2011 CONCACAF Gold Cup Thread

[Elessar78]

Our players suck because they are not given any opportunity to be good. Hey lets kick the ball up the field and run past them' date=' hope for a free kick, and then score off the set play! That hardly worked in the first place, and it definitely doesnt work now. Bradley has failed in multiple levels of coaching:[/quote']

Not given the opportunity? You have to be kidding me. THEY ARE NOT GOOD. Do you think Bradley coaches them to kick it up the field? Have you seen a USMNT practice in any amount? In "camp" before this tourney they spent a huge amount of time with basic ideas to learn to play like Barcelona. If you think that's ludicrous that has to be pointed out to a national team that was in the WC quarter finals—IT IS.

1. Fails to put the correct players on the field multiple times

The next guy is just as inadequate as the first guy, just in a different way. There's no Zidane clone sitting on our bench.

2. Fails to incorporate any halftime adjustments ever unless we are down by atleast 2 goals

If you're down by one goal then, as a coach, you have to analyze the play and why that goal was conceded. Why change your style if you're down by one and you believe the style you came in, practiced all week was your best approach.

3. Failed to develop any central midfield combination that did not include his own son

Michael Bradley is a good central midfielder, regardless of his last name. You can accuse BB of nepotism but the fact is, his kid can play.

4. Failed to develop any sense of offense that requires more than 2 passes

Again, it goes back to our player's (lack of) abilities. They CAN'T receive the ball properly. They CAN'T play in tight situations. They DON'T move enough for each other. These are basic fundamental things that soccer players are learning at age 9.

6. Failed to give any playing time to players who have any sense of creativity. In fact, he has punished those who have

Creativity is overrated in the modern game. Brazil, the country who basically invented creativity in the game, is trying to go away from it.

7. 4-4-2 ...... is just a string of numbers. Don't put so much into formation. 4-4-2 is now an archaic formation put in play for the 1966 World Cup by England.

8. Determined that the best time to give young players (that have any talent) experience and playing time is when everyone in front of them is injured.

Again, who cares if we win or lose the damn Gold Cup. Any time to give young talent experience is a good one so they can be evaluated for the next WC.

[Skin'emAlive]

Elessar, im confused. Are you implying that no matter what we do, we can get no better? Are you saying the Bob Bradley deserves no blame? I completely disagree.

1. You are right. We dont have the next zidane on our bench. But that doesnt mean we havent had guys that were more than capable sitting on the bench who were only exposed when everyone in front of them was injured. (Charlie Davies). Players like Sacha are bums. He will always be a bum. No amount of playing time will change that. He shouldnt be on the team. Bradley makes this possible.

2. Many of our goals happen within the first few minutes. This falls on the coach. When have you witnessed bradley analyzing the opposing team IN-GAME and produce a new game plan that works? The team got where they got in the WC in spite of him.

3. Michael isnt that good. Hes just ok. Currently he is our best central midfielder. But he is just ok.

4. You are right... The players that are out on the pitch do not have the abilities to do any of that. Maybe he should players who can out there. Not Sacha. Not Clark. Not Casey. etc.

6. Brazil has how many more cup wins that us? We cant say anything. (also, Dunga was fired because he got away from that style of play during the world cup).

8. Its about giving the right kids the experience. Even then, with Bradly at the helm, we dont have a chance anyway.

[Kilmer17]

If the coach doesnt matter because the players suck, then he doesnt matter and it's no big deal to fire him.

I hate Bob more than I have hated any Redskin coach (think about how bad that is).

Here is why.

He starts every lineup with this assumption- OK, my son plays the attacking midfield position.......

From there, we get stuck making sure that we have 5 guys who play behind him because Mikey is a defensive liability. And over the past 4 years, Bob has been unwilling to even look at what other midfield combonations might be better, because his son gets to start. Just like every other rec league ******* coach.

We may or may not have talent. But under Bob (and by all means extend this to the very top of USSOCCER) we never get to see anyone get a chance.

So while Mikey may be a good player, we MIGHT have better combonations, but will NEVER get to see them.

Our first sub was Sacha Klestjan? STILL?!?!?!?!?!?!? How many times does he see the pitch before Bob sees what the rest of us see?

