US Wins World Cup in 2014. NOW what?

[BlondieBC]

BTW, this is either Future history or Chat. It has to get political eventually

Originally Posted by usertron2020

And if as host country, Brazil LOSES to the US in the Final Round?

As above. If England LOSES to the US in the Final Round?

Well, if Brazil, then the Brazilian team will need to go into protective custody, and never again set foot in Brazil. Now the USA seems to be able to get big wins against the UK, so that is at least possible.

Originally Posted by jotabe1789

Biggest problem is the lack of competitivity of the soccer. American players play very little matches, and the american soccer leagues are very low profile, so they can't improve much. The idea of getting "old glories" from the european leagues is good, but it's too little.

This is the reason but the mechanism is a bit different. If you are a young athlete in the USA you can go to baseball, basketball or football and make well over 10 million salary and 100 million with endorsement. Soccer is a fraction of this amount. So the best athletes don't play. The example is from many years ago, but imagine these athletes on the field having played pro soccer in Europe:

1) Goaltender - Micheal Jordan or Magic Johnson. 6'6". Long arms, very fast reflexes, very good field sense. Any tall NBA goalie makes great goal tender. Either man could be easily the best goal tender of his generation.

2) Striker. The NFL normally has one of the top 10 fastest and often top 5 fastest men in the world at ANY sport on its roster. There are a whole list of these types of athletes, but imagine someone like Deon Sanders as a striker. Once he gets a 1/4 step on any defender, there is not a defender in the world that can keep up with his pace. Or if you like bigger strikers go with NFL receivers like Owens or Rice.

3) Defender: Think Bo Jackson. Over 6". Well over 250lbs. 4.5 second in 40 yard speed or better. You can't go through him, over him, or around him. At any given time, the NFL has 2-5 backs know for both speed (4.5-or faster and size-225 or larger)

4) I am not quite sure what physical traits you want for midfielder, but we have those people too. Big, tall, fast, good reaction time, smart, whatever.

The USA is much bigger than German or the UK, so we should be able to field a vastly better team, if the athletes went to soccer first. Potentially are worst starting defense man should be as good as the best or second best German defensemen. We should have a top 5 goalee and top 5 striker at any given time. And much of the time we will have top 2. This type of team is favored to make it to the semi-finals each world cup, and with just one or two breaks can win. The reason Brazil win so many world cups is it has more people (for the genetic lottery for world class athlete) and it has them play futbol first. Americans do football first.

[jotabe1789]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

4) I am not quite sure what physical traits you want for midfielder, but we have those people too. Big, tall, fast, good reaction time, smart, whatever.

Not quoting the whole thing, but you raise a very big difference between football and the US conception of sports.

It is true, specially for the sports that are popular in the US, that there are some biomechanical parameters that are essential.

It is also true that in the European countries, most of the kids with good athletica aptitudes, will try football first, so football will obtain players with very good physique.

But the trait that makes a soccer player is the brain, actually. You have to "see" the whole field from your limited viewpoint. And it's a huge field. Most of the plays aren't choreographed and heavily trained for, as it happens in the American sport that is played on a huge field, the gridiron fooball.
And after you "see" it, you have to read it correctly, and anticipate your rival's plays. I remember reading that many of the greatest football players had IQs near the gifted standard... only that obviously, their capabilities were focused towards the sport needs.

That's why i get incensed when americans think (and it's a legitimate way of thinking, but it makes me angry ) that "soccer is boring" because the scoring is low. Or when brits and americans think that the real way to play football is the power-football.
Even if the scoring is low, there's so much beauty in how the plays are plaited, on how the players try to anticipate each other, deceive each other, make feints... When played "right" (in my opinion), downplaying the physical strength and focusing and intellect and accuracy, it's a beauty to behold.

Sorry for the rant

So yeah, i think that if soccer was introduced to kids at early age, without the bad connotation of being "gay"... many american kids would develop a love for the game as we do in Europe. No matter how much money you make, playing football is so much fun!

[Falecius]

Originally Posted by jotabe1789

Not quoting the whole thing, but you raise a very big difference between football and the US conception of sports.

It is true, specially for the sports that are popular in the US, that there are some biomechanical parameters that are essential.

