Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Totally agree with you on Connor Casey. He never does anything. I would also love to see South Africa beat Brazil today. That would be epic. The two underdogs both win.

youngblood wrote:The biggest problems that I see with the Nats right now are lack of unit cohesion, questionable substitutions, and some strange Nat call ups. I assign blame for the first two problems on the coach, Bob Bradley. I think that he calls players up who shouldn't be (Connor Casey) and starts players who shouldn't start or really be subbed in at all (Connor Casey). As far unit cohesion goes, the US just needs to figure out a way to get familiar with each other's playing styles and adapt together. There is far too much miscommunication the occurs for them. While they have no "superstars" to speak of, there is some very solid young talent on our team. Altidore showed that he can effectively use his size and speed against the best.

I hope that South Africa beats Brazil today. Only 3 1/2 hours to game time!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: Casper, didn't mean to sound like such an ass. I just get a little pissed when people assume that the Nats are composed of house bred players.

Fair play on those comments.

Tim Howard (as much as I am a liverpool fan and it pains me to say this) is a good goalkeeper on his day he is awesome.

Same with Clint Dempsy, I watch match of the day every week and I am impressed with him, he's no where near the likes of Lampard, Gerrard, Xavi, Iniesta and co but he is still a pretty a decent midfielder and has really helped Fulham get into the Europa League.

Just out of curiousty who does your 1st Team play for, I know Howard, Dempsy and Guzan but the rest I am unfamiliar with.

They are all over the place. The first team is also fairly inconsistent. Here's a good link to the full list of call ups and where they play. http://www.ussoccer.com/common/stContent.jsp_16-2009MNT.html

All over the place is one way to put it, with travelling time jet lag etc no wonder your team is fairly inconsistent a clearer picture is being painted for me now though.

Tbf I can only comment on the few that I see in the EPL week in week out. done Dempsy, Howard and Guzan.

Hahnmann's still a good keeper but tbh I would play Fridel over Howard anyday I know hes getting on abit now but he's still a fine keeper and has done really really well this season, has he retired from Internationals? Or do you just not play him?

Never thought much of Spector, but tbf there are plenty of other better players at West Ham.

And going to agree with everyone here Casey is just crap, or from what I have seen of him in this tournament anyhow.

I'm not a fan of Spector at all. I think that he's an awful ball handler and makes stupid decisions because HE thinks that he is a good baller. Don't know about Freidel tbh. Your correct in saying that he plays great still, but I don't know if I'd play him over Howard or Guzan. Howard has been pretty great for the Nats as of late. The one thing that I appreciate about Bradley as a coach is that he plays young players alot. Example: Feillhaber subs in often and has a positive impact on the game although it is a small impact. The experience is necessary for him. Michael Bradley starts and plays rather well for us. I wish that Adu would get some more time. I think that if we are going to be relying on him later, he needs to start getting some caps. Not sure if you are familiar with Mastroeni, he typically plays midfield for us and is not very fast, but his vision and distribution are so key. Bradley barely plays him because of his age (imo). He should be used more, especially in games with slower midfields.

I am unfamiliar with Mastroeni, but I know what kind of player he is, if I had to compare him to anybody it would Xabi Alonso who plays for Liverpool, hes not exactly fast but his passing is what allows us to go and score goals, he picks out that key pass the unlocks a defence.

As to the other players I have no clue who they are, but with Feilhaber again I know what kind of player he is, he's young he's quick and if you throw him on as a sub ay 60mins when your 1 - 0 down those fast fresh legs will give you the edge against some teams as they just won;t keep up with him.

As to Freidel vs Howard + Guzan, Guzan is essentially Freidel's understudy at Villa so there probably like for like but Guzan needs more first team experience.

Howard vs Freidel would be an interesting debate.

Agreed. Freidel's experience and confidence are much better than Howards. Howard tends to get himself in trouble with lofted balls and long range shots, but his instincts are stellar.

youngblood wrote:Agreed. Freidel's experience and confidence are much better than Howards. Howard tends to get himself in trouble with lofted balls and long range shots, but his instincts are stellar.

True Howard is alot like David James, safe as houses David James is

Redbeard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Bollocks. For one thing the game the op posted about was a friendly. Players don't give a crap about friendlies, especially when there bang in the middle of there post season holiday.

Ok, so you're clueless. The game that the OP posted about is part of the Confederations Cup, and while it's not quite the World Cup, the teams are fielding their A rosters.