I would love to root for Guadeloupe tomorrow night. Because there is no way Bob could keep his job if the team doesnt make it out of the group. But my guess is well whip up on them, then advance to at least the semis giving Sunil and the rest of the corrupt aholes running USSOCCER enough of a reason to keep him.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

1. Fails to put the correct players on the field multiple times

The next guy is just as inadequate as the first guy, just in a different way. There's no Zidane clone sitting on our bench.

4. Failed to develop any sense of offense that requires more than 2 passes

Again, it goes back to our player's (lack of) abilities. They CAN'T receive the ball properly. They CAN'T play in tight situations. They DON'T move enough for each other. These are basic fundamental things that soccer players are learning at age 9.

6. Failed to give any playing time to players who have any sense of creativity. In fact, he has punished those who have

Creativity is overrated in the modern game. Brazil, the country who basically invented creativity in the game, is trying to go away from it.

7. 4-4-2 ...... is just a string of numbers. Don't put so much into formation. 4-4-2 is now an archaic formation put in play for the 1966 World Cup by England.

Sorry for cropping your post, but I wanted to address the above points.

1. Regardless of the talent level behind your first team, if the first eleven are repeatedly underperforming, changes should be made. NOBODY should have a guaranteed place in the starting line-up. Regardless of if your names Messi or Klestjan, if your not performing and putting it in, you don't deserve a place in the team. To excuse a coach from doing this because the overall talent level isn't that great is just that, an excuse. And it's an even worse one at International level when your pool of players covers the whole God darn Country.

4. If the players in the US National side, the same ones that keep getting picked squad in, squad out, are so lacking in those basic fundamentals; then that falls on Bradley and his staff two fold; and the USSF in the bigger picture. If Bradly keeps picking the same flawed players for National duty, the question first has to be asked "why?". And then you have to ask serious questions of just what they do in training. If he and his coaches aren't improving the players, let alone making sure they have the basic fundamentals down, then just WHAT are they doing out there? If you can't teach, don't coach.

And in the bigger picture, if this is a symptom of the average US soccer player as a whole, then the whole structure needs looking at from the grass roots on up. Something's sorely lacking in the development and coaching of these guys if it's as widespread and poor as you say.

6. No disrespect, but that's just about the most asinine comment I've read in a long time on here or anywhere else.

"Creativity is overrated in the modern game." Do you like your soccer dour and defensive? Making sure you play not to lose rather than play to win? Does the long ball game work for you over pass and move? Because that's what your comment suggests. In the modern era, when more and more teams are going that way, sacrificing forwards and packing the midfield and defense, a creative playmaker is worth his weight in gold.

As for Brazil getting away from creativity ..... it cost Dunga his job, and it will doubtless cost the current manager his too if he continues in the same vein. The outcry against the Brazilian National sides style in Brazil the past few years has been deafening. A real shame to see such high quality, creative players sacrificed at the expense of workhorse yard dogs who'll run and defend all day. I know which style I'd rather watch.

7. 4-4-2 is not an archaic tactic. If played right, using width to get behind, it's effective against most systems. That's the problem with modern day coaches, They want to be too clever and over complicate what basically is one of the simplest games around.

And not to be pernickerty, but England didn't play a conventional 4-4-2 in '66. It was more a diamond in midfield, with little to no width. a 4-1-2-1-2 if you like, with Styles holding, Peters and Ball doing the leg work, and Charlton supporting Hurst and Sir Roger up front That's what got them the nickname "The Wingless Wonders." Totally innovative in it's day as the accepted norm was for 2 outside and 2 inside forwards pushed right up. Being so narrow and playing through the middle with an attacking midfielder coming through was pretty unheralded at the time.

Hail.

[Skinz4Life12]

Sigh. I'd say I'm glad I was watching the DCU game for the first 3/4 of the USA game, except that game was no better. That was our first ever loss in Gold Cup group play.

i'm still pissed about the DCU game. Hamid didn't have his best game IMO

[renaissance]

i'm still pissed about the DCU game. Hamid didn't have his best game IMO

Did you go to the game? You could have gotten an Andy Najar bobblehead for your girl! haha

[Elessar78]

6. No disrespect, but that's just about the most asinine comment I've read in a long time on here or anywhere else.

"Creativity is overrated in the modern game." Do you like your soccer dour and defensive? Making sure you play not to lose rather than play to win? Does the long ball game work for you over pass and move? Because that's what your comment suggests. In the modern era, when more and more teams are going that way, sacrificing forwards and packing the midfield and defense, a creative playmaker is worth his weight in gold.