It is also true that in the European countries, most of the kids with good athletica aptitudes, will try football first, so football will obtain players with very good physique.

But the trait that makes a soccer player is the brain, actually. You have to "see" the whole field from your limited viewpoint. And it's a huge field. Most of the plays aren't choreographed and heavily trained for, as it happens in the American sport that is played on a huge field, the gridiron fooball.
And after you "see" it, you have to read it correctly, and anticipate your rival's plays. I remember reading that many of the greatest football players had IQs near the gifted standard... only that obviously, their capabilities were focused towards the sport needs.

That's why i get incensed when americans think (and it's a legitimate way of thinking, but it makes me angry ) that "soccer is boring" because the scoring is low. Or when brits and americans think that the real way to play football is the power-football.
Even if the scoring is low, there's so much beauty in how the plays are plaited, on how the players try to anticipate each other, deceive each other, make feints... When played "right" (in my opinion), downplaying the physical strength and focusing and intellect and accuracy, it's a beauty to behold.

Sorry for the rant

So yeah, i think that if soccer was introduced to kids at early age, without the bad connotation of being "gay"... many american kids would develop a love for the game as we do in Europe. No matter how much money you make, playing football is so much fun!

This is largely true for rugby too.
By the way, both sports tend to have room for a quite extended range of physical qualities within the team.
Of course, the "brain" requirement should not hinder the US to field a better soccer team.

[basileus]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

OK, this is just a Discussion Thread. I searched post-1900, and no other World Cup threads for the US are here for 2014. I KNOW how implausible it all is, as I imagine there are at least six teams out there standing as a Great Wall of China preventing the US from reaching, much less winning, the Final Round. But as was pointed out to me recently, Greece won the EuroCup in 2004 with a very defensive setup, and defense is what Team USA is all about.

There are MANY valid arguments to be made as to why it couldn't happen this time, and while people are free to discuss that of course, I'd like to be educated by people far more knowledgeable about the World's Game than I about how it COULD happen (in 2014), and what would/could be the outcome/consequences of a US World Cup victory.

Opinions?

It's not at all impossibile, only very unlikely. After all, if Greece and Denmark won a Euro championship, then Uncle Sam CAN win the World Cup.
First, it has to beat Germany, Brazil, Spain and the likes. Among bigger teams, Italy is definitely that which as the highest probability of losing a major match to the US. We invariably suffer Anglo-Saxon playing styles and tenacity... to the curious exception of England.
As for the consequences, well, politically, they wouldn't be nice. US that become big also in soccer would very likely lose what little sympathy it has outside its borders among the general public of the sport. Beyond be subject of unavoidable smear campaigns and conspiracy theories about supposed referee favors, the weight of vested interests on such a success, etc. I still remember how there was a definite suspicion, in Italy at least, that at any World Cup event the USSR was deliberately damaged by referees on orders from high above, as it didn't bring any public or money (and was, God forbid, "Communist").

[Falecius]

Originally Posted by basileus

It's not at all impossibile, only very unlikely. After all, if Greece and Denmark won a Euro championship, then Uncle Sam CAN win the World Cup.
First, it has to beat Germany, Brazil, Spain and the likes. Among bigger teams, Italy is definitely that which as the highest probability of losing a major match to the US. We invariably suffer Anglo-Saxon playing styles and tenacity... to the curious exception of England.
As for the consequences, well, politically, they wouldn't be nice. US that become big also in soccer would very likely lose what little sympathy it has outside its borders among the general public of the sport. Beyond be subject of unavoidable smear campaigns and conspiracy theories about supposed referee favors, the weight of vested interests on such a success, etc. I still remember how there was a definite suspicion, in Italy at least, that at any World Cup event the USSR was deliberately damaged by referees on orders from high above, as it didn't bring any public or money (and was, God forbid, "Communist").

This suspicion of course had nothing to do with Italy having the largest Communist party of the Western world, and a pro-Soviet one at that most time. However, to be fair the Soviet team won less than they deserved in international competitions. They made a very good soccer team.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by jotabe1789

It is true, specially for the sports that are popular in the US, that there are some biomechanical parameters that are essential.

It is also true that in the European countries, most of the kids with good athletica aptitudes, will try football first, so football will obtain players with very good physique.

