eliezer david ([info]eliezer) wrote in [info]soccerfans,
  • Mood: thoughtful

Forza U.S.?

Sorry all, don't mean to overwhelm you with another post about the USMNT, but now that the team has been selected, it got me thinking: as a US resident, do I really want to see the US do well? A couple of years ago, I would have said no, and vehemently at that. I really had no reason to follow or root for the national team. I don't like soccer because I played AYSO as a kid or because I was following any US players. I fell in love with the game through the talent and personality of players from Brazil, Holland, Italy, etc. I couldn't pick the US players out of a lineup (and still can't, in most cases).

There was also the little fact that the Americans just weren't as skilled as some of the South American or European players. I didn't want to see World Cups go to a team that played determinedly, if unspectacularly--I wanted to see flair. Finally, there was this simple fact: if the US team were to win a World Cup, Americans would pay attention for all of about a day before they started thinking about their fantasy [American] football leagues. I didn't want to see the biggest sporting event in the world be won by a country that doesn't care for it. I know how much some cultures live and die with their football, and I would have rather seen a country like Argentina, or Italy, or England win, rather than the U.S., where such a victory would have been greeted with apathy.

To a certain extent, I still feel this way. I'm not naive enough to think that a US victory in the World Cup would make the sport elite in this country. Still, as time wears on, i find myself rooting a bit more for the American players. Do they have superior technical skills? In most cases, no. Do they still lack flair? Yes, but then I suppose all but a few countries do. What I'm starting to feel (and perhaps I have that Gatorade commercial to thank) is a sense of respect for these athletes who don't make millions upon millions of dollars playing, who probably won't ever be awarded the fame and status they would have been given had they chosen baseball or basketball. My heart's warmed (however condescending that sounds) by the continued presence of the MLS (which I still don't really watch and which is riddled with faults). I'm proud of the growing community of football supporters, at the club and national team level, in this country, including some of you in this very community.

So, will I be rooting for the U.S. this summer? I think I will. Well, til the quarters anyway, where they'll probably meet Brazil (my favorite team) and in all likelihood lose. Hey--one step at a time, right? :)

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

  • 26 comments

[info]nathanhj

May 3 2006, 00:26:20 UTC 6 years ago

My thoughts.

What I'm starting to feel (and perhaps I have that Gatorade commercial to thank) is a sense of respect for these athletes who don't make millions upon millions of dollars playing, who probably won't ever be awarded the fame and status they would have been given had they chosen baseball or basketball. My heart's warmed (however condescending that sounds) by the continued presence of the MLS (which I still don't really watch and which is riddled with faults). I'm proud of the growing community of football supporters, at the club and national team level, in this country, including some of you in this very community.

I very much agree with this feeling aobut the athletes who play for the US National Soccer team. These guys are the real deal and deserve the US fans' support.

I'm reconciled to the fact that soccer is a long way away from being a top tier sport in the US. And I don't really mind that. It is where it is. It is making steady progress (and MLS is a large part of that) and so a part of me is asad to think that even when the US wins its first World Cup huge chunks of the population just won't even know what the hell that means.

But I sure as hell will and I'll be one of hte most excited people in the country! And this is my passion for this sport and I love to see the US do well in the most beautiful sport around.

As for MLS, you should come back to it. It is looking a lot better than it did even just 3 years ago. There are still ugly matches. There are still teams that are consistently boring to watch. The quality is still wavering between 2nd tier and 3rd tier English football.

But the flair is coming. Watch Carlos Ruiz make some passes at FC Dallas this year. 3 weeks ago he did this back heel thing that resulted in a goal and was cheeky and unexpected, the essence of flair. Or watch Landond Donovan play when he's on his game. Very pretty. Or check out a Ronnie O'Brien cross. Or a Brad Davis cross. Or Freddy Adu run at players and make them trip over their own feet.

There is good soccer on the pitch at MLS games more often than not these days and it's totally refreshing to see.

What kind of flaws do you see in MLS currently?

