Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Just a heads up to all soccer fans. Round of 16 begins with the US taking on Italy at 1130 today. Spector is still doubtful, but otherwise the US is in top form. They won their group for the first time ever and is favored today over Italy (when was the last time that was the case?). USSOCCER.com will have a match tracker, but it's also on Fox Soccer Channel (directv 613). I'll post an update after the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 I was wrong, Spector is starting- Lineup-Quentin Westberg Marvell Wynne Jonathan Spector Patrick Ianni Hunter Freeman Greg Dalby Benny Feilhaber Eddie Gaven Freddy Adu Chad Barrett Sammy Ochoa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 3-1 Italy over the US. A complete and total disaster of epic proportions. The US was completely schooled by a third rate Italian team. They showed no vision, no touch, and no finishing ability. They were up 1-0 on a PK in the first. But it was a shady call to begin with and Adu actually missed it, but the Ref gave it a second chance calling the keeper for moving off his line. Barrett still managed to let the keeper get his hands on it but it squeaked inside the post. Other than that, the Italians completely dominated. The shots were probably 50-2. If these are the guys we are looking at to win a WC in 2010 or 2014 we're going to be as dissappointed as we've been as Skins fans for the last decade. One bright spot though, All the talk about Freddy Adu making the World Cup roster next summer will be put to rest. He just isnt close to being ready. If he cant deliver against a U-20 B squad, he has ZERO chance of making it agains the Worlds best in Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Don't make too much of this Kilmer. Italy is known for producing major soccer talent and some days just aren't good ones. Even Brazil has bad games (they win but not as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Italy brought a third rate B team. Not one of their starters will ever sniff their national team. They finished 3rd in their group scoring (I think) 1 goal. We, on the other hand, brought our total A team. There wasnt a single U20 player on the field that we dont have pencilled in to make the big squad eventually. Bottom line, This was the best team we could have put on the field. And they embarrased themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 That's pretty dissapointing. Sounds like Adu is still a ways off. How did Italy make it to the Round of 16 if they were 3rd in their group and only scored 1 goal? And why didn't they play their top U-20 players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Only 24 teams in the tournament as opposed to 32 for the Full team WC. So all but the bottom 2 3rd place teams make it to the second round. They didnt bring their top U20s because this isnt a tournament most Euros care about. Really really dissapointing. Looking back, we scored 3 goals in 4 matches. That, much like our problems with the big team, is why we lose to lesser sides. Our attack ALWAYS takes one too many touches, tries to make one more move, or one more pass. Italy was firing from all over today. Their first goal was a deflection off Spector, their 3rd a credited own goal but a hard cross our defender cleared into the back of our net. Other teams create chances by letting it fly. We dont have anyone doing that at any level. It's one of the main reasons I want Mathis back in the mix on the Natl team. He's fearless. He'll throw it on goal from anywhere just to see what happens. Nobody else is doing that right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 And yes, Adu is still a LONG ways off. He should focus on the Olympics in 08. And worry about World Cup in 2010. He needs to eat, and hit the gym. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Oh yeah, Italy lost to Syria in the opening round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 And yes, Adu is still a LONG ways off. He should focus on the Olympics in 08. And worry about World Cup in 2010. He needs to eat, and hit the gym. he is 30's year old :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTillIDie Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Don't get too down on a U20 tournament. England's U21 team, despite always being heavily rich in talent, continuously dissapoint at major tournaments. And then if you look at the England U18 team that won the 1996 European Championships (?... Year wrong maybe? Some huge tournament...), so many players failed miserably in their careers. My team, Queens Park Rangers, had (and still have) a player named Kevin Gallen who was a star on that team, playing along side Robbie Fowler. He broke Dennis Law's youth goalscoring record, and scored on his debut at 18 against Manchester United. He was a star as a youth, tipped to be leading England to a World Cup in 2000. However, his prime goalscoring talents never developed further, a knee injury hindered his career, and he was never able to reproduce that youth goalscoring record. He kind of reminds me of Freddy Adu... A young player that was tipped to do so well. But I honestly cannot see Freddy ever dominating a league in Europe. He's too small, for one, and he hasn't shown the same flashes of brilliance that a one Michael Owen showed when he was 16. And as for the US.... I don't see them winning a World Cup for a