But the trait that makes a soccer player is the brain, actually. You have to "see" the whole field from your limited viewpoint. And it's a huge field. Most of the plays aren't choreographed and heavily trained for, as it happens in the American sport that is played on a huge field, the gridiron fooball.
And after you "see" it, you have to read it correctly, and anticipate your rival's plays. I remember reading that many of the greatest football players had IQs near the gifted standard... only that obviously, their capabilities were focused towards the sport needs.

Well, USA sports also have that, even though we do talk about the physical a lot. All the players I listed had both incredible physical gifts and "court awareness". Reading an NBA court and anticipating what the 9 other players will do is a critical skill for any elite point guard, and this is why they were pick as examples of goaltenders. Or take modern American football. The complexity of the zone blitz and site reads is every bit as mentally challenging as the soccer field. While American announces talk about the X's and O's, we are long past the days where a play was drawn up and the player just followed the script. You line up in a formation, and each of the players has to read the defense correctly and the same way and make compatible adjustments. At the elite levels, each time the ball is snapped, there are hundreds of possible combinations of routes and blocking schemes. Now baseball is a simpler mental game.

Not only do they have equal or superior mental abilities of the soccer athletes, but they will have better physical skills. Based on our population, the USA has the potential to field a team as good as the French/England/German combined all star team, but we don't. And the reason is simple, the best athletes are in other sports.

[GarethC]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

As above. If England LOSES to the US in the Final Round?

Every England fan already knows that if England make it to the final, then they will lose after a penalty shootout.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

As for in the US, in the short term. I could see it more aceptable for boys to play football at school and a higher number of people watching football, live and in bars. Also it is much cheaper to buy a football kit than the pads that, (can I call them gay boys?) use so they don't get hurt (come on man up and grow a set). But the whole thing would be very short lived. Also which tv station would be bothered to show it in the first place, apart from ESPN?

Gay Boys?

Really? Just in case you missed the memo, Gays are just as tough (or as wimpy) as the rest of the population in virtually identical proportion.

Don't be an jackass. Jackasses have a very short half-life hereabouts.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Uff Da the optimist

I'll tell you what would happen:

Europe and Latin-America, enraged at a nation which refers to the beautiful sport as "soccer" has won the world cup, cuts off all economic, social and diplomatic relations and pretends the area between Canada and Mexico doesn't exist.

or, the more realistic one

WW3, everybody against the U.S

Yes, because that is EXACTLY what happened last time.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by BlondieBC

Well, USA sports also have that, even though we do talk about the physical a lot. All the players I listed had both incredible physical gifts and "court awareness". Reading an NBA court and anticipating what the 9 other players will do is a critical skill for any elite point guard, and this is why they were pick as examples of goaltenders. Or take modern American football. The complexity of the zone blitz and site reads is every bit as mentally challenging as the soccer field. While American announces talk about the X's and O's, we are long past the days where a play was drawn up and the player just followed the script. You line up in a formation, and each of the players has to read the defense correctly and the same way and make compatible adjustments. At the elite levels, each time the ball is snapped, there are hundreds of possible combinations of routes and blocking schemes. Now baseball is a simpler mental game.

Not only do they have equal or superior mental abilities of the soccer athletes, but they will have better physical skills. Based on our population, the USA has the potential to field a team as good as the French/England/German combined all star team, but we don't. And the reason is simple, the best athletes are in other sports.

HEY! Apparently you don't know the game of baseball very well. Granted, the outfielders have an easier time of things, but the infielders? And what about the ultimate confrontation, the pitcher versus the batter? Everything changes when the pitcher has a runner on first, or a contact-hitter at the plate. And the count can determine who is in control of the match between pitcher and batter.

In goal sports, whether ice hockey, field hockey, or soccer, you see so many blocked shots, and so much playing in the mid-field, that even the play-by-play announcer is surprised when a point is scored (1):

"We have the puck passed to MacCready, who was traded last year from the Canucks for a case of Budweiser...oh my God HE SCORES!"

In baseball, if you don't understand the mechanics of ABC (Cardinals-style) baseball, or can chart pitches, or follow the pitcher/batter battles, and just sit back and wait for the almighty home runs (which sometimes aren't scored at all by either team in an entire game), you will be bored to tears.

1) Paraphrasing from "The West Wing".