[info]eliezer

May 3 2006, 00:33:41 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

Really it's just sort of the format--the whole playoff system just doesn't work very well, I feel. Now, I know there isn't much that can be done about this--the reason other countries have relegation struggles is because there are like 800 teams, but it's just a bit...contrived, at the risk of sounding too harsh. I'm glad they got rid of the whole 'penalty-shootout-after-every-tie-game' that was around for the first year or so (especially since it wasn't even really a spot kick). I will watch MLS occasionally, but shallowly, perhaps, I miss brandname recogntion. But I guess you have to take all these things for what they are: the league here hasn't been around for decades like the Euro ones. It will continue to get better I'm sure.

[info]nathanhj

May 3 2006, 00:57:37 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

The MLS created a Technical Advisory Committee that includes some very heavy hitters in US soccer (including The Bruce and Sunil Gulati) to review every aspect of how the game is plyed on the field, incluidng playoffs and relegation and the like.

Relegation isn't coming anytime soon, given, as you note, the lack of depth to our leagues here. But I think they are going to do something about the fact that the playoff render the entire regular season meaningless.

The first good chance they've made on this topic is making the winner of the Supporter's Shield the second qualifier for the Confederations Cup tournament in our region, instead of the MLS Cup runner-up.

I think this committee has the potential to really deal with some of the problems plauging MLS, which are really a product of starting a league that plays a game that most people in the country don't know.

Now that they are seemingly going to stick around for a little while, they are paying attention to this kind of stuff

[info]izumrud

May 3 2006, 07:41:21 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

Relegation isn't coming anytime soon, given, as you note, the lack of depth to our leagues here.

I was given to understand that relegation didn't have as much to do with the lack of depth in MLS as the fact that clubs pay to enter the franchise - and if you just shelled out so much money to join MLS you don't want to end up in the USL First Division (A-League) the first season promotion/relegation is introduced.

Having said that, I think the current set-up gives an extremely raw deal to clubs from the Pacific Northwest. The Vancouver Whitecaps, Seattle Sounders, and Portland Timbers have longer histories than most clubs on the East Coast (the Sounders twice lost the NASL Championship match to the New York Cosmos) and the rivalry between the three is quite intense - with the clubs competing in a Cascadia Cup founded by local fans and the Timber Army numbering in the thousands.

I don't think any of the three sides would be out of place in MLS, but they've constantly been overlooked each time the league decides to expand. My assumption is that Real Salt Lake, etc. are given spots ahead of USL First Division clubs because they're willing to fork out more money for the position. I could always be wrong though ...

[info]nathanhj

May 3 2006, 17:35:28 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

I think $$ plays a huge role in relegation/promotion in the US right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the next 20 years that didn't matter as much.

I still think the biggest issue is quality of play. The US just doesn't have the depth of quality soccer that's needed to make relegation and promotion interesting for the fans. Do we really need two new RSL's each year?

I can't speak for the league on expansion, but I would suspect that league officials are in close contact with USL owners and officials as soccer develops in the US. I know they speak regularly to the Rochester Rhinos and the Charleston Battery, so I'm assuming they talk to the PNW teams as well.

If those teams wouldn't be out of place in MLS, then they need to get to a US Open Cup Final and prove it.

[info]incendiarymind

May 3 2006, 18:33:14 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

Here's a solution to the talent problem that everyone agrees on. Change the rules to treat all CONCACAF players as domestics (like UEFA is forcing their countries to do). Make MLS the second most dominant league in North America (behind Mexico) by luring all of the central Americans into MLS - they love the greenback and wouldn't play in Costa Rica and Jamaica over the United States given the chance. And with the amount of teams increasing, there will be plenty of spots for United States players.

[info]izumrud

May 3 2006, 19:15:38 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

Quality of play might be a problem, but without a fluid league to test the idea we won't really know. Maybe the Montreal Impact would be another RSL, to be relegated the season after they make it up to MLS. But maybe over the course of a season they'd earn enough points to avoid relegation. At the moment they're not even given a chance to prove this one way or the other.

Open Cup qualification almost always follows the same format every year - the Seattle Sounders beat the Portland Timbers and the San Jose Earthquakes then beat the Sounders (or, if the Sounders are lucky, they beat SJ and lose to LA). The general lack of teams on the west coast makes it harder to vary the cup draw, and the odds are it's a lot easier for San Jose if they know they'll play Seattle in their first qualifying match time after time. I think the one exception to this is the San Francisco Bay Seals from the USL-2, who made it to the semi-finals and beat 2 MLS sides along the way.

