Re: US performance, a successful failure?
- From: James.Allnutt@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 15 Jul 2006 06:00:41 -0700
Jason Maxwell wrote:
To steal a line from one of my favorite movies...
Was the Yanks dismal performance a successful failure? I've heard a lot
more talk since the start and end of the WC about Arena's job, if he should
be replaced, who should replace him, Klinsmann's current job situation, etc.
in places like Sportscenter, PTI, ESPN.com, and USA Today. Add to that the
coverage this week of the WC Final and Zidane. Did the amount of hype
around the team, and their failure actually help soccer along in some way,
to the point where it's at least being tracked by more people and more media
now?
Jason
Three points from me (an observer from afar - who doesn't support the
US, but doesn't have anything against them - particularly given the
sterling work done for the Owls by "Captain for life" John Harkes -
although someone needs to slap Frank Simek pronto).
1) I sometimes get the feeling that Bruce Arena has spent his entire
time in charge successfully implementing his goal: To build a side that
can beat Mexico. This he has done. Ask me which is the *best* team
out of Mexico, USA and Australia and I would probably say "Mexico".
Ask me who would come *last* in a tournament consisting just of USA,
Mexico and Australia and I would probably say "Mexico". The styles are
such that Mexico goes down to the other two just because of the way
they play.
If the World Cup consisted of the USA playing Mexico and Mexico-like
teams, then the USA would win it - but, as we discovered, it doesn't.
We also see that winning the Hex, the Gold Cup and (occassionally)
getting a higher FIFA rank just gives you the right to wave your dick
in the wind - which is fine until it gets cold, when that starts to
look like a stupid (not to mention embarrassing) thing to do.
2) A lot of people say things like "We drew Italy so we did well".
This is utter crap. The whole point of the Group Stage is to advance
(maybe win it). If you have *any* pretentions of quality then anything
else must be regarded as a failure. The only sides that can feel happy
about picking up a point against better quality oppositions are
*complete no-hopers* like Trinidad and Saudi Arabia. If you think
getting a point against Italy mitigates at all against the failure to
advance - then you tacitly agree that the USA is stunningly overranked
and should be happy just to make up the numbers like Togo and such.
Bugger hard groups - success is never easy, excuses always are.
3) (And this now applies to a certain nation that did better than the
US this time around and also did well against Italy). You can do well
in one tournament - even better than you expect, and maybe even have a
case for feeling unlucky about your elimination (if only they hadn't
called a penalty - if only the handball had been given etc) - but next
time around you start back at square one on zero points and you have to
do it all again. *Very few countries can expect to advance by some
sort of natural rule* and the USA and Australia are not among them
(damn, I gave the country away). My fear is that Australia dwells on
what might have been in 2006 and forgets to focus on what needs to be
done in 2010. Frankly, from now on *not advancing must be regarded as
a failure* if Australia is to improve further.
James
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: US performance, a successful failure?
- From: pb4usenet
- Re: US performance, a successful failure?
- References:
- US performance, a successful failure?
- From: Jason Maxwell
- US performance, a successful failure?
- Prev by Date: Re: Which Italian clubs get Euro competition then?
- Next by Date: Re: Undeserved win -- need for new rule against 100% defense #5
- Previous by thread: Re: US performance, a successful failure?
- Next by thread: Re: US performance, a successful failure?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
