, in Brazil its not about money its about the naturally gifted talent which develops in the ghetto's and on the beach. No amount of money can buy this.
Brazil could field 2 maybe 3 teams in next years world cup and arguably they would all be competive.

There coach phrased it best when he recently said, for all other countries its about who they are going to take to the World Cup, for Brazil it's about who we leave behind. We have three players for every position.

[RRRRICK]

They are currently ranked #7 in the world and playing well, so this is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

The FIFA rankings are flawed.

It is very improbable that the United States will be playing in the final next year.

Playing the likes of Brazil, Argentina, Italy etc is a little different to beating Trinidad & Tobago, Costa Rica, Guatemala. Beating these teams has generated the US teams FIFA ranking points thus the 7th place.

I do believe that the US deserves there place in the World Cup but anyone who knows anything about football understands that 3 direct qualification spots for CONCACAF is a joke

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
Who cares???

[/ QUOTE ]

3 billion people watched the last WC final, so I would say about half the planet.

[DougOzzzz]

As I said, I know little about football/soccer.

However, I still don't see why this makes it certain that the US would not reach Brazil's level. Of the countries you mentioned, we have over 4 times the population of all of them except Germany, where we have about 3.7 times the population. From that alone, we should be able to field a far superior team.

We also have a fairly diverse population (read: we're not all white guys with a 9 inch vertical). On average, we might not be as "skilled" and "athletic" as Brazil, but why the [censored] don't they whoop our asses in track and field in the Olympics?

Seriously, if you don't think the US would *probably* be the best team in the world if we cared about soccer as much as Brazil, then you are dead wrong.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone who knows anything about football understands that 3 direct qualification spots for CONCACAF is a joke

[/ QUOTE ]


well, so would be the amount of automatic spots that asia gets too. 3 automatic spots for concacaf is perfect. The World Cup is about the best competition from around the world, and promoting the game in lesser regions, which is why if concacaf had only 2 automatic spots that concacaf world cup qualification would be a farce like the oceania qualification process that the nation you live in goes through every four years

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
Brazil have won 5 titles, and there hasn't been a WC final since 90 that hasn't had them in the final, sounds like domination to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

so they have won 5/12 WC's since 1958, and appeared in a few other finals. clearly, they are #1 in the world in this time, but they are not "dominating". I think you need to win at least 50% of the time to be "dominating" and probably more than that.

given the state of soccer across the world, "domination", as I define it, is extremely unlikely for any 1 country.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
anyone who knows anything about football understands that 3 direct qualification spots for CONCACAF is a joke

[/ QUOTE ]


well, so would be the amount of automatic spots that asia gets too. 3 automatic spots for concacaf is perfect. The World Cup is about the best competition from around the world, and promoting the game in lesser regions, which is why if concacaf had only 2 automatic spots that concacaf world cup qualification would be a farce like the oceania qualification process that the nation you live in goes through every four years

[/ QUOTE ]

Hello CONCACAF is a farce, Mexico and the US will qualify for the WC every four years with out fail, as Australia will always win Oceania. You remove the mentioned nations and both regions are about as bad as each other. Granted CONCACAF is probably of marginally higher quality. So how do you justify CONCACAF having 3.5 qualification spots and Oceania having 0.5.

Furthermore Austalia have to play Uruguay for a spot in the finals whilst sitting back and watching Trinidad and Tobago duke it out with Bahrain, how is this fair?

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
as a % of those who watch the superbowl

[/ QUOTE ]

30%-40%

only if aired in prime time

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, I know little about football/soccer.

However, I still don't see why this makes it certain that the US would not reach Brazil's level. Of the countries you mentioned, we have over 4 times the population of all of them except Germany, where we have about 3.7 times the population. From that alone, we should be able to field a far superior team.

We also have a fairly diverse population (read: we're not all white guys with a 9 inch vertical). On average, we might not be as "skilled" and "athletic" as Brazil, but why the [censored] don't they whoop our asses in track and field in the Olympics?

Seriously, if you don't think the US would *probably* be the best team in the world if we cared about soccer as much as Brazil, then you are dead wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you knew anything about football you would understand how stupid you sound.

It's typical of Americans to believe that they are best in everything and the things they aren't the best at they don't care about.

It wouldn't matter if you had the population of China and cared 1000% more, there is only one Brazil. They are unique form all other footballing powers.

Mate at Athens 2004 your country won 103 medals with a population of 250+ million. My country won 49 medals with a population of 20 million.

Who's stronger?

[TheRover]

My wang is bigger than yours.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]

Mate at Athens 2004 your country won 103 medals with a population of 250+ million. My country won 49 medals with a population of 20 million.

Who's stronger?

[/ QUOTE ]

America's sports resources go overwelmingly into domestic competitions (which makes it nearly imposible to make a fair overall comparison between America's and other countries in tearms of athletics). Our best Athletes play in the NBA, MLB, and NFL. Clearly we don't put much emphesis on soccer, or individual olympic events.

Even in "our" sports (i.e [American]football, baseball, and basketball), we don't put many resources into international competition.

If we put our best athletes into soccer, or the olympics, we would be as good as anyone in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't matter if you had the population of China and cared 1000% more, there is only one Brazil. They are unique form all other footballing powers.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statment is idotic. There is no special Brazilness that causes a country to be good at soccer. All it takes is for a large country to be soccer crazy for an extended period of time.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
Hello CONCACAF is a farce, Mexico and the US will qualify for the WC every four years with out fail, as Australia will always win Oceania. You remove the mentioned nations and both regions are about as bad as each other. Granted CONCACAF is probably of marginally higher quality. So how do you justify CONCACAF having 3.5 qualification spots and Oceania having 0.5.

Furthermore Austalia have to play Uruguay for a spot in the finals whilst sitting back and watching Trinidad and Tobago duke it out with Bahrain, how is this fair?

[/ QUOTE ]


oceania should have an automatic spot, I don't disagree with that at all, and because of FIFA's ineptitude in granting an automatic spot, Oceania is gonna be even more marginalized when Australia joins the AFC

The Concacaf is a stronger region then many give it credit for. Of course there will be the automatic entries that are garunteed in the US and Mexico, but nations like Jamaica and Costa Rica have done decent jobs in world cup competition. I still don't think that the AFC is anywhere near the relative strength of Concacaf, but they get 4.5 spots, even though their nations have been doormats for the most part. But those nations deserve to be on the big stage and deserve the money they recieve from it, same goes for Concacaf. I don't think that South America deserves the possible 5th spot that they get. Conmebol is a fairly small region and has a strong structure, and that nation doesn't normally deserve(IMO) the extra exposure that the world cup provides

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Mate at Athens 2004 your country won 103 medals with a population of 250+ million. My country won 49 medals with a population of 20 million.

Who's stronger?

[/ QUOTE ]

America's sports resources go overwelmingly into domestic competitions (which makes it nearly imposible to make a fair overall comparison between America's and other countries in tearms of athletics). Our best Athletes play in the NBA, MLB, and NFL. Clearly we don't put much emphesis on soccer, or individual olympic events.

Even in "our" sports (i.e [American]football, baseball, and basketball), we don't put many resources into international competition.

If we put our best athletes into soccer, or the olympics, we would be as good as anyone in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't matter if you had the population of China and cared 1000% more, there is only one Brazil. They are unique form all other footballing powers.


[/ QUOTE ]

This statment is idotic. There is no special Brazilness that causes a country to be good at soccer. All it takes is for a large country to be soccer crazy for an extended period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mate, I've played, coached and watched football all my life.
People who know the game will understand where I'm coming from.

Brazil are poverty strickened.
There domestic league is corrupt and farcical.
There players leave to play for big European clubs.

The state of the game in Brazil is so bad that its hard to understand how they compete let alone churn out the very best players in the world.

It's not passion its a religion to these people. Romario grew up in a ghetto learning to play by kicking around a ball made from socks which had been tied together.
Pele juggled oranges when he was a boy. You cant buy that it's intangible.

