USA to win world cup within 20 years

cardwizzard

Dogmatically refers to any opinion which is "Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles". I thought your post matches that criteria. Whether you add "imo" doesn't change that you were pretty clearly dismissing the USA despite lacking a crystal ball.[/QUOTE]


I think you will find the whole thread is like that. This is why it's called an opinion. 90% of the people who took the poll agreed with me. If you think they will win it, which they could, thats your opinion. If I think they won't in the next 5 WC's thats my opinion. You can go through every post on this thread and attach that rubbish to everyone.

As it happens I would really like the Yanks to do well, for selfish reasons. And I am sure they will get better. However other teams will get better also, this applies across the board. So whether I'm right or wrong(i'm wrong more often than not) in the future doesn't really matter as its's my opinion!

cardwizzard

el dude wrote: »

probably not, no. it's not just about numbers either, look at Uruguay, then look at China. and youth soccer has been huge in the US for some time, just not amongst the African American and in the more urban areas. until that changes I don't see the US getting all that much better. it's not like they have a raft of young players coming through and in truth, they are no better than our Ireland side.

Yeah I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Kids who have to go to training camps to play, isn't right. Of course training is very important, but so is kicking a ball against the wall by yourself or with a few mates. Street football like you see here, not as much now, or in Brazil etc, that culture does not exist where young kids devolp raw talent at an early age. Maybe i'm wrong but kids in the U.S dream of being the next Tom Brady or Derek Jeter, while Torres, Messi, Ronaldo are kids heros here.

partyndbs

el dude wrote: »

probably not, no. it's not just about numbers either, look at Uruguay, then look at China. and youth soccer has been huge in the US for some time, just not amongst the African American and in the more urban areas. until that changes I don't see the US getting all that much better. it's not like they have a raft of young players coming through and in truth, they are no better than our Ireland side.

they ARE much better than the irish team. look at the irish midfield, compare that to bradley holden jermaine jones maurice edu, all much better than what ireland has. look at the depth of goalkeepers us has.

both teams are second tier teams but us is closer to the top of that tier whereas ireland is prob like one of the worst in that tier atm.
players off ireland who would start for usa? doyle, mcgeady and dunne and coleman at right back

amacachi

el dude wrote: »

and in truth, they are no better than our Ireland side.

I love when an arguably silly thread is started and someone just goes completely the other way.

partyndbs

i dont think its that silly really, prob not really the place for it on an irish forum but imo there is a big difference between 'will the usa win wc within 20 years'
and
'will ireland win wc within 20 years
'will switzerland win wc within 20 years
will sweden win wc within 20 years' etc.

we know that in 20 years time these sides will be roughly similar to what they are today due to population, with the us anything is possible. remember the 94 world cup is 17 years ago and i think that was obviously huge for football in us. its not that long ago and i dont think its that far out to think that there are potential very good/world class players who are 11/12/13/14 now. people like donovon and dempsey are from the first era and look at their level, im just assuming we will see an evolution from them and if we produce a better crop of players than them then the usmnt will be in very very good shape

DOC09UNAM

partyndbs wrote: »

i dont think its that silly really, prob not really the place for it on an irish forum but imo there is a big difference between 'will the usa win wc within 20 years'
and
'will ireland win wc within 20 years
'will switzerland win wc within 20 years
will sweden win wc within 20 years' etc.

we know that in 20 years time these sides will be roughly similar to what they are today due to population, with the us anything is possible. remember the 94 world cup is 17 years ago and i think that was obviously huge for football in us. its not that long ago and i dont think its that far out to think that there are potential very good/world class players who are 11/12/13/14 now. people like donovon and dempsey are from the first era and look at their level, im just assuming we will see an evolution from them and if we produce a better crop of players than them then the usmnt will be in very very good shape

Nice April Fools joke bro.

parker kent

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

20 years is a very short span in World Cups. You are talking within the next five tournaments. I'd say no chance. Maybe in 20 World Cups.

