A WAKING GIANT - US Soccer Comes of Age

DER SPIEGEL ^ | June 11, 2006 | Andreas Tzortzis

[Atlantic Bridge]

Long unknown at home and ridiculed abroad, the United States isn't being written off in the soccer world anymore. But the Americans will need to pull together as team to get past their tough World Cup group.

A motorcade of police cars with flashing blue lights and a massive, unmarked FIFA bus has announced the arrival and often rapid departure of the US soccer team in Hamburg over the past week. But when the American players are on their own, it's a different story.

On Friday, star midfielder DaMarcus Beasley sat, blissfully anonymous, at a sidewalk café outside the Americans' well-guarded hotel in downtown Hamburg. A group night out by some of the team early in the week warranted only brief mention in the local paper.

The contrast is typical of the US soccer story. Individually, the players are unknowns, their limited impact on the top European leagues ensuring them the sort of privacy their opponents in their World Cup group matches can only dream of. But as a team, the US is slowly making the rest of the world sit up and take notice.

Their impressive showing at the last tournament in 2002, which began with a 3-2 win over Portugal and only ended with a defeat against Germany in the quarter-finals, raised eyebrows abroad. At home, it added to the profile of a sport that has struggled mightily for attention in a crowded field of spectator sports.

"We've gained some fans that didn't have anything to do with soccer and that's, obviously the hardest person to get," said Eddie Pope, one of the team's central defenders and a veteran of two World Cup campaigns. "I think before we weren't getting those guys at all."

[Atlantic Bridge]

Once upon a time I attended a soccer game and actually saw a goal scored.

This is really nice for you.

[Atlantic Bridge]

The ELO rating system is much more realistic than any FIFA-BS.

[FostersExport]

Australia drew with Holland in a pre-World Cup friendly. They have a few quality players in their side. They also have a far easier group than the USA.

Past World Cup form is only partly relevant because their qualification route is as tough as the USA’s is easy.

They won’t win the World Cup but then neither will the USA so I don’t think equal odds are so crazy.

[NZerFromHK]

But Australia has many world class players in their first string teams - more people in their First XI play for top European clubs like Liverpool, Middlesbrough, Parma, Newcastle than their American counterparts. This probably makes the British batters estimate Australia is at similar levels as the US.

I remember 4 years ago when the US, South Korean, and Senegal teams reached the quarter-finals that the then Australian Socceroos coach Frank Farina claimed that had Australia qualified for the 2002 cup, it would be as equally likely to get to that stage as these teams.

[Jameison]

"Australia drew with Holland in a pre-World Cup friendly. They have a few quality players in their side. They also have a far easier group than the USA. "

Real question is, Australia's record in the World Cup itself.
Australia hasn't even scored a SINGLE goal in the World Cup before, let alone actually WIN any match.
Last time Australia actually appeared in the World Cup was as long ago as 1974, when the proceeded to play abysmally.
To give them the same odds as a USA that has not only won matches, but advanced to the quarter finals in the last World Cup , is simply rubbish.
Normal British crap.


"Past World Cup form is only partly relevant because their qualification route is as tough as the USA’s is easy. "

Nonsense.
Past World Cup performance is what it's all about.
Countries like Brazil, Germany, Italy have high odds because from past performances, when the going gets tough at the World Cup, they have always stepped up another gear, plus they have actually won the World Cup before.
Meanwhile, a country like Spain, which is a decent football nation, used to regularly choke at the World Cup (including even when Spain staged it in 1982).
Not every country s able to shine when the spotlight is on them.
This is the World Cup.

[Jameison]

"They won’t win the World Cup but then neither will the USA so I don’t think equal odds are so crazy."

That's like saying Mexico will probably not win the World Cup, so they should have the same adds as Costa Rica.

[Jameison]

"But Australia has many world class players in their first string teams - more people in their First XI play for top European clubs like Liverpool, Middlesbrough, Parma, Newcastle than their American counterparts"

Australia also hasn't scored a single goal in the World Cup before, hasn't played in the World Cup for over 30 years, and haven't even come close to winning a World Cup match before.
Not a single one of their players has payed in any World Cup match before either.
America has done all that and more.
That's where experience and tradition come in.

[NZerFromHK]

But players' skill is a key factor as well. In 1974 the then Australian team were mostly amateurs or C-string players in the big clubs in Europe. Just like American soccer players in those times or even 1990 were.