If you bothered to watch all the top nations you will notice that many of them play with similar styles but Brazil I say it again are unique, they play in a way that no one else can(some African nations possess some similarity).

Culturally they are flamboyant and expressive people and its reflected in the way they play.

Ever heard of Latin flair, can't you see that it's impossible to emulate this unless it runs through your veins.

The US play a more workman like European type game. The best the US could ever hope for is to be as good as Germany or Holland BUT THERE NO BRAZIL

Mind you in football the best team doesn't always win, as its a low scoring sport its the nature of the game at times for a team to dominate and lose.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hello CONCACAF is a farce, Mexico and the US will qualify for the WC every four years with out fail, as Australia will always win Oceania. You remove the mentioned nations and both regions are about as bad as each other. Granted CONCACAF is probably of marginally higher quality. So how do you justify CONCACAF having 3.5 qualification spots and Oceania having 0.5.

Furthermore Austalia have to play Uruguay for a spot in the finals whilst sitting back and watching Trinidad and Tobago duke it out with Bahrain, how is this fair?

[/ QUOTE ]


oceania should have an automatic spot, I don't disagree with that at all, and because of FIFA's ineptitude in granting an automatic spot, Oceania is gonna be even more marginalized when Australia joins the AFC

The Concacaf is a stronger region then many give it credit for. Of course there will be the automatic entries that are garunteed in the US and Mexico, but nations like Jamaica and Costa Rica have done decent jobs in world cup competition. I still don't think that the AFC is anywhere near the relative strength of Concacaf, but they get 4.5 spots, even though their nations have been doormats for the most part. But those nations deserve to be on the big stage and deserve the money they recieve from it, same goes for Concacaf. I don't think that South America deserves the possible 5th spot that they get. Conmebol is a fairly small region and has a strong structure, and that nation doesn't normally deserve(IMO) the extra exposure that the world cup provides

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO

Oceania Should have 1 place.

The remaining place should be decided in a 3 way round robin between Asia, CONCACAF and Conmebol.

[RacersEdge]

10% max.

Soccer blows.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Mate at Athens 2004 your country won 103 medals with a population of 250+ million. My country won 49 medals with a population of 20 million.

Who's stronger?

[/ QUOTE ]
By your numbers, it looks like my country is stronger. Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

[Victor]

i pretty much agree.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mate at Athens 2004 your country won 103 medals with a population of 250+ million. My country won 49 medals with a population of 20 million.

Who's stronger?

[/ QUOTE ]
By your numbers, it looks like my country is stronger. Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pound for pound I don't think so.

[DougOzzzz]

Whatever man. You can hate us if you want. You are talking about something you have no clue about.

The current US team would probably be the equivalent of our 10th team if we put all our resources into soccer.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]

It's typical of Americans to believe that they are best in everything and the things they aren't the best at they don't care about.


[/ QUOTE ]

Give one example that proves this attitude wrong.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brazil have won 5 titles, and there hasn't been a WC final since 90 that hasn't had them in the final, sounds like domination to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

so they have won 5/12 WC's since 1958, and appeared in a few other finals.

[/ QUOTE ]

5/12 with other finals in the sport that the entire world outside of the US puts all their resources into winning is the very definition of domination in my book.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brazil have won 5 titles, and there hasn't been a WC final since 90 that hasn't had them in the final, sounds like domination to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

so they have won 5/12 WC's since 1958, and appeared in a few other finals.

[/ QUOTE ]

5/12 with other finals in the sport that the entire world outside of the US puts all their resources into winning is the very definition of domination in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't forget that they have also lost only one final. So, they are 5 for 6 in WC finals, domination indeed

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brazil have won 5 titles, and there hasn't been a WC final since 90 that hasn't had them in the final, sounds like domination to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

so they have won 5/12 WC's since 1958, and appeared in a few other finals.

[/ QUOTE ]

5/12 with other finals in the sport that the entire world outside of the US puts all their resources into winning is the very definition of domination in my book.

[/ QUOTE ]

don't forget that they have also lost only one final. So, they are 5 for 6 in WC finals, domination indeed

[/ QUOTE ]

Even getting to 6 of the 12 finals in a sport with as high a variance as this one is totally amazing. It's so easy to outplay someone and lose, much easier than any other sport I can think of.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's typical of Americans to believe that they are best in everything and the things they aren't the best at they don't care about.


[/ QUOTE ]

Give one example that proves this attitude wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

2004 Athens Mens Basketball, I think it was a Bronze wasn't it.

With all the resources you pump into the NBA you would think you could win that with your Womens team.

You guys are definately the best in Gridiron cos no one else plays it.

Oh yeah and you have a World Series of baseball which is contested by nearly entirely American teams, some World Championship that is!!!!!!!

You guys live in your own fairy land.

[Voltron87]

rick is right about brazil. theyre in a league of their own.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]


You guys and all your money live in your own fairy land.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Voltron87]

rick basketball is not treated like a national sport here, that is why the national team blows relative to what they should be.

[DougOzzzz]

If you don't think the US is the best in the world at basketball despite losing in Athens, then this argument is pointless.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
rick basketball is not treated like a national sport here, that is why the national team blows relative to what they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't get that mentality.

To me sport is at its pinnacle at international level.
Competing for you country in a team sport in a World Championship is the summit as far as I'm concerned.

Wouldn't your NBA stars want to show the rest of the world that they are the best.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rick basketball is not treated like a national sport here, that is why the national team blows relative to what they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't get that mentality.

To me sport is at its pinnacle at international level.
Competing for you country in a team sport in a World Championship is the summit as far as I'm concerned.

Wouldn't your NBA stars want to show the rest of the world that they are the best.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the difference. You guys care about the Olympics. Americans at large do not. Especially basketball players.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever man. You can hate us if you want. You are talking about something you have no clue about.

The current US team would probably be the equivalent of our 10th team if we put all our resources into soccer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can take 11 players lock them away from birth and take the best coaches and teach them nothing but soccer and you still wouldn't win the World Cup.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever man. You can hate us if you want. You are talking about something you have no clue about.

The current US team would probably be the equivalent of our 10th team if we put all our resources into soccer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can take 11 players lock them away from birth and take the best coaches and teach them nothing but soccer and you still wouldn't win the World Cup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hope not. Unless they are all genetically engineered.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever man. You can hate us if you want. You are talking about something you have no clue about.

The current US team would probably be the equivalent of our 10th team if we put all our resources into soccer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can take 11 players lo

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever man. You can hate us if you want. You are talking about something you have no clue about.

The current US team would probably be the equivalent of our 10th team if we put all our resources into soccer.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can take 11 players lock them away from birth and take the best coaches and teach them nothing but soccer and you still wouldn't win the World Cup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hope not. Unless they are all genetically engineered.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to face the fact that you hide behind your domestic games which no one really cares about other than yourselves.

The rest of the free world recognises that the World Cup is the greatest single prize in sport. With 200+ registered nations its pretty damm hard to win.

Just know that your great nation will never get its hands on the greatest trophy in world sport and go on deluding yourself in thinking that if you really wanted to you could.

LMAO

Isn't obvious that brazil is to football, what the US is to basketball (and canada is to hockey)? The difference is that the pinnacle of basketball in the US is the NBA, while the pinnacle of football is the WC.

If you removed every other sport, and every boy dreamed of playing in the world cup, if soccer was the way out of Pennslyvania coal mines (football), off of the farm or out of the innercity (baseball, basketball), then we could beat brazil.
But it would take a couple of generations.

If the US made the world cup final, we'd be lucky to get 20% of the US watching.

[ QUOTE ]

Just know that your great nation will never get its hands on the greatest trophy in world sport and go on deluding yourself in thinking that if you really wanted to you could.

LMAO

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and we'll never win the hockey olympic gold medal, or world championship.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't obvious that brazil is to football, what the US is to basketball (and canada is to hockey)? The difference is that the pinnacle of basketball in the US is the NBA, while the pinnacle of football is the WC.