looooong time now... I just don't ever see them being better than Brazil, Germany, France, Italy, England, Argentina.... all at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Well, they dont have to be better than all of them at the same time. In fact, they really only have to be better than 1 or 2 of them. Take last WC as an example. We lost in the quarterfinals to Germany 1-0. And if the refs call a correct handball on the goalline, we win that game. After that, we would have played South Korea in the Semis. A team (Albeit in their homeland) we had beaten or tied 9 out of 10 games. And then faced Brazil. Who probably beats us handily, but the way Friedel was playing, a fluke goal by the US early on, we play 10 back with Friedel and I bet you a dollar Brazil doesnt score. So as you see, 2 victories over those teams was all it would have taken. Oh yeah, Our U20s that Im b!tching about just beat Argentina and and tied Germany in their World Championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dickens Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Baby steps. The Italys, Brazils, Englands, Argentinas, Germanys, Spains have been much more serious about soccer for a longer time than us. Let's just get to the level where we are right below the elite countries and then go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTillIDie Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Well, they dont have to be better than all of them at the same time. In fact, they really only have to be better than 1 or 2 of them. Take last WC as an example. We lost in the quarterfinals to Germany 1-0. And if the refs call a correct handball on the goalline, we win that game. After that, we would have played South Korea in the Semis. A team (Albeit in their homeland) we had beaten or tied 9 out of 10 games. And then faced Brazil. Who probably beats us handily, but the way Friedel was playing, a fluke goal by the US early on, we play 10 back with Friedel and I bet you a dollar Brazil doesnt score. So as you see, 2 victories over those teams was all it would have taken. Oh yeah, Our U20s that Im b!tching about just beat Argentina and and tied Germany in their World Championship. There is no way the US would have beaten Brazil during that tourney. The US was playing good, yes, but besides the 40 odd minutes in the Portugal game, they played very average in the group stage. They were somewhat lucky to beat Mexico (remember that handball by O'Brien I think, in the box?). Germany, yes that should have been a penalty and they played probably their best game of the tournament, but even at 1-1, Germany I think would have won. The US are a good side, but they couldn't even beat an England C side in its recent friendly, and still have trouble overcoming Mexico in the qualification stages. The US should be consistent quarterfinalists, but I just don't see the day where America is a World Cup champion. And oh, how the world would hate the US for it :laugh: And also, regarding that US v Brazil outcome you predicted... England had beaten Argentina (and shut them out no less), crushed Denmark 3-0 in the second round, and had only let in one goal all tournament going into the Brazil game. We were playing brilliantly, and even with a 1-0 lead and even playing against 10 men for the last 30 odd minutes, Brazil smashed us (2-1, but played much much better than the score showed). France was abysmal, Argentina was too, and Italy was cheated against South Korea. I don't think we can count on that happening again in any time soon, unfortunately. And besides... Whats the fun in looking forward 10 years down the road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTillIDie Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by Dickens Baby steps. The Italys, Brazils, Englands, Argentinas, Germanys, Spains have been much more serious about soccer for a longer time than us. Let's just get to the level where we are right below the elite countries and then go from there. I think the US is right below the elite teams. Brazil, Argentina, France, England, Italy, Germany, and Holland are probably the elites. Spain should be, but they always underachieve. After that, I don't see any team that is definately a better side then the US. Mexico, Czech Republic, Portugal, Sweden, and the US are probably the second tier. After that, the US should beat every other team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsTillIDie There is no way the US would have beaten Brazil during that tourney. The US was playing good, yes, but besides the 40 odd minutes in the Portugal game, they played very average in the group stage. They were somewhat lucky to beat Mexico (remember that handball by O'Brien I think, in the box?). Germany, yes that should have been a penalty and they played probably their best game of the tournament, but even at 1-1, Germany I think would have won. The US are a good side, but they couldn't even beat an England C side in its recent friendly, and still have trouble overcoming Mexico in the qualification stages. The US should be consistent quarterfinalists, but I just don't see the day where America is a World Cup champion. And oh, how the world would hate the US for it :laugh: And also, regarding that US v Brazil outcome you predicted... England had beaten Argentina (and shut them out no less), crushed Denmark 3-0 in the second round, and had only let in one goal all tournament