If Portland and Seattle were to play against RSL and KC more often the possibility could open up for more surprises in the Open Cup. Or then again, I might just be dreaming. :\

[info]izumrud

May 3 2006, 19:33:08 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

If Portland and Seattle were to play against RSL and KC more often

Oops. That should read RSL and the Colorado Rapids. Why travel all the way out to Missouri when Denver is so much closer? ;)

[info]nathanhj

May 3 2006, 19:37:55 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

I just don't think we're at a place where the depth of the soccer talent can support relegation and promotion and MLS itself isn't in a financial position to have its teams dropping. Not until the bulk of the teams in the league are making a profit.

The single entity structure will also have to be dealt with when relegation/promotion happens. Personally I like this structure because the rising tide raises all ships and because it keeps salaries from spiralling out of control. Creates stability, in other words.

I hear you about lack of access to quality teams to gear up for US Open Cup competitions, but my point about quality of USL teams stands overall. If you want to make a case for USL teams belonging in MLS, then USL teams need to get to the semi-finals consistently and appear in a finals. This hasn't happened since the 90's to my knowledge.

(And now that San Jose doesn't exist anymore, what are the NW USL teams going to do?)

[info]izumrud

May 5 2006, 04:40:47 UTC 6 years ago

Open Cup, etc.

I suppose in the end it's true that there isn't enough depth between the two leagues to support promotion and relegation at the moment. I don't follow developments in MLS that closely, so there are some things that I take for granted which aren't always the case (such as how teams in MLS are not, for the most part, privately owned yet).

As for the Open Cup, I agree that the quality might not be at the same level, but recent results show that the gulf between the two divisions is shrinking pretty quickly ...

2002: No USL-1 teams in the SFs, only the Milwaukee Rampage in the QFs.
2003: No USL-1 teams in the SFs, Seattle Sounders and Wilmington Hammerheards reach the QFs - with the former beating San Jose 1-0 and the latter winning against Dallas 4-1 in the round before.
2004: The Charleston Battery reach the SFs, losing 1-0 to the Chicago Fire but beating the MetroStars along the way. In the QFs Chicago only beat the Richmond Kickers 0-1, while Charleston beat fellow USL-1 side Rochester 0-1 (after the Rhinos knocked out the New England Revolution in the round before), and the Minnesota Thunder tied San Jose 2-2 before going out 4-5 on penalties. Four of the eight QF teams were from USL-1.
2005: The Minnesota Thunder reach the semi-finals, losing 5-2 to eventual champions LA Galaxy and eliminating Real Salt Lake (6-1), Colorado Rapids (4-1), and KC Wizards (3-1) along the way. The Rhinos made it as far as the QFs before Chicago knocked them out on penalties.

I have no idea who the NW USL teams will play now that the Earthquakes have moved, but they'll join the competition on June 28, so we should know by then. ;)


p.s. It's so rare that I get the chance to talk about the USL with anyone that I'm jumping at the chance now that it's here. Sorry if that means I've posted without thinking all my comments through as much as I should.

[info]nathanhj

6 years ago

[info]incendiarymind

May 3 2006, 05:23:28 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

I'm a huge supporter of making MLS single table (in fact once I get around to it, my blog will have the "real MLS standings" back up) but realistically it's not going to work until there are 16 teams in the league making for 30 matches.

Right now with twelve teams, single table would be 22 matches a season. And, well, that's just silly. And there's no way that you could do four times over like some 12 team countries do since freeing up 44 dates for the teams that share their stadiums with pointyball teams is impossible.

But, the next round of expansion (looking like Cleveland and Toronto) is going to bring MLS to 14 so single table with extra regional rivalry games could happen. It's on the table finally according to Garber. Thank goodness!

The problem with brand recognition is that MLS has a really small footprint with most of the country, to use cell phone parlance, in dead zones.