If you removed every other sport, and every boy dreamed of playing in the world cup, if soccer was the way out of Pennslyvania coal mines (football), off of the farm or out of the innercity (baseball, basketball), then we could beat brazil.
But it would take a couple of generations.

If the US made the world cup final, we'd be lucky to get 20% of the US watching.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making exactly my point. I never once said that the US will ever become the best team in football. My point is, if we put all our resources into it like Brazil does, we'd probably be the best team in the world.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just know that your great nation will never get its hands on the greatest trophy in world sport and go on deluding yourself in thinking that if you really wanted to you could.

LMAO

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and we'll never win the hockey olympic gold medal, or world championship.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny is that anyone who watched the last World Cup would have to acknowledge that we were clearly playing as well as any team other than Brazil. But for bad luck, we would've advanced to the semifinals with a legit shot at the finals. We rule.

[DougOzzzz]

And this using less than 5% of our resources. To say that the best we could ever be is AS GOOD AS Germany when we dominated them last time anyway - well, it doesn't make sense.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
And this using less than 5% of our resources. To say that the best we could ever be is AS GOOD AS Germany when we dominated them last time anyway - well, it doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHA

This is pathetic

Germany are 3 time world champions and you've made the quarter finals once and you think it gives you the right to talk. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Plenty of nations have performed well in one World Cup, putting a good run together in one WC and being the best are not even comparable.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And this using less than 5% of our resources. To say that the best we could ever be is AS GOOD AS Germany when we dominated them last time anyway - well, it doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHA

This is pathetic

Germany are 3 time world champions and you've made the quarter finals once and you think it gives you the right to talk. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Plenty of nations have performed well in one World Cup, putting a good run together in one WC and being the best are not even comparable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said we are better than Germany. We are not so much worse that we can't severely outplay them in a game even now.

Given about 20 times as many players, coaches, etc. I think we would whoop Germany's ass.

[MyTurn2Raise]

It irks me that the US doesn't dominate Rugby. Look at all the ex-running backs from the NFL, major colleges, etc. I would think these guys could make the US a dominate Rugby force. Same skill set, same tools. Someone show them the money.

Soccer...well, that's a different story.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And this using less than 5% of our resources. To say that the best we could ever be is AS GOOD AS Germany when we dominated them last time anyway - well, it doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHA

This is pathetic

Germany are 3 time world champions and you've made the quarter finals once and you think it gives you the right to talk. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Plenty of nations have performed well in one World Cup, putting a good run together in one WC and being the best are not even comparable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said we are better than Germany. We are not so much worse that we can't severely outplay them in a game even now.

Given about 20 times as many players, coaches, etc. I think we would whoop Germany's ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what are going to do about Brazil, how are you going to whoop there ass. To be the best thats who you have to whoop.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And this using less than 5% of our resources. To say that the best we could ever be is AS GOOD AS Germany when we dominated them last time anyway - well, it doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHA

This is pathetic

Germany are 3 time world champions and you've made the quarter finals once and you think it gives you the right to talk. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Plenty of nations have performed well in one World Cup, putting a good run together in one WC and being the best are not even comparable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said we are better than Germany. We are not so much worse that we can't severely outplay them in a game even now.

Given about 20 times as many players, coaches, etc. I think we would whoop Germany's ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what are going to do about Brazil, how are you going to whoop there ass. To be the best thats who you have to whoop.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading this thread I think I underestimated how good Brazil is in relation to the rest of the world. As I said, I know little about soccer.

However, if the US put all our resources into soccer, the only question would be whether we would be #1 or #2 in the world. And I'm still leaning towards #1.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And this using less than 5% of our resources. To say that the best we could ever be is AS GOOD AS Germany when we dominated them last time anyway - well, it doesn't make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHA

This is pathetic

Germany are 3 time world champions and you've made the quarter finals once and you think it gives you the right to talk. One swallow doesn't make a summer.

Plenty of nations have performed well in one World Cup, putting a good run together in one WC and being the best are not even comparable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said we are better than Germany. We are not so much worse that we can't severely outplay them in a game even now.

Given about 20 times as many players, coaches, etc. I think we would whoop Germany's ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what are going to do about Brazil, how are you going to whoop there ass. To be the best thats who you have to whoop.

[/ QUOTE ]

After reading this thread I think I underestimated how good Brazil is in relation to the rest of the world. As I said, I know little about soccer.

However, if the US put all our resources into soccer, the only question would be whether we would be #1 or #2 in the world. And I'm still leaning towards #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just humor me and find some footage of Ronaldinhio, Ronaldo or Kaka you could never produce players of that style, flair and calibre. NEVER NO MATTER HOW MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS YOU INVESTED.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I cant wait to tell all my teammates that some Americans actually believe they could, by investing all there resources, be the best team in the world.

In thirty years of playing, coaching and loving the game it's the funniest thing I've heard.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]

Just humor me and find some footage of Ronaldinhio, Ronaldo or Kaka you could never produce players of that style, flair and calibre. NEVER NO MATTER HOW MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS YOU INVESTED.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I cant wait to tell all my teammates that some Americans actually believe they could, by investing all there resources, be the best team in the world.

In thirty years of playing, coaching and loving the game it's the funniest thing I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]


please emphasize that it was an american who admittedly knew nothing about football(soccer), cause someone like me who has a clue wouldn't ever say that the US would beat brazil consistently. But that doesn't mean that a WC win can't happen. Just remember that some of the best teams didn't win the WC(holland 78, england 82, brazil in the 80s with socrates)

Now, if we changed the main game from american football to rugby and gave ourselves a few world cups to get things together, now I think that'd be a different story. Before you say NZ, just remember that they always choke when the Webb Ellis trophy is on the line

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]


In thirty years of playing, coaching and loving the game it's the funniest thing I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's even more funny that you give the US zero chance of being as good as Brazil, no matter how much we put into soccer. I'm willing to admit there is a chance Brazil would still be the best team. But it's pretty darn hard to say with any certainty that the US wouldn't, given how little we put into it now and how we are still competitive on the international level.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]


Even getting to 6 of the 12 finals in a sport with as high a variance as this one is totally amazing. It's so easy to outplay someone and lose, much easier than any other sport I can think of.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly, especially when you consider that some of the greatest teams never won the WC. Holland in 78 was too busy passing circles around argentina to remember that you have to score some goals to win. England in 82 had some real tough breaks(that was probably their second best team next to the 66 team that won the WC, and the 82 team didn't even get to the semis), and you can definetly look at last years euro championships with greece winning and the Czech Rep and France losing to them becasue of overtly defensive play

for anyone to say that brazil hasn't utterly dominated the modern game is just foolish(not saying that you are saying that at all, I just like to talk football(soccer))

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just humor me and find some footage of Ronaldinhio, Ronaldo or Kaka you could never produce players of that style, flair and calibre. NEVER NO MATTER HOW MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS YOU INVESTED.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I cant wait to tell all my teammates that some Americans actually believe they could, by investing all there resources, be the best team in the world.

In thirty years of playing, coaching and loving the game it's the funniest thing I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]


please emphasize that it was an american who admittedly knew nothing about football(soccer), cause someone like me who has a clue wouldn't ever say that the US would beat brazil consistently. But that doesn't mean that a WC win can't happen. Just remember that some of the best teams didn't win the WC(holland 78, england 82, brazil in the 80s with socrates)

Now, if we changed the main game from american football to rugby and gave ourselves a few world cups to get things together, now I think that'd be a different story. Before you say NZ, just remember that they always choke when the Webb Ellis trophy is on the line

[/ QUOTE ]

I acknowledge that it's not out of the realms of possiblity that the USA could one day be World Champions but to trivialise it like the way my friend Doug is, is ignorant.

Some of the great footballing nations don't a have a WC win(Holland comes to mind immediately)and to suggest you can just open up your wallet and bingo become the best team in the world is total and utter garbage.

Resources are important but you need pedigree, raw talent and most of all a football culture in order to succeed.
You don't have that and you probably never will.