You would think so, but then again you can never say never. Imagine if somebody had created a thread in 2003 asking "Will Greece win a major tournament in the next 20 years?". They would have been laughed out of it. But it happened. Same way, the USA could conceivably in 20 years have a few more players at top teams and be in a position to challenge. South Korea could have won in 2002 had their luck lasted 2 more games. Ditto Turkey in 2002 or Sweden and Bulgaria in 1994. Weird things can happen. Holland were a nobody in 1962. They were in the World Cup Final 12 years later. Argentina became a power in a span of about 20 years. Denmark had a wonder generation appear in the mid 80s. It can happen. Not saying it will, but it can.

It has been a long time since a shock winner happened at the World Cup, but it could still happen. Whilst I think they won't win it, there are way too many "no chance" type answers. They have improved a lot in 20 years, that may continue. They are already hard to beat, they just need to start producing a few more players. The long-term effects of the MLS remain to be seen. You can't discount that they are an emerging team

partyndbs

^^^^^
sooo right. what do people have against us soccer?

parker kent

cardwizzard wrote: »

I think you will find the whole thread is like that. This is why it's called an opinion. 90% of the people who took the poll agreed with me. If you think they will win it, which they could, thats your opinion. If I think they won't in the next 5 WC's thats my opinion. You can go through every post on this thread and attach that rubbish to everyone.

As it happens I would really like the Yanks to do well, for selfish reasons. And I am sure they will get better. However other teams will get better also, this applies across the board. So whether I'm right or wrong(i'm wrong more often than not) in the future doesn't really matter as its's my opinion!

Ironic that you only partly quote my previous post, given it was replying to you falsely saying I had quoted a single sentence from a longer paragraph in your posts.

I have not said people cannot have opinions. But I think I have explained my thoughts above. Opinions are fine. But there are too many people dismissing the idea out of hand, despite the history of football being littered with teams who emerged in shorter periods than that mentioned in this thread.

The USA are putting in a lot of effort to improve. Couple that with a large population and money, and you can see why you can't dismiss them out of hand. And before you compare them to China, India or any other large country, I am saying that the large population combined with the other factors mean they have a chance. Having a large population is not enough by itself. But when you already have a decent team and a new league, it does mean there are increasing possibilities of more soccer players emerging in the USA.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

parker kent wrote: »

You would think so, but then again you can never say never. Imagine if somebody had created a thread in 2003 asking "Will Greece win a major tournament in the next 20 years?". They would have been laughed out of it. But it happened. Same way, the USA could conceivably in 20 years have a few more players at top teams and be in a position to challenge. South Korea could have won in 2002 had their luck lasted 2 more games. Ditto Turkey in 2002 or Sweden and Bulgaria in 1994. Weird things can happen. Holland were a nobody in 1962. They were in the World Cup Final 12 years later. Argentina became a power in a span of about 20 years. Denmark had a wonder generation appear in the mid 80s. It can happen. Not saying it will, but it can.

It has been a long time since a shock winner happened at the World Cup, but it could still happen. Whilst I think they won't win it, there are way too many "no chance" type answers. They have improved a lot in 20 years, that may continue. They are already hard to beat, they just need to start producing a few more players. The long-term effects of the MLS remain to be seen. You can't discount that they are an emerging team

lol

parker kent

THFC wrote: »

lol

Magnificent debating skills there. They beat Spain and Italy, is it lol-worthy that they may have beaten a much worse German side and got to the final? When you have gone that far, you can win. I didn't say they should have or that they even had a strong chance. I just mentioned the possibility.

I'm sorry if the idea of a host nation in the semi-final of a World Cup, getting extremely generous refereeing decisions and playing an extremely under-par German team is considered lol-worthy by you. They lost 1-0 in the semis, not 5-0. So it is not as if I'm suggesting Blackpool for the Premiership. South Korea winning the World Cup is no different than any other under dog who have won a knock out tournament. Greece did it 2 years later. Liverpool arguably deserve to be mentioned given their win in the Champions League with some of the players they had. It happens.