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by CalBear

Yes, because that is EXACTLY what happened last time.

What last time? And doesn't most of downtown Buenos Aires get burned to the ground following EVERY World Cup? sorry, old Mad Magazine joke

BTW, I didn't post in CHAT because of the near-ASB nature of the idea of the US winning in 2014. I didn't post in Future because I thought it too close to the present.

[ScorchedLight]

Against England: End of the Special Relationship

Against Argentina: Riots in Buenos Aires, Anti-US demonstrations

Against Spain: Disappointment

Against Germany: Amused disbelief

Against Brazil: Declaration of War

[eaglesfan101]

Originally Posted by tallthinkev

As for in the US, in the short term. I could see it more aceptable for boys to play football at school and a higher number of people watching football, live and in bars. Also it is much cheaper to buy a football kit than the pads that, (can I call them gay boys?) use so they don't get hurt (come on man up and grow a set). But the whole thing would be very short lived. Also which tv station would be bothered to show it in the first place, apart from ESPN?

It's already one of the most popular sports to play in school.

Also, I really love how you are telling American Football players to get rid of protection (and calling them "gay boys"), when some are dying because of too lenient protection.

[Falecius]

Originally Posted by ScorchedLight

Against England: End of the Special Relationship

Against Argentina: Riots in Buenos Aires, Anti-US demonstrations

Against Spain: Disappointment

Against Germany: Amused disbelief

Against Brazil: Declaration of War

What about France, Italy or Uruguay?

[Chipperback]

My question is, what kind of team got built by the United States to win it?

There's no chance in hell that the current crop of players in the USMNT could do it.

They were dang lucky to get out of the first round of the weakest confederation in the world. C'mon Man!

[Falecius]

Originally Posted by Chipperback

My question is, what kind of team got built by the United States to win it?

There's no chance in hell that the current crop of players in the USMNT could do it.

They were dang lucky to get out of the first round of the weakest confederation in the world. C'mon Man!

As others have pointed out, in a competition like the World Cup, which is relatively short and a lot of teams are below the US standard anyway, luck plays a significant part. Odds are heavily against, of course, but it is not impossible.
Stranger things happened. To be fair, when Italy won the Cup in 2006, many people here thought there was no chance in hell to do so. But of course Italy is a soccer playing nation and we are accustomed to higher standards.

[Know Nothing]

It isn't ASB, just very, very implausible. You just need the following things:

1. Michael Bradley and Jozy Altidore continue their upward career trajectory. Others like Geoff Cameron and Fabian Johnson need to do so as well.

2. Jermaine Jones, Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey avoid the rigors of time until August 2014.

3. The US desperately needs another good center back besides Cameron and the ancient Carlos Bocanegra.

4. Like the 2002 World Cup, the US needs a fresh young star to burst onto the scene as Donovan and Beasley did then. A player like Josh Gatt could fit this criteria.

5. Get rid of Klinsmann for a big name European coach that is actually talented like Hiddink or Lippi.

6. Get a fortunate Group draw. The knockout phase draw is even most important. 2010 saw a difficult knockout phase path of Ghana -> Uruguay -> Netherlands -> Spain; 2002 was almost ASB though: Mexico -> Germany -> South Korea -> Brazil.

Now what? The impressive growth of the sport in the US will continue. Even the mainstream media will now admit that soccer has passed hockey. If MLS hasn't expanded from 19 teams to 24, it would probably begin doing so.

[d32123]

2014 is too soon, but I think that the U.S. will be a legitimate contender within the next 50 years. The team has already improved a hell of a lot since the 80's.

[Know Nothing]

Originally Posted by Chipperback

My question is, what kind of team got built by the United States to win it?

There's no chance in hell that the current crop of players in the USMNT could do it.

They were dang lucky to get out of the first round of the weakest confederation in the world. C'mon Man!

Are you referring to the World Cup itself? Otherwise, this comment doesn't make sense. When they qualified for the 2nd stage of qualification for 2010, they were 4-0-0.

[d32123]

Originally Posted by Know Nothing

Not sure where you were getting this from. When they qualified for the 2nd stage of qualification for 2010, they were 4-0-0.

Not to mention that the OFC is significantly weaker than CONCACAF (fricken Tahiti won the most recent OFC Nations Cup ).