There are obvious similarities between NFL and Rugby so this would be very possible. Believe me as an Aussie we are happy to see the All Blacks choke come World Cup time.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In thirty years of playing, coaching and loving the game it's the funniest thing I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's even more funny that you give the US zero chance of being as good as Brazil, no matter how much we put into soccer. I'm willing to admit there is a chance Brazil would still be the best team. But it's pretty darn hard to say with any certainty that the US wouldn't, given how little we put into it now and how we are still competitive on the international level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop, I'm in pain from all the laughter.

Yes the chance is ZERO. You can't erase 50 years of dominance because you're the big bad USA.

Mate I'm an Australian with Italian heritage.

Italy is one of the great footballing nations and I can still stand up and admit that Brazil are the Kings of football who play the beautiful game.

[Eihli]

I'll be in Germany watching it. Sam's Army section.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]

I acknowledge that it's not out of the realms of possiblity that the USA could one day be World Champions but to trivialise it like the way my friend Doug is, is ignorant.

Some of the great footballing nations don't a have a WC win(Holland comes to mind immediately)and to suggest you can just open up your wallet and bingo become the best team in the world is total and utter garbage.

Resources are important but you need pedigree, raw talent and most of all a football culture in order to succeed.
You don't have that and you probably never will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, now I wasn't talking about ALL our money. I'm talking about ALL our resources. I mean, if every boy grows up playing soccer all day instead of baseball, basketball, or football. This automatically meets your requirement of a "football culture."

Currently, most talented athletes in the US play one of the big three sports. There's almost no reason to play soccer.

You really have no clue how good we could be if soccer was the only sport that mattered here. I am not joking when I say the current US team would probably be the equivalent of our 10th team in the hypothetical United States of SoccerLand. We'd have about 20 times as many players, many of them more gifted athletes than those that actually play soccer now in the US. 20 times the players = 20 teams. Average talent would be about the 10th team, and that's what we have now. The 10th best team in the US of SL. And one of the best 40 teams in the world.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
It irks me that the US doesn't dominate Rugby. Look at all the ex-running backs from the NFL, major colleges, etc. I would think these guys could make the US a dominate Rugby force. Same skill set, same tools. Someone show them the money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you expect our ex-NFL running backs or college RBs who weren't good enough to play in the NFL to dominate in international rugby? There are at least 64 RBs better than these guys. This is even worse than the soccer situation - where at least some of the skills don't overlap with other major sports in the US.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In thirty years of playing, coaching and loving the game it's the funniest thing I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's even more funny that you give the US zero chance of being as good as Brazil, no matter how much we put into soccer. I'm willing to admit there is a chance Brazil would still be the best team. But it's pretty darn hard to say with any certainty that the US wouldn't, given how little we put into it now and how we are still competitive on the international level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop, I'm in pain from all the laughter.

Yes the chance is ZERO. You can't erase 50 years of dominance because you're the big bad USA.

Mate I'm an Australian with Italian heritage.

Italy is one of the great footballing nations and I can still stand up and admit that Brazil are the Kings of football who play the beautiful game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep changing your argument.

NO ONE who knows anything about soccer is disagreeing that Brazil is the King. They are.

NO ONE is saying that the US could become equal overnight.

But it's the height of foolishness to think that the US could NOT develop into the best. Here's what the US has going for it: the richest country in the world; the country with the 4th largest population in the world; the country with the most diverse population in the world; the country that regularly produces freakish athletes like: Barry Sanders, Allen Iverson, LaDanian Tomlinson, Ed Reed, Earl Boykins (imagine him with the ball at his feet at midfield, zipping around defenders...) - all of these guys had/have the athletic ability to excel at soccer.

If soccer were as important in the US as it is in Brazil, the US would be on par with Brazil. Period. End of discussion.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In thirty years of playing, coaching and loving the game it's the funniest thing I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's even more funny that you give the US zero chance of being as good as Brazil, no matter how much we put into soccer. I'm willing to admit there is a chance Brazil would still be the best team. But it's pretty darn hard to say with any certainty that the US wouldn't, given how little we put into it now and how we are still competitive on the international level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop, I'm in pain from all the laughter.

Yes the chance is ZERO. You can't erase 50 years of dominance because you're the big bad USA.

Mate I'm an Australian with Italian heritage.

Italy is one of the great footballing nations and I can still stand up and admit that Brazil are the Kings of football who play the beautiful game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep changing your argument.

NO ONE who knows anything about soccer is disagreeing that Brazil is the King. They are.

NO ONE is saying that the US could become equal overnight.

But it's the height of foolishness to think that the US could NOT develop into the best. Here's what the US has going for it: the richest country in the world; the country with the 4th largest population in the world; the country with the most diverse population in the world; the country that regularly produces freakish athletes like: Barry Sanders, Allen Iverson, LaDanian Tomlinson, Ed Reed, Earl Boykins (imagine him with the ball at his feet at midfield, zipping around defenders...) - all of these guys had/have the athletic ability to excel at soccer.

If soccer were as important in the US as it is in Brazil, the US would be on par with Brazil. Period. End of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, couldn't happen. We don't have the "flair gene". /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

I don't mean to interrupt all the dick-waving, but I just wanted to cut in and say MyTurn2Raise has an awesome avatar.

That is all - back to your pissing.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys live in your own fairy land.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. If we were to step out of out "fairy land", you would find us to be as good as anyone in whatever sport we presued.

BTW: I think that most americans consider international basketball to be on the same level as soccer and other olympic events. We don't care about it much. Same goes for international baseball.

[noggindoc]

who cares, its "American" football season

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In thirty years of playing, coaching and loving the game it's the funniest thing I've heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's even more funny that you give the US zero chance of being as good as Brazil, no matter how much we put into soccer. I'm willing to admit there is a chance Brazil would still be the best team. But it's pretty darn hard to say with any certainty that the US wouldn't, given how little we put into it now and how we are still competitive on the international level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop, I'm in pain from all the laughter.

Yes the chance is ZERO. You can't erase 50 years of dominance because you're the big bad USA.

Mate I'm an Australian with Italian heritage.

Italy is one of the great footballing nations and I can still stand up and admit that Brazil are the Kings of football who play the beautiful game.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep changing your argument.

NO ONE who knows anything about soccer is disagreeing that Brazil is the King. They are.

NO ONE is saying that the US could become equal overnight.

But it's the height of foolishness to think that the US could NOT develop into the best. Here's what the US has going for it: the richest country in the world; the country with the 4th largest population in the world; the country with the most diverse population in the world; the country that regularly produces freakish athletes like: Barry Sanders, Allen Iverson, LaDanian Tomlinson, Ed Reed, Earl Boykins (imagine him with the ball at his feet at midfield, zipping around defenders...) - all of these guys had/have the athletic ability to excel at soccer.

If soccer were as important in the US as it is in Brazil, the US would be on par with Brazil. Period. End of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nah, couldn't happen. We don't have the "flair gene". /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, oops, wrong flair /images/graemlins/grin.gif

did anyone see Robin Williams' live on broadway routine where he talked about the US playing soccer?

seriously, if you haven't, you need to, its un fuggin believably funny.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mean to interrupt all the dick-waving, but I just wanted to cut in and say MyTurn2Raise has an awesome avatar.

That is all - back to your pissing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks
Give props to Stuey, of course, for formatting and editing it into a friendlier, readable size.
Also, yeah to Radiohead, whose video "Just" inspired the avatar.

The biggest flaw is that the avatar doesn't have enough cowbell.

[Victor]

the usa will likely win a world cup in the next 50 years. they actually do pour a lot of resources in the game. also, it is the 2nd highest played sport for american youth behind basketball. there is a ton of money poured into olympic and world cup development squads. this has been going strong since about 1990 and look at how much the usa has improved in world competition.

so, really, you both are right and wrong. doug is wrong bc the usa DOES pour cash into soccer but it is not even close to a power.....yet.

rick is wrong bc if the usa continues to improve it will certainly compete and, with all the luck involved in soccer, will likely take a cup. also, america has the advantage since it will host a few cups and more than any other nation in the upcoming competitions.

edit: i should note that rick is correct in that usa will NEVER dominate soccer. they may win a cup but they will never be considered the best or the favorites.