Edit: Before any sarky responses, I'm saying the German team was worse that Spain and Italy in 2002. Not that they were worse than Korea.

cardwizzard

parker kent wrote: »

Ironic that you only partly quote my previous post, given it was replying to you falsely saying I had quoted a single sentence from a longer paragraph in your posts.

I have not said people cannot have opinions. But I think I have explained my thoughts above. Opinions are fine. But there are too many people dismissing the idea out of hand, despite the history of football being littered with teams who emerged in shorter periods than that mentioned in this thread.

The USA are putting in a lot of effort to improve. Couple that with a large population and money, and you can see why you can't dismiss them out of hand. And before you compare them to China, India or any other large country, I am saying that the large population combined with the other factors mean they have a chance. Having a large population is not enough by itself. But when you already have a decent team and a new league, it does mean there are increasing possibilities of more soccer players emerging in the USA.

90% of people polled agree that they won't win any of the next 5 world cups. And yes people can dismiss them out of hand if they choose to do so. You keep rambling on about the Dutch team of the 70's but they never won it even with that team. Which proves if they do have an excellent team in the future it's no guarantee.

Lets be honest the MLS is a pay cheque for has beens and is a inferior league to France, Italy,Germany, England, Turkey, Greece, Scotland, Russia maybe even, Japan. Take in S. American countries Mexico blah blah blah, they have a mountain to climb and its all ifs and maybes. Time will tell ultimately.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

parker kent wrote: »

Magnificent debating skills there. They beat Spain and Italy, is it lol-worthy that they may have beaten a much worse German side and got to the final? When you have gone that far, you can win. I didn't say they should have or that they even had a strong chance. I just mentioned the possibility.

I'm sorry if the idea of a host nation in the semi-final of a World Cup, getting extremely generous refereeing decisions and playing an extremely under-par German team is considered lol-worthy by you. They lost 1-0 in the semis, not 5-0. So it is not as if I'm suggesting Blackpool for the Premiership. South Korea winning the World Cup is no different than any other under dog who have won a knock out tournament. Greece did it 2 years later. Liverpool arguably deserve to be mentioned given their win in the Champions League with some of the players they had. It happens.

Edit: Before any sarky responses, I'm saying the German team was worse that Spain and Italy in 2002. Not that they were worse than Korea.

Bollocks. The referees in charge of the QF and last XI both retired after that tournament over match-fixing claims. I think it was 3 goals were disallowed from both Spain and Italy, not to mention Totti's red card and the numerous other appalling decisions. Don't be so naive.
Greece and Liverpool, fair enough.

Fr Tod Umptious

major bill wrote: »

until the american media start taking the game seriously over there then it wont happen. The mls is a good skillfull league but nowhere near the level of the top european ones and there aint much american players playing in europe at a high level anyway.

What has the media got to do with it ?

Yes the game is in fifth place in the pecking order when it come to team sports and the mainstream media pay very little attention to anything other
than the Worl Cup but there are still millions of people involved in developing the game and they have the money and facilites as stated by other posters to keep improving.

major bill

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What has the media got to do with it ?

Yes the game is in fifth place in the pecking order when it come to team sports and the mainstream media pay very little attention to anything other
than the Worl Cup but there are still millions of people involved in developing the game and they have the money and facilites as stated by other posters to keep improving.

It has alot to do with it.......more media exposure brings in more revenue from vast amounts of sponsers....look at the super bowl for example it costs something like 3million for a 30 second slot thats alot of money just for 30 seconds. Theres no reason why american clubs cant be as rich as real madrid or barcelona when it comes to revenue. yes there could be still millions playing but alot more millions prob more talented at sports are choosing American Football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey over ''Soccer'' this could change if the media started taking the game as a serious sport and then alot more peoples attitudes will change also and not see it as some boring gay game!!!.