This time, both Australia and the US have good soccer players. The difference is that Australia's First XI is probably a little stronger than the US First XI - Mark Viduka is individually perhaps a better player than Claudio Reyna, but the reserves for Australia are pretty shallow and the US's reserve team can easily trounce their Australian counterparts.

[FostersExport]

"That's like saying Mexico will probably not win the World Cup, so they should have the same adds as Costa Rica."

I know, don’t take that sentence in isolation though. I gave other reasons for why the odds are similar.

And as someone else said, Australia are probably relatively highly backed in Britain due to our familiarity with their players. Plus there are quite a few Aussies in the UK.

[Jameison]

"In 1974 the then Australian team were mostly amateurs or C-string players in the big clubs in Europe."

1974 they were.
So what happened in 1978, 82, 86, 90, 94, 98, 02 then?
Seems to me like a pretty long time between playing the World Cup to me.
A country that is any good at all at football simply doesn't go without playing World Cup soccer, for to the tune of over 30 years.

[NZerFromHK]

I wouldn't put too much confidence into the past World Cup performance to gauge Australia's fate this time. After all, the current crop of players weren't even born yet when their country was last in the World Cup.

A few Australian soccer fans on another forum boasted sometime last year that had both sides presented full strength teams, Australia will beat the US.

[FostersExport]

Australia are unlucky to have a very tough route to the finals. Their previous non-appearances reflect that.

[Jameison]

" wouldn't put too much confidence into the past World Cup performance to gauge Australia's fate this time"

I would.
The World Cup is different.
Look at Cameroons back in 1982, they had pretty decent players, and they did reasonably well, but still got sent home after the first round.
They were simply lacking in experience at playing at the World Cup.
By the World Cup in 1990, they had plenty of experience and advanced to the the quarter finals, where they lost to England, in a match where they actually outplayed the English (I watched it live in London, and evenmany of the English admitted they had been outplayed)).

"After all, the current crop of players weren't even born yet when their country was last in the World Cup."

They sure were born in 2002, and Australia sill didn't even qualify.



"A few Australian soccer fans on another forum boasted sometime last year that had both sides presented full strength teams, Australia will beat the US"

Australians are known to be full of mighty talk, when they have had too many Fosters beer.
I wouldn't put to much store by such lose talk.

[NZerFromHK]

They had to beat extremely strong teams in play-offs since time immemorial. Let's see...

1) For the 1994 World Cup in the US, had to beat Argentina (yes, with Maradona) and failed.

2) For the 1998 World Cup in France, had to beat Iran (which co-incodentially also beat the US team later in the Finals' first round) and failed.

3) For the 2002 World Cup in Japan/Korea, had to beat Uruguay (two times World Cup winner) and failed.

4) For the 2006 World Cup in Germany, had to beat Uruguay (again) but this time they did it.

I don't think the US was ever subject to this type of playoffs.

[Jameison]

"For the 1994 World Cup in the US, had to beat Argentina (yes, with Maradona) and failed." et al.

Australia put themselves in a position of having the beat some of these teams you are going on about.
Australia backed themselves into a corner. They wouldn't have had to, if they had qualified direct


"For the 2002 World Cup in Japan/Korea, had to beat Uruguay (two times World Cup winner) and failed. "

Uruguay's days of glory are long behind them.
These gentlemen won the first 2 World Cups, at a time when over half the World's population, including all of Africa, and even England, did not participate in the World Cup.

[NZerFromHK]

This is not true though. There is no automatic qualifications for the winner in the Oceanic region, and the winner can only reach the Finals by playiong playoffs against one of the UEFA/AFC/COMEBOL teams. Australia had been a member of OFC up until last year so it never enjoyed the luxury of automatic entry (although it is now an AFC member).

[FostersExport]

"Australia put themselves in a position of having the beat some of these teams you are going on about.
Australia backed themselves into a corner. They wouldn't have had to, if they had qualified direct"

You're showing your ignorance now. Australia have to win their tiny Oceania group and then enter a play off against (these days) a South American side.

They didn't back themselves into any corners.

[Aquinasfan]

Czechs have injured players (though they are rated #2).

In the world?! I'm looking forward to tonight's game. I love the World Cup. Two weeks of soccer bliss. Can't watch the US soccer league games though.

[Jameison]

"Australia have to win their tiny Oceania group and then enter a play off against (these days) a South American side. "

Exactly what great football nations do you have in the Oceania group again?

[FostersExport]

"Exactly what great football nations do you have in the Oceania group again?"

None but you're missing the point. Australia are likely to clean up in that group but no matter how well they do they will have to face a South American side in a play-off, as the two regions share a spot.