Besides which, saying a player doesn't give a crap about friendlies is just ignorant of the nature of these athletes. If you're playing a sport at the top level, that means you're a competitor, and while before and after the game they may know it doesn't matter, once they're on the pitch, they want to win. If they didn't have that in them, they wouldn't be playing at the top level of their sport. The coaches may not field their best team possible - they have other motives, like getting playing experience for younger players, or letting certain people get rest. But the players - once you're on the field, you want to win, friendly or not.

Yeh they bung the word cup after all sorts of friendly competitions nowadays. And if you honestly think spain gave a crap about that game, anything above testing out a few tactics and players ...you're the clueless one here.

So, no, I'm not saying that US Athletes are inherently better than anywhere else in the world. What I'm saying is that the US has a significantly better evaluation and development system in place that allows them to consistently locate amazing athletes and promote them in professional clubs, while operation with one of the world's larger populations to select from. Thing is, very little of this goes towards soccer, it's largely focused on the big revenue generating sports here, Football, Baseball, and Basketball.

For the same reason, I think more and more, China will be the dominant force at the Olympics, and they're turning their attention towards soccer now too. As a country, they've shown that they're willing to set up these early identification and training programs, and they have an even larger potential pool of citizens to draw from.

Hmm yeh but pouring money itno everything doesn't work either. Take for example basketball that you mentioned. Now that there not the only nation interested in it theres plenty of teams which challenge the US at international level. Tennis, the US hands down have the best training grounds in the world. Where do the worlds number one and two come from, spain and Switzerland.

The US (and, remember, I'm not American) has probably the best talent development system in the world. There is organized sport in every American town, starting as young as 4 years old. There are leagues that work to take the best of small local teams and put them on more competitive "travelling teams" as young as seven. There are scouts from professional sports teams that evaluate 14-16 year-old players across the nation - and it's a big place. If you look at the athletes who play in the NFL, they're ridiculous. You have 300 pound men who can run 40 yards in under six seconds, and can jump out of a swimming pool full of water. (You try this... most people can't even making a standing high-jump of three feet, and then to do it from submerged in water...) US culture has developed in such a way that sports are central to people's lives from an early early age, and then the best are methodically advanced as they age.

Bad example. NFL athletes are like that because they are set up for american football, a game where short bursts of action meaning lots of muscle is necessary. If it was a more strung out game having all that weight would be stupid as they'd be out of breath in a few minutes. Just because your average football (soccer) player can't do those things doesn't mean he's half the athlete. He just knows eating six meals a day and spendng the rest of time at the gym aint going to get him far in his game.

Redbeard wrote:India?? Nothing against the place, but their culture doesn't emphasize sports anywhere like the way that most western countries do.

wow. How ignorant. You saying that reasures me you indeed have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know how seriously india take cricket? Ever heard of the IPL, klnow how much money s put into that? Did you know that there's practicly riots all over inda everytime the national side lose?

Damn brits need to stop threadjackin. Just when the US has something great to be proud of, you come with your threadjackin ways. MAVERICK!

youngblood wrote:Damn brits need to stop threadjackin. Just when the US has something great to be proud of, you come with your threadjackin ways. MAVERICK!

Agreed. As to the earlier comment that Americans play a little bit rough, yeah, I'd say overall that's a fair statement. I guess I just notice it less because I usually watch the SPL (CELTIC!) and they play rougher than anyone.

Hey now thats unfair, i'm English and am perfectly able and willing to:

a) Recognise the USA achievement at beating the current World No 1's

and

b) have a resonable discussion about football even the American team, with the appropriate amount of trash talk that comes with footy.

99MDeery wrote:Hey now thats unfair, i'm English and am perfectly able and willing to:

a) Recognise the USA achievement at beating the current World No 1's

and

b) have a resonable discussion about football even the American team, with the appropriate amount of trash talk that comes with footy.

Thats true, apologies. I was really hinting at Red and whatwhat


Automatically Appended Next Post:
US vs. South Africa is looking possible

whatwhat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Bollocks. For one thing the game the op posted about was a friendly. Players don't give a crap about friendlies, especially when there bang in the middle of there post season holiday.

Ok, so you're clueless. The game that the OP posted about is part of the Confederations Cup, and while it's not quite the World Cup, the teams are fielding their A rosters.