Fr Tod Umptious

major bill wrote: »

It has alot to do with it.......more media exposure brings in more revenue from vast amounts of sponsers....look at the super bowl for example it costs something like 3million for a 30 second slot thats alot of money just for 30 seconds. Theres no reason why american clubs cant be as rich as real madrid or barcelona when it comes to revenue. yes there could be still millions playing but alot more millions prob more talented at sports are choosing American Football, Baseball, Basketball and Hockey over ''Soccer'' this could change if the media started taking the game as a serious sport and then alot more peoples attitudes will change also and not see it as some boring gay game!!!.

What ever about USA winning the World Cup in 20 yaers there is no way that the mainstream media will be putting 'soccer' before 'football, baseball and basketball in the next 20 years.
Hockey maybe but definitely not the other three.

But I don't think that matters, the USA has enough people and enough infrastructure to develope a team that could win the world cup in 20 years.

Those players may all be playing in Europe if they are good enough, I don't think the state of MLS is as much of a factor as people make it out to be.

major bill

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

What ever about USA winning the World Cup in 20 yaers there is no way that the mainstream media will be putting 'soccer' before 'football, baseball and basketball in the next 20 years.
Hockey maybe but definitely not the other three.

But I don't think that matters, the USA has enough people and enough infrastructure to develope a team that could win the world cup in 20 years.

Those players may all be playing in Europe if they are good enough, I don't think the state of MLS is as much of a factor as people make it out to be.


Someone he

Players from America aint gonna go to europe at an early age to play football so a strong MLS is essential for young players to develop there skills and then move to europe. There aint many American players playing at top clubs in Europe at the moment. Everton, Fulham are hardly top clubs.

parker kent

THFC wrote: »

Bollocks. The referees in charge of the QF and last XI both retired after that tournament over match-fixing claims. I think it was 3 goals were disallowed from both Spain and Italy, not to mention Totti's red card and the numerous other appalling decisions. Don't be so naive.
Greece and Liverpool, fair enough.

That is one of the most famous incidents in WC history, so I don't need my memory refreshed. It doesn't change that they were in the semi-final, one they lost narrowly. How am I being naive? I'm saying they might have had yet another series of terrible decisions. It is not unbelievable they may have got a generous decision that won that game for them. Nor is it ridiculous that they could have beaten a poor German team given they were playing at home.

cardwizzard wrote: »

90% of people polled agree that they won't win any of the next 5 world cups. And yes people can dismiss them out of hand if they choose to do so. You keep rambling on about the Dutch team of the 70's but they never won it even with that team. Which proves if they do have an excellent team in the future it's no guarantee.

Lets be honest the MLS is a pay cheque for has beens and is a inferior league to France, Italy,Germany, England, Turkey, Greece, Scotland, Russia maybe even, Japan. Take in S. American countries Mexico blah blah blah, they have a mountain to climb and its all ifs and maybes. Time will tell ultimately.

Rambling? I am making pretty reasoned points. Were Holland a major team in the 70s? Yes. Had they come from nowhere? Yes. That is not rambling. That is two pretty decent and relevant points. As are the points about Denmark, Argentina etc. It has happened before. It could happen again. Your points pretty much show how foolish your argument is. There are no guarantees. That is my point.

Show me where I say the MLS is a top league. I merely called it a new league. It offers a greater chance for US players to play. Hence they have more players. We don't know what it will be like in 20 years. Don't forget the Premier League could have been described as a pay cheque for has-beens when Gullit, Vialli etc appeared.

peabutler

Well i'd be off the opinion that nations produce very good sides around 20 years after a major footballing event in that nation. Obviously it doesn't always hold through but the idea that 7-10 year olds who will be influenced by the event are at their peak 20 years later does have some merit.

eg. England in 86' had quite a strong team and were maybe unlucky to go out.
Brazil 70'-94 ( although it is different with a team like Brazil)
If you look at World Cup history you'll see that many teams have around 20 years between their two must succesful World Cups ( Unless of course they have two on the trot with much the same team)

Austria 1934-54 (not winners)
Uruguay 1930-50
Germany 1954-1974
Italy 1982-2006

Obviously this is not perfect but I reckon it's a decent guide.