going into the Brazil game. We were playing brilliantly, and even with a 1-0 lead and even playing against 10 men for the last 30 odd minutes, Brazil smashed us (2-1, but played much much better than the score showed). France was abysmal, Argentina was too, and Italy was cheated against South Korea. I don't think we can count on that happening again in any time soon, unfortunately. And besides... Whats the fun in looking forward 10 years down the road? England C side beating our B side doesnt impress me that much. I like Englands side, just not their coach, and I think they have issues in goal. As for us being "lucky" to beat Mexico, that's just absurd. We completely dominated all but about 10 minutes of that game. In fact, it should have been 3-0 if Donovan doesnt whiff from 12 yds out around the 25 minute. 1-1 against Germany with their side down to 10 men (should be red card for stopping a goal with your hands. rules are rules.) I'd like our odds. We were the only team in the group to take a point from the host country and seeded team (SK). We played abysmall for 20 minutes vs Poland, but hit the wood 3 or 4 times and had a goal reversed in that game as well. We're a good Intl side. Not a great one. Not elite. And the teams that you mentioned are certainly better than us. But they arent SOOOOO far better than us that they can beat us anytime anywhere on any day. That's my point really. It's not as if we show up the WC anymore just hoping to have fun and maybe squeak out a tie in a game. We're there to win. And as Portugal found out in 02, a team that doesnt respect us, even if they are better, can find themselves in a hole too deep to dig out of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 BTW, if the US wins the Gold Cup next month and doesnt lose another match in WC qualifying, they'll end up getting a seed in Germany. Which makes it even LESS likely they would have to beat all of those teams to win it. The difference between Argentina Czech US Japan And US Ireland Paraguay Japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Hey Kilmer17, I don't know much about soccer, but I just want to know, is Adu the real deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2005 Author Share Posted June 21, 2005 Yes, he will become, by far, the greatest soccer player to ever wear a US uniform. He's just 16 years old now, and the expectation that he can perform against and with players almost twice his age is lofty to say the least. Im actually very happy that his club coach (Novack at DCU) doesnt play him alot. His vision and skill are amazing, he's just not built (YET) to withstand a game against men for 90 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTillIDie Posted June 21, 2005 Share Posted June 21, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 England C side beating our B side doesnt impress me that much. I like Englands side, just not their coach, and I think they have issues in goal. As for us being "lucky" to beat Mexico, that's just absurd. We completely dominated all but about 10 minutes of that game. In fact, it should have been 3-0 if Donovan doesnt whiff from 12 yds out around the 25 minute. 1-1 against Germany with their side down to 10 men (should be red card for stopping a goal with your hands. rules are rules.) I'd like our odds. We were the only team in the group to take a point from the host country and seeded team (SK). We played abysmall for 20 minutes vs Poland, but hit the wood 3 or 4 times and had a goal reversed in that game as well. We're a good Intl side. Not a great one. Not elite. And the teams that you mentioned are certainly better than us. But they arent SOOOOO far better than us that they can beat us anytime anywhere on any day. That's my point really. It's not as if we show up the WC anymore just hoping to have fun and maybe squeak out a tie in a game. We're there to win. And as Portugal found out in 02, a team that doesnt respect us, even if they are better, can find themselves in a hole too deep to dig out of. As I recall, which to be honest I don't remember that much of, the US did not dominate that game but played much much better against Germany than it did against Mexico. That being said, Mexico once again beat the US in qualifying and has shown to currently be a better side, albeit probably only slightly better. I don't think the US will be underrated again, especially if they clinch that first seed. Getting to the quarterfinal is itself quite an achievement, but that is not even the hard part... And one more thing, the US team in 06 I don't think seems as good as the one in 02. Maybe because I haven't been following them that much, but with a goalkeeper 4 years older, a seemingly more inexperienced defense with a few too old players (Pope)... The team seems composed of a lot of MLS players that, frankly, cannot play up to the competition of the European elite. Bobby Convey, the (former) starting left winger for the US and one of its rising stars, got almost no playing time during the last three months of the season and only played in the reserve league for Reading, a team in the second division no less. Even Landon Donovan flopped to some degree in Germany. When matched up for England, for example, the US could probably play well, especially against a side that Sven for some reason desides to play so defensive. Arena seems to have played 100 different players on the international scheme in