[Michael Davis]

I stayed up, watched, and taped every televised World Cup game in 2002 (except a few I couldn't watch for good reason).

I don't really regret that I taped over all of the games when I got payperview porn for free.

-Michael

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
the usa will likely win a world cup in the next 50 years. they actually do pour a lot of resources in the game. also, it is the 2nd highest played sport for american youth behind basketball. there is a ton of money poured into olympic and world cup development squads. this has been going strong since about 1990 and look at how much the usa has improved in world competition.

so, really, you both are right and wrong. doug is wrong bc the usa DOES pour cash into soccer but it is not even close to a power.....yet.

rick is wrong bc if the usa continues to improve it will certainly compete and, with all the luck involved in soccer, will likely take a cup. also, america has the advantage since it will host a few cups and more than any other nation in the upcoming competitions.

edit: i should note that rick is correct in that usa will NEVER dominate soccer. they may win a cup but they will never be considered the best or the favorites.

[/ QUOTE ]

just fyi, the world cup is held every 4 years.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]

just fyi, the world cup is held every 4 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have played and followed soccer many years and i know this.

where do i imply otherwise?

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

just fyi, the world cup is held every 4 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have played and followed soccer many years and i know this.

where do i imply otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

"the usa will likely win the world cup in the next 50 years"

i would cry tears of joy if this happened, but your statement is ridiculous.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

just fyi, the world cup is held every 4 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

i have played and followed soccer many years and i know this.

where do i imply otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

"the usa will likely win the world cup in the next 50 years"

i would cry tears of joy if this happened, but your statement is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

When England won in '66 they became the 5th nation to do so.
Argentina in '78 at home became the 6th. Then it wasn't until France in '98 again at home that we had numer 7.

50 years from now Brazil will probably have between 8 - 10 titles, we could probably expect to see about 3 first time winners in that time, the rest to be shared by the usual suspects.

The likelyhood that one of the new winners will be a nation where football is not the number 1 sport, virtuly zero.

There are some big European nations that are cupless(Holland, Spain, Portugal) but I'd expect one or more of these teams to break that duck in the next 50 years

I'd back Japan/Korea or an African nation before the US but I still have huge doubts that this will happen anytime soon.

[Victor]

ok. i will bet you. 50:1 that usa wins one of the next 12?

[Jimmy The Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rick basketball is not treated like a national sport here, that is why the national team blows relative to what they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't get that mentality.

To me sport is at its pinnacle at international level.
Competing for you country in a team sport in a World Championship is the summit as far as I'm concerned.

Wouldn't your NBA stars want to show the rest of the world that they are the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your perspective on international play, which is a big reason why I love the college game and loathe the NBA. But your question shows that you don't understand just how unimportant international play is in the eyes of most NBA stars.

Ask the NBA stars how important international competition is, and they'll answer with varying degrees of "how much will I get paid?" (Many of the game's top players refuse invitations to join the national team.) The NBA has devolved from a team game to a loosely-organized one-on-one competition; its style of play is so different from the international game that the Team USA players don't have time to adjust.

I think the USOC would do very well to steal the "rugby idea" in this thread. Assemble a squad of Americans currently playing in Europe, who didn't quite have the individual talent to make the NBA; form the roster a full calendar year before the Olympics; keep them together for that year, playing exhibitions against NBA teams, NCAA teams, and European teams.

Oh, and regarding the original topic: what ratings did the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" get? A World Cup final featuring the USA would probably do just as well. People who don't know soccer from curling would watch, just for the pseudo-patriotic angle.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
rick basketball is not treated like a national sport here, that is why the national team blows relative to what they should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just don't get that mentality.

To me sport is at its pinnacle at international level.
Competing for you country in a team sport in a World Championship is the summit as far as I'm concerned.

Wouldn't your NBA stars want to show the rest of the world that they are the best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your perspective on international play, which is a big reason why I love the college game and loathe the NBA. But your question shows that you don't understand just how unimportant international play is in the eyes of most NBA stars.

Ask the NBA stars how important international competition is, and they'll answer with varying degrees of "how much will I get paid?" (Many of the game's top players refuse invitations to join the national team.) The NBA has devolved from a team game to a loosely-organized one-on-one competition; its style of play is so different from the international game that the Team USA players don't have time to adjust.

I think the USOC would do very well to steal the "rugby idea" in this thread. Assemble a squad of Americans currently playing in Europe, who didn't quite have the individual talent to make the NBA; form the roster a full calendar year before the Olympics; keep them together for that year, playing exhibitions against NBA teams, NCAA teams, and European teams.

Oh, and regarding the original topic: what ratings did the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" get? A World Cup final featuring the USA would probably do just as well. People who don't know soccer from curling would watch, just for the pseudo-patriotic angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually really sad

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
ok. i will bet you. 50:1 that usa wins one of the next 12?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure but one or both of us might be dead by the time the bet is over

[BadBoyBenny]

But maybe, just maybe if we make all of our waitresses wear 15 pieces of flair we could develop it. Or maybe, just maybe if we elect Rick Flair president... I dream of the day when the US put's its full resources into developing our flair.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
the usa will likely win a world cup in the next 50 years. they actually do pour a lot of resources in the game. also, it is the 2nd highest played sport for american youth behind basketball. there is a ton of money poured into olympic and world cup development squads. this has been going strong since about 1990 and look at how much the usa has improved in world competition.

so, really, you both are right and wrong. doug is wrong bc the usa DOES pour cash into soccer but it is not even close to a power.....yet.

rick is wrong bc if the usa continues to improve it will certainly compete and, with all the luck involved in soccer, will likely take a cup. also, america has the advantage since it will host a few cups and more than any other nation in the upcoming competitions.

edit: i should note that rick is correct in that usa will NEVER dominate soccer. they may win a cup but they will never be considered the best or the favorites.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're talking about the next fifty years there is no way the US will host 3 of them. We're much more likely to host none. The next two are spoken four. For the ten after that I think all these countries are more likely to host before the US than after:
- China
- England
- Spain
- Italy
- Argentina
- Brasil
- some other African country
- Sweden or Norway

I would say there are a few other countries like Turkey or Greece that could eventually table a solid bid that could rival the US. Although Blatter said he doesn't want to do joint bids anymore I could see The Netherlands and Belgium joining as they did for Euro 2000. Also, the 1938 cup could well be in Uruguay who hosted first, but I'm not sure they have the stadia.

So I would put it at about even odds that the US will host 1 world cup in the next 12, hosting 2 is extremely unlikely and 3 is pretty much not going to happen.

[DougOzzzz]

I don't believe the US will win the cup in the next 50 years, though it is far from impossible.

I probably did underestimate how much we put into soccer. However, soccer is a pretty easy game to play for young kids, which I suspect is a large part of the reason it is so popular. Once they reach high school, most of the better athletes will gravitate towards basketball, football, or baseball.

[MarkL444]

RRRICK-

The fact of that matter is that soccer just isn't nearly as big over here. I'm sure there are various reasons why, but that's irrelevant. [Most] people don't grow up watching soccer dreaming of one day playing in the world cup. That doesn't mean the WC isn't the biggest single sporting event, because it obviously is.

The US is still a pretty good team. (as far as i know) I think that's pretty amazing because it really is a second-rate sport to us.

Now, if you want to write this off as arrogant Americanism, that's fine. But the US is a very large and athletically competitive country. If the sport was more popular, the team would be better. Perhaps not the best, but signifcantly better.

To help put things into perspective, my high school (ages 13-18) had a football(american), baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, tennis, crew, track, cross-county, volleyball, and even a BOWLING team, but did not have a soccer team. (although this probably isn't the norm)

[ QUOTE ]
If you removed every other sport, and every boy dreamed of playing in the world cup, if soccer was the way out of Pennslyvania coal mines (football), off of the farm or out of the innercity (baseball, basketball), then we could beat brazil.
But it would take a couple of generations.

