Official U.s. National Team Thread

[jkritchey]

I'll tell you who had an easier draw, jkritchey: Mexico. Opening with Iran, then Angola... in other words, having 6 points in the bag before you face the Portuguese in a somewhat meaningless game. Not that I'm bitter or anything about them getting seeded and us not.

Wow, do I agree with this. What's the logic of the ranking system if you are not going to use it to seed your tournament? How is it remotely possible for a Mexico team that the US beat time and again to get a seed? As I recall we dismissed them categorically from the the last go round.

That said...if you're going to make any noise in this tournament, you have to beat good teams. Might as well get on with it... :ph34r:

[neekoy]

Does it really matter about the draw, to be the best you need to beat the best, if Mexico have got an easier draw then they will be found out in the next round or the one after.

If the US are good enough to win the WC then they should be able to get a result against the teams in their group.

[Philly Rover ®]

To be the best you have to beat the best... blah blah blah I've heard all this. No one said the U.S. were good enough to win the World Cup, neekoy; some of us realistic American fans were just hoping for an appearance in the knockout stages. Such an appearance was unlikely, to say the least, based on the draw they got.

Now I really can't complain about the draw because that's all down to s*** luck. But I am perfectly justified in complaining that Mexico got seeded instead of the United State despite: (1) the U.S. finishing ahead of them in CONCACAF qualifying; (2) the U.S. advancing further in the last World Cup, including a 2-0 win over none other than the Mexicans themselves; and (3) the U.S. having a higher FIFA ranking. (Granted, nobody outside of FIFA values those ranking, and rightfully so, but apparently nobody within FIFA values them either, or they would have factored into the seeding process somehow).

The one thing that could fix all of this is if FIFA seeded all of the teams for the draw, and not just the top eight, but Blatter and his cronies seemed more interested in their wonderful little plan of geographic distribution amongst the groups. Any measure of fairness went out the window with that, though I suppose that's another matter entirely.

[neekoy]

And also we can't have he chance of the top 4 teams in the world all being lumped together in one pool group

It's all a bit boo hoo though, we got bloody Brazil in our group

[Eddie]

To be the best you have to beat the best... blah blah blah I've heard all this. No one said the U.S. were good enough to win the World Cup, neekoy; some of us realistic American fans were just hoping for an appearance in the knockout stages. Such an appearance was unlikely, to say the least, based on the draw they got.

Now I really can't complain about the draw because that's all down to s*** luck. But I am perfectly justified in complaining that Mexico got seeded instead of the United State despite: (1) the U.S. finishing ahead of them in CONCACAF qualifying; (2) the U.S. advancing further in the last World Cup, including a 2-0 win over none other than the Mexicans themselves; and (3) the U.S. having a higher FIFA ranking. (Granted, nobody outside of FIFA values those ranking, and rightfully so, but apparently nobody within FIFA values them either, or they would have factored into the seeding process somehow).

The one thing that could fix all of this is if FIFA seeded all of the teams for the draw, and not just the top eight, but Blatter and his cronies seemed more interested in their wonderful little plan of geographic distribution amongst the groups. Any measure of fairness went out the window with that, though I suppose that's another matter entirely.

The thing is, if it weren't for geographic requirements would either of you really be seeded?

[Philly Rover ®]

Probably not, Eddie, and that's a good point. But I'd rather no CONCACAF team get a top seed and have FIFA divide all 32 nations into four groups (like they do for the Champions League)... at least that way, we would have been in the second group and would have gotten just one top opponent instead of two.

Take Australia for instance. Yes, neekoy, it does suck to have Brazil in your group, but both Croatia and Japan are beatable opponents. I'd have traded the U.S. draw for the Australian one in a heartbeat.

Of course, I readily concede that had we gotten a good draw, the whole process probably wouldn't bother me.

[American]

Well, Bruce Arena's contract will not be renewed and Jurgen Klinsman resigned and lives within commuting distance of the US Soccer complex in Carson.

[Philly Rover ®]

Everyone's already on the Klinsmann bandwagon: Grant Wahl from Sports Illustrated and Ives Galacrep from Soccernet just to name a few.

I'm encouraged by what Galacrep wrote...

Will Klinsmann replace Arena? It is one of the best bets you could ever make. The man affectionately known as 'Klinsi' in his native Germany will wait the requisite amount of time before taking a new job. The delay is out of respect for the German fans and players he left behind last week, but ultimately he will take the job. U.S. Soccer will wait as long as it must, but the deal will get done. U.S. Soccer can't afford not to hire Klinsmann and must do everything in its power to make it happen.

Incidentally, Yanks Abroad has taken a stab at predicting the U.S. roster for 2010. It's an interesting read: here.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Philly Rover ®

[Eddie]

I think this is a big blow for the USA. I'm not a huge Arena fan but I thought he was good for the American game, Klinsman did well with Germany, during the World Cup, but I have my doubts whether he will be able to handle a less talented side (not that Germany had a huge amount of talent) not playing at home. Not at all the same task and I don't think he is the right man for the job.

[American]

One big reason we didn't do well was that we didn't play attacking football. One big reason Germany did well was because they did. Remeber, they weren't expected to do well at all.

With 4 years to go, though, I wouldn't mind if we took a big risk on an unproven manager, like Wynalda (though I don't like the guy, I still think he might do a good job).

[Philly Rover ®]

While the very idea of Wyanlda taking over as manager scares the crap out of me, I agree with your point that we need someone to give this team an attacking mentality.

Eddie, normally I'm skeptical about the media's top choice for anything, but this time I think they've got it spot on. I won't bother to lay out an argument (I pretty much agree with what's in the Sports Illustrated article I linked above), but suffice to say that American soccer is a peculiar creature that very few are equipped to deal with. Klinsmann is the only one with international experience who understands the system in the United States.

You can count me as being fully on the bandwagon.

[Eddie]

We shall see. If he gets the job I hope he does well, I just don't think he is the right man for the task.

[Drakefyre]

I'd go for Peter Nowak, personally. Just keep plucking coaches from DC United and we'll be top of the world soon enough

[speeeeeeedie]

Arena was never up to it IMHO. It's one of those things that looks daft to say as the bloke has done well wherever he has been but I don't think he really knows what goes on. He got a university job during the years when no one else wanted them. Did well there and went to the fledgling MLS where he won a few cups, mainly down to his team. He took over the national team that bascially has an automatic berth to the World Cup and had a good 2002. This time out his tactics and personnel were very questionable. Then after the US was ousted he comes out in a press conference and says that he has "other options". Silly ar$e.

Klinnsmann is perfect for the job. US soccer needs an overahul, he has the experience and clout to do it.

[American]

I agree he's the perfect, sensible choice, but it might be a risk taking time, as we are 2 years away from any significant competition, when we start WC qualifiers. Would be good to have an inexperienced American coach be able to prove/disprove his mettle in the Gold Cups and friendlies.

All signs point to Jurgen, though.

[speeeeeeedie]

Would you not want soemone who could do what you want but at a higher level? Jurgen could train up a young apprentice. I don't think the US has a suitable home grown candidate yet.