the past year or two, so I have no real idea of how the US will start in 06. But against a good side in England, who still won't win the World Cup, I can't see how they can match up and win. Paul Robinson Jamie Carragher.....Sol Campbell.....Rio Ferdinand.....Ashley Cole David Beckham.....Steven Gerrard.....Frank Lampard.....Joe Cole/Stuart Downing Wayne Rooney.....Michael Owen I just don't see an American side winning it all anytime in the relatively near future, especially with the large majority of its best athletes going out for football, basketball, and baseball and when the "elite" countries' best athletes are all playing soccer. For that matter, I don't see England winning it all either, but thats probably because we have a doofus for a coach and we always have a player completely screw up for us (Beckham... Phil Neville... Seaman... James/Sven/idiot ref...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsTillIDie As I recall, which to be honest I don't remember that much of, the US did not dominate that game but played much much better against Germany than it did against Mexico. That being said, Mexico once again beat the US in qualifying and has shown to currently be a better side, albeit probably only slightly better. I don't think the US will be underrated again, especially if they clinch that first seed. Getting to the quarterfinal is itself quite an achievement, but that is not even the hard part... And one more thing, the US team in 06 I don't think seems as good as the one in 02. Maybe because I haven't been following them that much, but with a goalkeeper 4 years older, a seemingly more inexperienced defense with a few too old players (Pope)... The team seems composed of a lot of MLS players that, frankly, cannot play up to the competition of the European elite. Bobby Convey, the (former) starting left winger for the US and one of its rising stars, got almost no playing time during the last three months of the season and only played in the reserve league for Reading, a team in the second division no less. Even Landon Donovan flopped to some degree in Germany. When matched up for England, for example, the US could probably play well, especially against a side that Sven for some reason desides to play so defensive. Arena seems to have played 100 different players on the international scheme in the past year or two, so I have no real idea of how the US will start in 06. But against a good side in England, who still won't win the World Cup, I can't see how they can match up and win. Paul Robinson Jamie Carragher.....Sol Campbell.....Rio Ferdinand.....Ashley Cole David Beckham.....Steven Gerrard.....Frank Lampard.....Joe Cole/Stuart Downing Wayne Rooney.....Michael Owen I just don't see an American side winning it all anytime in the relatively near future, especially with the large majority of its best athletes going out for football, basketball, and baseball and when the "elite" countries' best athletes are all playing soccer. For that matter, I don't see England winning it all either, but thats probably because we have a doofus for a coach and we always have a player completely screw up for us (Beckham... Phil Neville... Seaman... James/Sven/idiot ref...) Dont take this the wrong way, but if you think that Bobby Convey is a starter for the US< you really arent following them at all. In Germany, we'll start MAYBE 4 guys in MLS. The rest will be European based. Keller, Onyewu, Cherundolo, Gibbs, O'Brien, Reyna, Beasley, McBride are all Euro based. McBride is a ? to start, but that would still be 7. Convey wont even make the final squad. The problem the US has in qualifying (if you want to call it a problem) is that they can start a total MLS side and still beat most of Concacaf. And Mexico is absolutely playing better right now. The just beat Brazil Monday. And will probably move to 3rd in the fifa rankings. They will definitely be a seed in Germany. And if the US plays England with both sides at full strength, I think England wins. But if it's 10 games, England wont win every time. 20 years ago they would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bofluid Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 There is absolutely no shame in losing to Mexico at Azteca Stadium. That place has to rank as one of, if not the, toughest places in the World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 Mexico has lost exactly ONCE at Azteca. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted June 22, 2005 Share Posted June 22, 2005 Originally posted by Destino Don't make too much of this Kilmer. Italy is known for producing major soccer talent and some days just aren't good ones. Even Brazil has bad games (they win but not as well). Maybe because Brazil has NO talent whatsoever. :doh: Brazil could field two world cup qualifying teams if they were allowed. I dissagree with your statement. Brazil actually has too much talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 22, 2005 Author Share Posted June 22, 2005 Originally posted by sonsofwashington Maybe because Brazil has NO talent whatsoever. :doh: Brazil could field two world cup qualifying teams if they were allowed. I dissagree with your statement. Brazil actually has too much talent. Im confused, what part do you disagree with? Brazil is the best in the world. By far. I dont think anyone is arguing anything different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.