If the US made the world cup final, we'd be lucky to get 20% of the US watching.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you removed every other sport, and every boy dreamed of playing in the world cup, if soccer was the way out of Pennslyvania coal mines (football), off of the farm or out of the innercity (baseball, basketball), then we could beat brazil.
But it would take a couple of generations.

If the US made the world cup final, we'd be lucky to get 20% of the US watching.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

that 20% figure is so wrong. the media would hype it up like mad. people would watch. (of course assuming prime time)

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
The likelyhood that one of the new winners will be a nation where football is not the number 1 sport, virtuly zero.

There are some big European nations that are cupless(Holland, Spain, Portugal) but I'd expect one or more of these teams to break that duck in the next 50 years

[/ QUOTE ]

soccer being the #1 or #2 or #3 or whatever sport in our country far from guarantees that the US won't win a cup in 50 years, just as soccers #1 status in Spain does not guarantee that they will win a WC.

in fact, both of these are overrated factors. there are so many good athletes/resources in the US that we can field globally competitive teams in numerous sports. I agree that it would be near impossible for the US to be better in the long run than Brazil. however, we can surpass smaller countries like Spain, Holland, and Portugal, giving us a better chance of winning the WC than those teams. the fact is that "heritage" and "experience" won't help those countries win the next WC, and the US, by 2010 or 2014 at the latest, will be on equal footing with, or even better than, those countries.

I realize that upsets some soccer purists, but as long as soccer continues to grow in populrtity in the US, it is inevitable.

[arod15]

A decent amount. I would say 65% of the US.

[ QUOTE ]

that 20% figure is so wrong. the media would hype it up like mad. people would watch. (of course assuming prime time)

[/ QUOTE ]
I sure hope it's wrong, but if it's up against a yankees-redsox game or a rerun of desperate housewives /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Whatever the women drew when they beat china is probably accurate.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]

Whatever the women drew when they beat china is probably accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cmon now. This may be the most absurd statement in this entire thread.

[RRRRICK]

I think its time I clarify something which has yet to be done.

Many of you have loosly stated that the US are 'pretty good' now and we don't even care.

The US are currently a 2nd tier team. Thy are not on the same level as the top footballing nations. Do not bother bringing up FIFA world rankings because they are flawed.

The gap between the top teams and the rest has gotten smaller over the past 20 years or so but its still a gap.

On any given day a team like the US could beat a top team its the nature of the game, it's one of the reasons purists love the game and ironically the major reason why non believers dislike the game.

But if the US played a top team let say Argentina 10 times in a month, apart from being very tired they would win maybe twice, the rest would would be a combination of draws(say 3) and Argentine wins.

I get the impression that many of you are over doing it because of your QF appearence in '02. It has to be said that whilst the US performed brilliantly against the Germans, it was an ordinary Germany in comparison to what they produced in the past.

For the US to become one of the top dozen or so would take a huge committment in all facets of the game. If not, all that will happen is that you'll qualify for every WC sometimes you'll do well and other times you won't.

The fact of the matter is that the WC has always been ultimately won by one of the top teams. There's luck involved in football and we have also seen many instances where a nation has exceeded expectation played above themselves, rode some luck along the way and put together a great tournament. But in every instance thus far those teams have fallen short and victim to a big gun.

In 1990 Cameroon won the imagination of the footballing community with there dashing style and rode it all the way to un unlucky QF exit to England. Since then I can easily say that as footballing nation they have grown but they have never bettered that perfomance and failed to qualify for the finals next year.

Bottom line is that this is the most difficult prize to win in sport, so much has to go right and having a team of the highest quality gives you that platform to launch from.

You have a good team not a great team.

Great teams win world cups, good teams talk about hard luck defeats in QF's........big difference.

[pudley4]

Tier 1: Brazil, Argentina, Italy, England, Germany, Spain (except the last 2 have played like crap lately)

Tier 2: Portugal, France, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, Mexico, US, Turkey, Japan (maybe Serbia, Croatia, Norway, not sure about any African nations since they've all been so inconsistent)

[ QUOTE ]
For the US to become one of the top dozen or so would take a huge committment in all facets of the game. If not, all that will happen is that you'll qualify for every WC sometimes you'll do well and other times you won't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, that's what we've all been saying all along - if it was as important here as it is in Brazil, the US would be up along Brazil.

[RacersEdge]

[ QUOTE ]
A decent amount. I would say 65% of the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's insane. 2/3 of the people would watch a slow moving sport they know nothing about?

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
Tier 1: Brazil, Argentina, Italy, England, Germany, Spain (except the last 2 have played like crap lately)

Tier 2: Portugal, France, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, Mexico, US, Turkey, Japan (maybe Serbia, Croatia, Norway, not sure about any African nations since they've all been so inconsistent)

[ QUOTE ]
For the US to become one of the top dozen or so would take a huge committment in all facets of the game. If not, all that will happen is that you'll qualify for every WC sometimes you'll do well and other times you won't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, that's what we've all been saying all along - if it was as important here as it is in Brazil, the US would be up along Brazil.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can comfortably push France, Portugal and the Netherlands into Tier 1. They are all class teams each with a chance of lifting the trophy next year(Although it must be highlighted that we are possibly looking at the best Brazilian team since 1970)

You've definately missed my point.

Yes I conceed that if the US radically changed there entire approach to the game they could become a tier 1 team. It is important to note that some of you believe that this can happen regardless.

But as I have said before Brazil has its own level, you can't put them along side anyone.

I will say it until I explode, IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU DO YOU WILL NEVER BE ON A PAR WITH BRAZIL.

I have already stated the reason earlier in this thread, go back and re read it

[w_alloy]

Before I adress Rick's points I will introduce myself. I played soccer from ages 6-18 (I'm 20 now) and am pretty damn good. I was one of the stars of our varsity team. I toured Englend with my club team when I was 17 and we did quite well. I got some ok schollarship offers for soccer in college but did not take any of them.

I would also like to touch on something another poster said. My club team when I was 13 was awesome. But in the next couple years some of our best athletes left. One, who I'm sure could have started for a major D1 college in soccer had he kept with it, stopped when he was 14 and played running back for his HS football team. Of the top 10 players in our area when I was 14, 2 of them were still playing soccer their senior year of high school.

Back to the US vs Brazil topic. Rick, I think you are making a small error in your logic that is really confusing a lot of posters here, and is the source of a lot of the arguments in this thread.

The US will never be on par with Brazil. This is because we will never be as into soccer as Brazil. It is completely impossible. However, if the impossible were possible, the US would probably be better then Brazil within 20 years if we were as into soccer as Brazil. I think this hypothetical is hard for you to understand, because it is so incomprehensible.

[ QUOTE ]

I will say it until I explode, IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU DO YOU WILL NEVER BE ON A PAR WITH BRAZIL.

I have already stated the reason earlier in this thread, go back and re read it

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice here you do not refute this point. This statement is completely correct. We are not arguing against this.

Also, Olympic medal counts mean nothing. I would bet that if Kobe and Lebron took 1 year off from Basketball to play volleyball, they would be favorites at the next summer games to win gold. I bet if you took all the starting running backs in the NFL, you could make easily the best rugby team that has ever existed on this planet with 2 months of training. Of the top 1,000 athletes in the US, way less than 50 will compete in the Olympics.

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]

I will say it until I explode, IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU DO YOU WILL NEVER BE ON A PAR WITH BRAZIL.


[/ QUOTE ]

Rick-

If the vast majority of people in Brazil didn't care about soccer, (didn't watch it, didn't follow any teams, very rarely played it) where would they be?

[Victor]

there is no freakin way that portugal is tier one. their play on the international stage has been shameful.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no freakin way that portugal is tier one. their play on the international stage has been shameful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto with France - they barely qualified for the WC this year. And although they are extremely talented and one of the most fun teams to watch, the Netherlands haven't exactly set the world on fire recently. I'm trying to remember how they did in WC 2002 - oh that's right, they missed qualifying for it...