The east coast teams have recognition due to rivalries with each other and there is genuine animosity. And the two Los Angeles teams have a great atmosphere when they play and all. But most of the country doesn't even have a local MLS team to root for. And they never will since FIFA caps top level leagues at 20.

By the way, estimates on the table for promotion and relegation are 15-20 years out. MLS should resemble UEFA leagues in our lifetimes at least. :)

[info]izumrud

May 3 2006, 08:00:07 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

But, the next round of expansion (looking like Cleveland and Toronto) is going to bring MLS to 14 so single table with extra regional rivalry games could happen.

How does MLS decide on which clubs will be included in an expansion? I would think sides like the Montreal Impact, Portland Timbers, and Rochester Rhinos would be candidates to move up, but unless the USSF is worried about the impact this will have on the USL First Division I can't think of any other reasons (other than financial ones) for their exclusion. Some of it might be clubs weighing the costs of playing in a higher division, but from what I've heard the Pacific Northwest clubs have been eagerly awaiting their chance to join the MLS for several years now.

The east coast teams have recognition due to rivalries with each other and there is genuine animosity. And the two Los Angeles teams have a great atmosphere when they play and all. But most of the country doesn't even have a local MLS team to root for.

If the American public really cared about supporting the sport (as well as looking for animosity and local rivalries that you can't really find in other sports as well) wouldn't they also attend USL First Division matches? This is not to say they don't - the three sides I mentioned above all attract decent crowds - but there seems to be this vacuum among soccer fans in the US that it's either the MLS or nothing.

[info]incendiarymind

May 3 2006, 13:50:33 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

It's all about MLS' marketing. You do notice that the only time that MLS mentions USL is when they're playing one of the teams in the U.S. Open Cup or when they sign a player who was in the USL. They market themselves as the only league in the United States and the media goes along with it. They do have the ESPN contract after all. Frankly, there are really good aspects of USL that MLS should adopt but despite the coup of Romario, USL-1 is basically just a feeder league and even a casual observer knows it's of lower quality. I once saw the comparison of MLS being lower Championship or high Division One with USL being high Division Two to high Conference. That seems to pretty much match up to what I've seen.

As far as expansion goes, I think MLS is now looking to get more rivalries - hence Cleveland, Milwaukee, and St. Louis being next on the list for natural rivalries for Columbus, Chicago, and Kansas City. The games that are drawing the most are these rivalry matches (and even in the USL it's the same as you well know as a Sounders fan) so MLS wants to create more of them. Rivalries, after all, are what create die-hard sports fans.

Toronto is coming in because Canada is begging the United States to get in on the action (they want to win the 2014 World Cup) and MLS is giving them the right to have Canadians count as the domestics and United States players counting as foreign senior international to let them into the formula.

Montreal, Portland, and Rochester are always mentioned. I think you're going to need to wait for promotion though. The only way the Timbers are coming in is if Vancouver and your Sounders come in with them. I don't think MLS is going to dare to try and market a regional loner again. They're concentration where they already have a market - northeast, midwest, Texas, California.

[info]izumrud

May 3 2006, 19:31:50 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

They market themselves as the only league in the United States and the media goes along with it. They do have the ESPN contract after all.

I've had to go without FSN for the past year; do you know if they still show a USL-1 match every weekend? In the end I suppose it's a vicious cycle - the USL lacks quality so it doesn't get any airtime, and to go with that it suffers from a general lack of popularity that keeps gate receipts down as a result. From what I know of the Portland Timbers their larger-sized fan base only really started to come together after the city's major newspaper started to include more articles about the club.

I'd always wondered about the lack of Canadian sides in MLS, and whether that was from an idea of keeping MLS as a purely "US-American" league, or if the Canadian sides weren't able to justify/finance their inclusion.

Seeing all three PNW sides join MLS would be great; but the logistics of such a move (finding room for three sides at once, plus others to balance out the addition) probably means it won't happen anytime soon. Wikipedia lists Phoenix as a possible expansion city for an MLS franchise ... do you know how far away that is from the teams in Texas and California?

[info]incendiarymind

May 3 2006, 19:46:45 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

I'm not sure. I haven't seen any ads for USL this season.