On that account in theory USA should be relatively strong in 2014 ?

parker kent

peabutler wrote: »

Well i'd be off the opinion that nations produce very good sides around 20 years after a major footballing event in that nation. Obviously it doesn't always hold through but the idea that 7-10 year olds who will be influenced by the event are at their peak 20 years later does have some merit.

eg. England in 86' had quite a strong team and were maybe unlucky to go out.
Brazil 70'-94 ( although it is different with a team like Brazil)
If you look at World Cup history you'll see that many teams have around 20 years between their two must succesful World Cups ( Unless of course they have two on the trot with much the same team)

Austria 1934-54 (not winners)
Uruguay 1930-50
Germany 1954-1974
Italy 1982-2006

Obviously this is not perfect but I reckon it's a decent guide.

On that account in theory USA should be relatively strong in 2014 ?

Yeah that theory has been stated a lot and it usually follows through. I'd say USA are more likely to see the benefits in 2030 after last years World Cup or if they do well in 2014. 1994 didn't have enough effect (even if long term hosting it ensured they had to create the MLS)

The_B_Man

Ireland 1990-2010??
Damn you Thierry!!



/runs away

oconnon9

parker kent wrote: »

You would think so, but then again you can never say never. Imagine if somebody had created a thread in 2003 asking "Will Greece win a major tournament in the next 20 years?". They would have been laughed out of it. But it happened. Same way, the USA could conceivably in 20 years have a few more players at top teams and be in a position to challenge. South Korea could have won in 2002 had their luck lasted 2 more games. Ditto Turkey in 2002 or Sweden and Bulgaria in 1994. Weird things can happen. Holland were a nobody in 1962. They were in the World Cup Final 12 years later. Argentina became a power in a span of about 20 years. Denmark had a wonder generation appear in the mid 80s. It can happen. Not saying it will, but it can.

It has been a long time since a shock winner happened at the World Cup, but it could still happen. Whilst I think they won't win it, there are way too many "no chance" type answers. They have improved a lot in 20 years, that may continue. They are already hard to beat, they just need to start producing a few more players. The long-term effects of the MLS remain to be seen. You can't discount that they are an emerging team

So what you're saying is anything can happen and its basically unlikely but still possible..

Talk about stating the obvious..:eek:

Fr Tod Umptious

oconnon9 wrote: »

So what you're saying is anything can happen and its basically unlikely but still possible..

Talk about stating the obvious..:eek:

Well I think 'parker kent's analysis is far more realistic and far better articulated than some of the opinions here that seem to be dismissing the idea out of hand, based on nothing other than the fact that we are talking about 'soccer' and 'America' in the same thread

oconnon9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Well I think 'parker kent's analysis is far more realistic and far better articulated than some of the opinions here that seem to be dismissing the idea out of hand, based on nothing other than the fact that we are talking about 'soccer' and 'America' in the same thread

well i'm agreeing with him, but it's obvious they have a chance, everyone does.

parker kent

oconnon9 wrote: »

well i'm agreeing with him, but it's obvious they have a chance, everyone does.

I'm saying they have a decent chance of improving to the point where they can challenge. The examples I've given of teams who did well such as Denmark, Holland, Argentina are the result of 10-20 years hard work at youth level. The USA are doing that now and they already have a decent enough team.