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tier 1: Brazil, Argentina, Italy, England, Germany, Spain (except the last 2 have played like crap lately)

Tier 2: Portugal, France, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, Mexico, US, Turkey, Japan (maybe Serbia, Croatia, Norway, not sure about any African nations since they've all been so inconsistent)

[ QUOTE ]
For the US to become one of the top dozen or so would take a huge committment in all facets of the game. If not, all that will happen is that you'll qualify for every WC sometimes you'll do well and other times you won't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, that's what we've all been saying all along - if it was as important here as it is in Brazil, the US would be up along Brazil.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can comfortably push France, Portugal and the Netherlands into Tier 1. They are all class teams each with a chance of lifting the trophy next year(Although it must be highlighted that we are possibly looking at the best Brazilian team since 1970)

You've definately missed my point.

Yes I conceed that if the US radically changed there entire approach to the game they could become a tier 1 team. It is important to note that some of you believe that this can happen regardless.

But as I have said before Brazil has its own level, you can't put them along side anyone.

I will say it until I explode, IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU DO YOU WILL NEVER BE ON A PAR WITH BRAZIL.

I have already stated the reason earlier in this thread, go back and re read it

[/ QUOTE ]

You've stated several reasons, most of which have been proven wrong. As I said before, the US is the richest, most culturally diverse country in the world. We have the money, resources, and talent to be the absolute best. If you instantly turned every person in the world into a soccer fanatic from the time they were born, are you seriously saying that Brazil would still always be ahead of the US? That's preposterous, unless you think there's some kind of magic in the water in Brazil.

A more interesting question would be - could China or India ever be on par with Brazil?

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tier 1: Brazil, Argentina, Italy, England, Germany, Spain (except the last 2 have played like crap lately)

Tier 2: Portugal, France, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, Mexico, US, Turkey, Japan (maybe Serbia, Croatia, Norway, not sure about any African nations since they've all been so inconsistent)

[ QUOTE ]
For the US to become one of the top dozen or so would take a huge committment in all facets of the game. If not, all that will happen is that you'll qualify for every WC sometimes you'll do well and other times you won't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, that's what we've all been saying all along - if it was as important here as it is in Brazil, the US would be up along Brazil.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can comfortably push France, Portugal and the Netherlands into Tier 1. They are all class teams each with a chance of lifting the trophy next year(Although it must be highlighted that we are possibly looking at the best Brazilian team since 1970)

You've definately missed my point.

Yes I conceed that if the US radically changed there entire approach to the game they could become a tier 1 team. It is important to note that some of you believe that this can happen regardless.

But as I have said before Brazil has its own level, you can't put them along side anyone.

I will say it until I explode, IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU DO YOU WILL NEVER BE ON A PAR WITH BRAZIL.

I have already stated the reason earlier in this thread, go back and re read it

[/ QUOTE ]

You've stated several reasons, most of which have been proven wrong. As I said before, the US is the richest, most culturally diverse country in the world. We have the money, resources, and talent to be the absolute best. If you instantly turned every person in the world into a soccer fanatic from the time they were born, are you seriously saying that Brazil would still always be ahead of the US? That's preposterous, unless you think there's some kind of magic in the water in Brazil.

A more interesting question would be - could China or India ever be on par with Brazil?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm back gentleman after a nice weekend and ready to argue somemore.

I actually sent an email out to about 20 people who are all apart of the local soccer community here in Australia explaining the premise of this thread.

I wanted to see if anyone agreed with your theory on US soccer. I received many responses and fair to say some of the things said I couldn't post here or I'd probably get banned.

Gentleman you're on your own, I don't think anyone in the free world outside your country would ever agree with you.

A few responses

the 'yanks' could buy all of the Brazilian national team to represent the good 'ol U.S. of A and they still wouldn't win.

'Australia will win a world cup before those morons do'

'I, unlike you racists, love Americans. Did you guy's know that they have an obesity rate of 60%? How's that for arrogance. How can you play soccer with a bunch of fat pigs'.

'American's know nothing about soccer so how can they possible understand what makes the game in Brazil so special'

I don't think we are EVER going to reach any common ground given this is a hypothetical arguement. Soccer will never become the number 1 sport in the US so atleast I can sleep soundly knowing I will never have to face up to 'USA' being etched on the bottom of that coveted gold trophy as long as I live.

[hoyaboy1]

You hate the US. Congrats. Thanks for the amazing contributions to the thread.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tier 1: Brazil, Argentina, Italy, England, Germany, Spain (except the last 2 have played like crap lately)

Tier 2: Portugal, France, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, Mexico, US, Turkey, Japan (maybe Serbia, Croatia, Norway, not sure about any African nations since they've all been so inconsistent)

[ QUOTE ]
For the US to become one of the top dozen or so would take a huge committment in all facets of the game. If not, all that will happen is that you'll qualify for every WC sometimes you'll do well and other times you won't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, that's what we've all been saying all along - if it was as important here as it is in Brazil, the US would be up along Brazil.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can comfortably push France, Portugal and the Netherlands into Tier 1. They are all class teams each with a chance of lifting the trophy next year(Although it must be highlighted that we are possibly looking at the best Brazilian team since 1970)

You've definately missed my point.

Yes I conceed that if the US radically changed there entire approach to the game they could become a tier 1 team. It is important to note that some of you believe that this can happen regardless.

But as I have said before Brazil has its own level, you can't put them along side anyone.

I will say it until I explode, IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU DO YOU WILL NEVER BE ON A PAR WITH BRAZIL.

I have already stated the reason earlier in this thread, go back and re read it

[/ QUOTE ]

You've stated several reasons, most of which have been proven wrong. As I said before, the US is the richest, most culturally diverse country in the world. We have the money, resources, and talent to be the absolute best. If you instantly turned every person in the world into a soccer fanatic from the time they were born, are you seriously saying that Brazil would still always be ahead of the US? That's preposterous, unless you think there's some kind of magic in the water in Brazil.

A more interesting question would be - could China or India ever be on par with Brazil?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm back gentleman after a nice weekend and ready to argue somemore.

I actually sent an email out to about 20 people who are all apart of the local soccer community here in Australia explaining the premise of this thread.

I wanted to see if anyone agreed with your theory on US soccer. I received many responses and fair to say some of the things said I couldn't post here or I'd probably get banned.

Gentleman you're on your own, I don't think anyone in the free world outside your country would ever agree with you.

A few responses

the 'yanks' could buy all of the Brazilian national team to represent the good 'ol U.S. of A and they still wouldn't win.

'Australia will win a world cup before those morons do'

'I, unlike you racists, love Americans. Did you guy's know that they have an obesity rate of 60%? How's that for arrogance. How can you play soccer with a bunch of fat pigs'.

'American's know nothing about soccer so how can they possible understand what makes the game in Brazil so special'

I don't think we are EVER going to reach any common ground given this is a hypothetical arguement. Soccer will never become the number 1 sport in the US so atleast I can sleep soundly knowing I will never have to face up to 'USA' being etched on the bottom of that coveted gold trophy as long as I live.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - Since you still fail to comprehend my (and others) argument, I think it's safe to say you misrepresented our side. That being the case...

2 - These laughable responses show how ill-informed your local soccer community is. "Australia will win before the US"? Um, when exactly was the last time Australia qualified for the World Cup? It's a pretty easy qualification, since all you have to do is win the Oceana region, (which you always do), and then beat the 4th or 5th best team from South America, (oops - which you never do.) Yeah, Australian soccer > US Soccer. Oh wait...