Besides which, saying a player doesn't give a crap about friendlies is just ignorant of the nature of these athletes. If you're playing a sport at the top level, that means you're a competitor, and while before and after the game they may know it doesn't matter, once they're on the pitch, they want to win. If they didn't have that in them, they wouldn't be playing at the top level of their sport. The coaches may not field their best team possible - they have other motives, like getting playing experience for younger players, or letting certain people get rest. But the players - once you're on the field, you want to win, friendly or not.

Yeh they bung the word cup after all sorts of friendly competitions nowadays. And if you honestly think spain gave a crap about that game, anything above testing out a few tactics and players ...you're the clueless one here.

I see how you changed your tone there. First you said players don't care. Players do care. No player wants to get beat. No player wants to dog it on the field and get called out.

Coaches, managers, national team managers, etc - they may not care. But that's what I said originally. Which it appears that you agree with.

Hmm yeh but pouring money itno everything doesn't work either. Take for example basketball that you mentioned. Now that there not the only nation interested in it theres plenty of teams which challenge the US at international level.

Basketball is a very interesting example. When the US brings their best, no one matches them. But, they have little incentive to bring their best most of the time. In Beijing, where we got our best together, the closest game the US had, they won by 11, and that was the finals. Won by 11.

But, it's a cultural thing. Many of the US players come from impoverished backgrounds. International competition doesn't get them anything, so why should they do it. The US teams that lost, they weren't stacked with the US's best talent, not even close.

Tennis, the US hands down have the best training grounds in the world. Where do the worlds number one and two come from, spain and Switzerland.

I don't think you can really compare individual sports and team sports the same way. Tiger Woods is Tiger Woods, regardless of where he was born. The best individual player in any sport can come from anywhere, but to put together a team requires more than just one superstar.

Bad example. NFL athletes are like that because they are set up for american football, a game where short bursts of action meaning lots of muscle is necessary. If it was a more strung out game having all that weight would be stupid as they'd be out of breath in a few minutes. Just because your average football (soccer) player can't do those things doesn't mean he's half the athlete. He just knows eating six meals a day and spendng the rest of time at the gym aint going to get him far in his game.

I'm not saying that you take NFL players and give them cleats and have them play soccer. I'm saying the raw talent in America turns into football and baseball, and basketball players, not soccer players. Let's say there's an athletic kid, and he's 7 years old. In England, he'd be playing soccer. If he's one of those extremely rare, physically gifted types, he keeps playing soccer, through school and clubs, until he gets scouted by a professional organization.

In the US, this same kid, who at seven years old will develop physically based on what he's asked to do, is going to be playing little league baseball, or pop-warner football. He's going to be lifting weights, to put on that muscle that he'll need in the NFL, and eating more, because his idols growing up are NFL players, not soccer players. And because the NFL is his ticket to a good life. Whereas, in England, making it onto a premiership team is the goal.

It's an issue of how raw talent develops. Let's say that there is one person per 100,000 (Sample number only) who has the requisite hand-eye coordination, balance, agility, and so on that are required to play any sport at the top level. In England, that means there are 600 such individuals, and the majority of them will learn to play soccer. In the US, you have 3000 such individuals, but only a very small portion of those will play soccer, as most will have grown up idolizing either football, baseball or basketball. The end result is that, while there are more potential athletes in the US, there are fewer potential soccer players.

For those of you not watching the South Africa vs. Brazil game (and who care), Brazil is playing awful. Embarrassing.

Redbeard wrote:I see how you changed your tone there. First you said players don't care. Players do care. No player wants to get beat. No player wants to dog it on the field and get called out.

Coaches, managers, national team managers, etc - they may not care. But that's what I said originally. Which it appears that you agree with.

Erm, what?

Redbeard wrote:It's an issue of how raw talent develops. Let's say that there is one person per 100,000 (Sample number only) who has the requisite hand-eye coordination, balance, agility, and so on that are required to play any sport at the top level. In England, that means there are 600 such individuals, and the majority of them will learn to play soccer. In the US, you have 3000 such individuals, but only a very small portion of those will play soccer, as most will have grown up idolizing either football, baseball or basketball. The end result is that, while there are more potential athletes in the US, there are fewer potential soccer players.

I notice you keep banging on about that having already ignored my example of india. Population of 1 billion, mad about cricket yet they don't "clean up" in the sport.

Oh that's right, you came up with this rubbish...which you just also happened to ignore my response to.

whatwhat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:India?? Nothing against the place, but their culture doesn't emphasize sports anywhere like the way that most western countries do.

wow. How ignorant. You saying that reasures me you indeed have no idea what you're talking about.