A club in Phoenix would be about five hours from the two L.A. teams. A little over 1.5 hours less than Chicago to Columbus right now.

It's a long way from the two Texas teams. 22 hours by car. Of course about 2 hours by plane - though way too long for the teams to bus fans between the two cities to get huge away sections.

[info]izumrud

May 5 2006, 04:49:45 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

A club in Phoenix would be about five hours from the two L.A. teams.

That's close enough where I can see it drawing a fair number of away fans to matches in California. I suppose at this point in MLS's development it's better to be patient than to try and rush things.

[info]nathanhj

May 3 2006, 18:23:56 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

Single table would be the easiest, biggest improvement MLS could make in their product. Maybe by 2010.

Getting relegation/promotion would also be interesting, but our lower tier leagues need more depth and talent. Hell, MLS needs more talent (RSL anyone?), but the reserve league has been a boon to player development. In another generation we should be able to have enough talent, league stability, and $$$ to make relegation/promotion viable. I suspect by that time several of our teams will be owned by overseas teams like Ajax or by Mexican superclubs like Chivas (oh wait...) or Club America. Which will ensure continued investments of $$ into US soccer.

[info]izumrud

May 3 2006, 19:21:26 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

I suspect by that time several of our teams will be owned by overseas teams like Ajax or by Mexican superclubs like Chivas (oh wait...) or Club America.

Do you mean something like Ajax Orlando, part of the Ajax America program? ;)

[info]nathanhj

May 3 2006, 19:38:33 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

Yep. 8-) That's what gave me the idea.

[info]incendiarymind

May 3 2006, 19:47:38 UTC 6 years ago

Re: My thoughts.

Except, you know, not a glorified rec team.

[info]beakermin

May 3 2006, 03:30:22 UTC 6 years ago

I respect our team, but I wasn't raised on US soccer, I was raised on English Soccer. So I just don't have that same connection with the US team, and it feels like treason to root for anyone other than those who nurtured my love of the game. Go England.

[info]incendiarymind

May 3 2006, 05:17:04 UTC 6 years ago

Any of us over a certain age were raised rooting for England in the dark days for the United States. But it's good that now that the United States finally has a team that has made the World Cup consistently for five cycles you're willing to give it the time of day.

Ironically, you and I are polar opposites. The only United States team I root for whole heartedly is our soccer team. I like to see our hockey team do well but when they don't, it's not bad. And, well, pretty much every other team sport team I root against for the competitive advantages they have over the smaller, underdog countries.

[info]nathanhj

May 3 2006, 18:18:18 UTC 6 years ago

Agreed on this.

Ironically, you and I are polar opposites. The only United States team I root for whole heartedly is our soccer team. I like to see our hockey team do well but when they don't, it's not bad. And, well, pretty much every other team sport team I root against for the competitive advantages they have over the smaller, underdog countries.

That's pretty much how I do it too. I am somewhat twingy about my support for US Soccer just because most of our best players grew up in affluent surroundings in the suburbs and the game remains dominated by rich white people (not that these folks are inherently bad - just very privileged) and until that changes we aren't going to be able to take advantage of the potential pool of players who aren't affluent. But by and large they don't play soccer. They play basketball or football or baseball or box.

That's a digression, though. My love of the game and my love of anyone else who loves the game concels out my class-based underdog feelings.

On the other hand, I've been reveling in the US's recent basketball and baseball trevails. Too much ego, too much arrogance and we get our asses kicked. Pay attention to the game on the field, not the image of your ads.

Friended you, by the way...

[info]incendiarymind

May 3 2006, 18:37:26 UTC 6 years ago

Re: Agreed on this.

Awesome. Thanks. I haven't checked my friends list today.

The USSF is reaching into the inner cities and rural areas. That's the whole "passback" program you see along with their rebuilding the fields on the southeast coast after Katrina.

You're right though that more basketball players of moderate quality (well at least the guards) need to be convinced their hoop dreams are pipe dreams and that they would probably be better off playing soccer.

It would seriously work wonders.

[info]_phyxsius

May 3 2006, 08:38:58 UTC 6 years ago

Well, you have to give teams like that a step at a time.
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…