Plus as I've said, you do get outsiders who do well. But that is not the crux of my argument. I am also pointing out the stupidity of posts that basically say "They are the USA, therefore the will not and cannot win".

cardwizzard

]I hear what you are saying Parkerkent, however the thread is WILL the US win the world cup within 20 years. The WC is not the Euros. There has never being a major surprise winner, ever.

http://www.topendsports.com/events/worldcupsoccer/winners.htm

partyndbs

you get used to it though man, the worlds patronising opinion of us football. those who are patronising even coming from countries where the usmnt is better than their national team. it will just make it all the more sweet

cardwizzard

partyndbs wrote: »

you get used to it though man, the worlds patronising opinion of us football. those who are patronising even coming from countries where the usmnt is better than their national team. it will just make it all the more sweet

Your taking it personal. I least I can say that Ireland won't win any of the next 5 wc's without any Irish lads throwing a strop. But if we do, partytime.:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

parker kent

cardwizzard wrote: »

]I hear what you are saying Parkerkent, however the thread is WILL the US win the world cup within 20 years. The WC is not the Euros. There has never being a major surprise winner, ever.

http://www.topendsports.com/events/worldcupsoccer/winners.htm

West Germany were a surprise winner in 1954. Just because a country subsequently becomes a major force, does not mean their original breakthrough was not a surprise.

Also, the thread title is probably not exactly what the OP meant. The point is can they become serious contenders.

cardwizzard

parker kent wrote: »

West Germany were a surprise winner in 1954. Just because a country subsequently becomes a major force, does not mean their original breakthrough was not a surprise.

Also, the thread title is probably not exactly what the OP meant. The point is can they become serious contenders.

Thanks for telling us what the OP probably thought he was doing!!!

Have to give you the Germans in 1954, whilst they effectively cheated, drugged out of heads no less. Couldn't see that happening today, although you never know.

parker kent

cardwizzard wrote: »

Thanks for telling us what the OP probably thought he was doing!!!

Have to give you the Germans in 1954, whilst they effectively cheated, drugged out of heads no less. Couldn't see that happening today, although you never know.

Well read his posts throughout and it becomes clear. I don't think he is literally asking if anybody has seen the future and knows whether they win it. So wondering if they'll be good enough to realistically compete is a likelier topic.

There have been other winners that have been mini-shocks. Not epoch level shocks, but teams not predicted as winners beforehand have won the tournament. But the shocks are usually saved for runners up and third/fourth place play offs.

cardwizzard

parker kent wrote: »

Well read his posts throughout and it becomes clear. I don't think he is literally asking if anybody has seen the future and knows whether they win it. So wondering if they'll be good enough to realistically compete is a likelier topic.

There have been other winners that have been mini-shocks. Not epoch level shocks, but teams not predicted as winners beforehand have won the tournament. But the shocks are usually saved for runners up and third/fourth place play offs.

Well hello Clarice. :eek::eek::eek::eek:


Thats my point, runners up 3rd/4th not the winners!! I've said it as well they may well get into the 'if everything falls our way and god smiles on us we have a chance' type team, but serious contenders, Brazil Germany, Italy etc, then no, I don't think so.

And why else would he put up a poll unless it was to win it?? Not will we get close poll is it?

parker kent

cardwizzard wrote: »

Well hello Clarice. :eek::eek::eek::eek:


Thats my point, runners up 3rd/4th not the winners!! I've said it as well they may well get into the 'if everything falls our way and god smiles on us we have a chance' type team, but serious contenders, Brazil Germany, Italy etc, then no, I don't think so.

And why else would he put up a poll unless it was to win it?? Not will we get close poll is it?

A) You are writing nonsense that is difficult to understand and/or annoying.
If you don't think that a team that ends up runners up or a losing semi-finalist were not serious contenders, then I'm not sure what else you have to do. You get to the semi-final or final, you have a chance to win the whole thing.
C) You seem to miss the intricacies of much of what I say. I'm saying the OP may have asked will they win the World Cup in the opening post and poll, but given his posts throughout, it seems he just wanted to discuss will the USA become a legitimate/regular challenger for the World Cup. In any case, regardless of his intentions (as that was just a minor aside I made in a long post where you chose to ignore most of what I said), that is all we can reasonably discuss.