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tier 1: Brazil, Argentina, Italy, England, Germany, Spain (except the last 2 have played like crap lately)

Tier 2: Portugal, France, Czech Republic, Netherlands, Sweden, Mexico, US, Turkey, Japan (maybe Serbia, Croatia, Norway, not sure about any African nations since they've all been so inconsistent)

[ QUOTE ]
For the US to become one of the top dozen or so would take a huge committment in all facets of the game. If not, all that will happen is that you'll qualify for every WC sometimes you'll do well and other times you won't.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, that's what we've all been saying all along - if it was as important here as it is in Brazil, the US would be up along Brazil.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can comfortably push France, Portugal and the Netherlands into Tier 1. They are all class teams each with a chance of lifting the trophy next year(Although it must be highlighted that we are possibly looking at the best Brazilian team since 1970)

You've definately missed my point.

Yes I conceed that if the US radically changed there entire approach to the game they could become a tier 1 team. It is important to note that some of you believe that this can happen regardless.

But as I have said before Brazil has its own level, you can't put them along side anyone.

I will say it until I explode, IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU DO YOU WILL NEVER BE ON A PAR WITH BRAZIL.

I have already stated the reason earlier in this thread, go back and re read it

[/ QUOTE ]

You've stated several reasons, most of which have been proven wrong. As I said before, the US is the richest, most culturally diverse country in the world. We have the money, resources, and talent to be the absolute best. If you instantly turned every person in the world into a soccer fanatic from the time they were born, are you seriously saying that Brazil would still always be ahead of the US? That's preposterous, unless you think there's some kind of magic in the water in Brazil.

A more interesting question would be - could China or India ever be on par with Brazil?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm back gentleman after a nice weekend and ready to argue somemore.

I actually sent an email out to about 20 people who are all apart of the local soccer community here in Australia explaining the premise of this thread.

I wanted to see if anyone agreed with your theory on US soccer. I received many responses and fair to say some of the things said I couldn't post here or I'd probably get banned.

Gentleman you're on your own, I don't think anyone in the free world outside your country would ever agree with you.

A few responses

the 'yanks' could buy all of the Brazilian national team to represent the good 'ol U.S. of A and they still wouldn't win.

'Australia will win a world cup before those morons do'

'I, unlike you racists, love Americans. Did you guy's know that they have an obesity rate of 60%? How's that for arrogance. How can you play soccer with a bunch of fat pigs'.

'American's know nothing about soccer so how can they possible understand what makes the game in Brazil so special'

I don't think we are EVER going to reach any common ground given this is a hypothetical arguement. Soccer will never become the number 1 sport in the US so atleast I can sleep soundly knowing I will never have to face up to 'USA' being etched on the bottom of that coveted gold trophy as long as I live.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - Since you still fail to comprehend my (and others) argument, I think it's safe to say you misrepresented our side. That being the case...

2 - These laughable responses show how ill-informed your local soccer community is. "Australia will win before the US"? Um, when exactly was the last time Australia qualified for the World Cup? It's a pretty easy qualification, since all you have to do is win the Oceana region, (which you always do), and then beat the 4th or 5th best team from South America, (oops - which you never do.) Yeah, Australian soccer > US Soccer. Oh wait...

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously failed to detect the sarcasm in the comment.
Neither of our countries are winning the WC in our lifetime.

BUT

You're route through CONCACAF is pathetically easy. Playing the might of Trinadad & Tobago, Guatemala and Panama and having the luxury of finishing 3rd and qualifying directly.

5th in South America is a far tougher assignment then the cakewalk you're gifted.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
You hate the US. Congrats. Thanks for the amazing contributions to the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. This tool and his bigoted friends have done a great job of making me a Uruguay fan.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You hate the US. Congrats. Thanks for the amazing contributions to the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. This tool and his bigoted friends have done a great job of making me a Uruguay fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

American's do themselves no favours endearing themselves to the rest of the world.

If you possessed even a little humility it might be a different story. But you don't, it's all about how great you are and how great you 'could' be.

If you we're really that great you wouldn't have tell us about it.

Maybe if the WC was filled with oil you'd give a damm.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You hate the US. Congrats. Thanks for the amazing contributions to the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. This tool and his bigoted friends have done a great job of making me a Uruguay fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

American's do themselves no favours endearing themselves to the rest of the world.

If you possessed even a little humility it might be a different story. But you don't, it's all about how great you are and how great you 'could' be.

If you we're really that great you wouldn't have tell us about it.

Maybe if the WC was filled with oil you'd give a damm.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/flags/uy-lgflag.gif

[Voltron87]

rick is pretty much right here guys. im not going to argue specifics since i havent read the whole thread but he is basically correct.

concacaf is a total cakewalk, the us will qualify every time. to a certain degree i dont really have a problem with this, as some "affirmative action" is a good thing for the WC. and the US definitely is one of the top 32 teams so it is not like they dont deserve a spot. but usa fans should just keep in mind that the concacaf qualification is a gift.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
rick is pretty much right here guys. im not going to argue specifics since i havent read the whole thread but he is basically correct.

concacaf is a total cakewalk, the us will qualify every time. to a certain degree i dont really have a problem with this, as some "affirmative action" is a good thing for the WC. and the US definitely is one of the top 32 teams so it is not like they dont deserve a spot. but usa fans should just keep in mind that the concacaf qualification is a gift.

[/ QUOTE ]

what does any of this have to do with anything? if you read the thread, you'd realize that we are discussing how good the USA COULD be (if we cared about soccer as much as Brazil did), not how good the USA IS.

[Voltron87]

the 1st and 2nd parts werent really connected, my post is a little confusing in that regard.

the us just could not become the best team in the world in the next 50 years. there is just no soccer culture like in europe, where it is the biggest thing around, and even those countries cannot compete with the religous level of dedication in brazil. the idea that the us could just create that environment is crazy.

if you want to totally rewrite history and say "well imagine if every kid in the us started eating sleeping and breathing soccer from 6 months and the the US government wrote a blank check" then that is just ridiculous and has no bearings in a real world discussion.

[RRRRICK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You hate the US. Congrats. Thanks for the amazing contributions to the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. This tool and his bigoted friends have done a great job of making me a Uruguay fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

American's do themselves no favours endearing themselves to the rest of the world.

If you possessed even a little humility it might be a different story. But you don't, it's all about how great you are and how great you 'could' be.

If you we're really that great you wouldn't have tell us about it.

Maybe if the WC was filled with oil you'd give a damm.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/flags/uy-lgflag.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm... is this supposed to stir my rage?

I'm not delusional, Uruguay will probably win the play off and take there place in the finals.

Afterall they have won the WC twice and play in the region that boasts 9 out of 16 WC champions.

This is my last post in this thread as I didn't want this to become a yankee bash and its starting to get that way.

I've enjoyed the debate and good luck in Germany next year.

[DougOzzzz]

[ QUOTE ]
the 1st and 2nd parts werent really connected, my post is a little confusing in that regard.

the us just could not become the best team in the world in the next 50 years. there is just no soccer culture like in europe, where it is the biggest thing around, and even those countries cannot compete with the religous level of dedication in brazil. the idea that the us could just create that environment is crazy.

if you want to totally rewrite history and say "well imagine if every kid in the us started eating sleeping and breathing soccer from 6 months and the the US government wrote a blank check" then that is just ridiculous and has no bearings in a real world discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a real world discussion. It's a completely hypothetical discussion, which is how you missed the point.

[hoyaboy1]

Delete these posts, read the thread, and come back when you actually know what is being discussed.

[Voltron87]

whatever. fine. im not reading 130 posts of this, i know what the answer is.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the 1st and 2nd parts werent really connected, my post is a little confusing in that regard.

the us just could not become the best team in the world in the next 50 years. there is just no soccer culture like in europe, where it is the biggest thing around, and even those countries cannot compete with the religous level of dedication in brazil. the idea that the us could just create that environment is crazy.

if you want to totally rewrite history and say "well imagine if every kid in the us started eating sleeping and breathing soccer from 6 months and the the US government wrote a blank check" then that is just ridiculous and has no bearings in a real world discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not a real world discussion. It's a completely hypothetical discussion, which is how you missed the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Voltron87]

what is the point of a hypothetical discussion here? its pointless.