Do you know how seriously india take cricket? Ever heard of the IPL, klnow how much money s put into that? Did you know that there's practicly riots all over inda everytime the national side lose?

Blast you whatwhat! You take this conversation to another thread, hell I'll start it for ya!


edit: here's yer damn thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/245668.page

omg who cares about pre-season friendlies so much nowadays. Everyone knows no football between the end of may and august is worth watching.

Pre-season friendly? Pre-season freindly? You sir... you... you... :(

As in a friendly before the proper football season starts.

whatwhat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:I see how you changed your tone there. First you said players don't care. Players do care. No player wants to get beat. No player wants to dog it on the field and get called out.

Coaches, managers, national team managers, etc - they may not care. But that's what I said originally. Which it appears that you agree with.

Erm, what?

You said that players don't care about friendlies. I said that players do care, because if you're a person with the talent and drive to play at the top of your sport, once you're on any field, you play to win. I've been to my share of "friendlies" and the players on the pitch play to win.

I also said that while players do care, coaches and managers don't because they're more detached, and have other concerns, like the health of their starters, the experience of their backups, and the like.

And then you came and said how "spain didn't care" about their game, other than getting experience for their backups. Well, that's a coaches choice, not a player's choice isn't it.

I notice you keep banging on about that having already ignored my example of india. Population of 1 billion, mad about cricket yet they don't "clean up" in the sport.

Oh that's right, you came up with this rubbish...which you just also happened to ignore my response to.

That's because your assertion is just plain wrong. While I don't disagree that there are many Indians who are cricket fans, as a nation, they do not have the same sort of infrastructure for youth. There is no equivalent of "little league" for cricket in India. There aren't youth coaches in every community. They don't really start playing until they're 16 or 17. In the US, at 16 or 17, kids have been playing for 10 years and professional scouts are already keeping an eye on promising youngsters. Furthermore, what little youth organization they have is plagued by corruption and nepotism. It isn't the most talented kids who get a shot on the organized teams, it's the ones whose parents have connections.

This is what I've been told by my two Indian co-workers, both of who are also cricket-mad. You want to say "not that's not right" - provide a source.

Redbeard wrote:That's because your assertion is just plain wrong. While I don't disagree that there are many Indians who are cricket fans, as a nation, they do not have the same sort of infrastructure for youth.

balls

There is no equivalent of "little league" for cricket in India.

balls

There aren't youth coaches in every community.

balls

They don't really start playing until they're 16 or 17.

complete utter balls

If you're are just going to assume and not look into anything your writing then I can't see the point of debating with you.

This is what I've been told by my two Indian co-workers, both of who are also cricket-mad. You want to say "not that's not right" - provide a source.

right like you do. with you indians dont play cricket till their 17 bollocks.

forget it.

whatwhat wrote:As in a friendly before the proper football season starts.

I would hardly say the confed cup is a friendly. Granted it's no World Cup, but certainly more entertaining than England vs. Azerbaijan friendlies.

It's 3 continents who's players would rather still be on holiday vs the other three continents.

With the World Cup getting so close, I think that they are glad to use this opportunity for the practise

whatwhat wrote:

They don't really start playing until they're 16 or 17.

complete utter balls

If you're are just going to assume and not look into anything your writing then I can't see the point of debating with you.

I have looked into what I have written, I can only base my answers on what I can find. I've done a good amount of googling - there are no websites that come up when you search for Indian youth cricket. Do a search for youth baseball - you'll see no end of community little league sites.

I've talked to people who have first-hand knowledge of what it's like there. My co-workers, both in their 20s, both immigrated here in the last four years, and each told me the same thing. That there is not organized youth cricket until they get to about 16 or 17. Sure, they just play pickup games, but there isn't an organized infrastructure.

You disagree, but you didn't provide any source. I cannot prove a negative. If such organizations do exist, post a link to a website. I cannot post a link to something that doesn't exist. If you can prove that there is an organized youth cricket infrastructure in India that actively manages to promote their most talented youngsters into their national system, I'll happily say that you're right. But you can't just type "balls" and have any credibility.

Redbeard just forget it. Your the one making the claims and not providing the sources for them Im just telling you there a load of balls.

youngblood wrote:With the World Cup getting so close, I think that they are glad to use this opportunity for the practise

Yup, that's what I call a friendly.

I would concede that except that this is a FIFA sanctioned tournament.

Ok? Fifa sanction under 12 tournaments and video games tournaments aswell. Why does that make a difference?

This is on a high level world stage. Why do you think it doesn't matter?