Describe creativity in the modern game? Messi dribbling through 5 defenders? That's a lot of speed, close control, ability to cut on a dime, and courage. There's nothing particularly creative about it but it's high level skill. Cristiano Ronaldo doing step overs? He doesn't do that as much anymore, why? Plus it's such a small part of what makes him a great player. Barcelona's passing? It looks improvised ("creative") but it's really not—it's the product of working in the same system since they were 12/13/14 year olds. There's very little that's improvised in their passing, it's rote... it's a repeated movement they've been doing for a decade. Fabregas' sublime passing. Is that creative or is he just thinking faster and can execute passes better than anyone else?

No. It's not dour or boring soccer, but "Creativity" is such a buzz word but in reality the last purely creative team was Brazil teams of the 60s and 70s. Once you get a functionally solid team THEN we can worry about a lack of "creativity" if it does really exist. Germany, Italy, Sweden, Korea, Japan, France, Spain, Portugal, etc. are solid teams that rely on skills, organization, discipline, to win.

Pass and move isn't creativity. That's the basis of soccer. It's like praising an artist because he can draw really well. Well, ALL artists should be able to draw well. That's the minimum standard. The fact that the US can't pass and move and we want to talk about lack of creativity as the down fall??

---------- Post added June-13th-2011 at 11:28 AM ----------

Elessar' date=' im confused. Are you implying that no matter what we do, we can get no better? Are you saying the Bob Bradley deserves no blame? I completely disagree.

1. You are right. We dont have the next zidane on our bench. But that doesnt mean we havent had guys that were more than capable sitting on the bench who were only exposed when everyone in front of them was injured. (Charlie Davies). Players like Sacha are bums. He will always be a bum. No amount of playing time will change that. He shouldnt be on the team. Bradley makes this possible.

2. Many of our goals happen within the first few minutes. This falls on the coach. When have you witnessed bradley analyzing the opposing team IN-GAME and produce a new game plan that works? The team got where they got in the WC in spite of him.

3. Michael isnt that good. Hes just ok. Currently he is our best central midfielder. But he is just ok.

4. You are right... The players that are out on the pitch do not have the abilities to do any of that. Maybe he should players who can out there. Not Sacha. Not Clark. Not Casey. etc.

6. Brazil has how many more cup wins that us? We cant say anything. (also, Dunga was fired because he got away from that style of play during the world cup).

8. Its about giving the right kids the experience. Even then, with Bradly at the helm, we dont have a chance anyway.[/quote']

Charlie Davies is a bum too. A lot of 'em are bums.

If all our goals happen in the first few minutes, how is that solely the coach's fault? Can't the players take responsibility for anything anymore? Soccer isn't like other sports, it's a player's game. The preparation is done when the players take the field, if they can't prevent lowly Panama from scoring in the first few minutes then what hope is there?

Do we REALLY need to tell our pros not to let the other team score early? What's the coach supposed to say? Let's pack it in EARLY against Panama??

Look you can keep going down the roster looking for talent, but the rest are just bad in a different way. We're not Brazil, Netherlands, or Argentina where we have a deep stable of talent. If Sacha or whoever is not good enough then the next guy is most likely not going to be any better. ME, I don't need to see it on the field to know that's the case.

Dunga got fired because he underachieved. He lost to eventual finalist, and workmanlike, Holland. Unlike the US places like Brazil and Germany know when something isn't working anymore. The game has evolved Brazil knows this and is willing to change. Germany at the turn of the century realized they weren't producing the players they needed for the national team, so they overhauled the system from the bottom.

This isn't football where you can take a 21 year old and make him better. The process starts when they are ten years old in soccer. At 21 you're just supposed to be refining the player, but instead our national team still needs lessons in pass and move?? And the problem is that there are undiscovered players on our bench?

To me the only relevant measure is how you perform in the World Cup. Everything else is just a warm up. Despite/Because of Bradley we won our group. Had we won our group games more convincingly we would've still been in the same position come the knock out stage. WITH LUCK, we could've gone another stage maybe two but I don't pin luck and bad calls on the coach.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Incisive passing isn't creative play? Fast paced, attacking football isn't creative play? A player going past another at speed with ball, committing defenders and opening the space up isn't creative play?

Honestly, I don't understand what your idea of creativity is. A fast paced, pass and move attacking style isn't apparently 'creative.' Individual's taking on players or playing cutting through balls aren't apparently 'creative.' Please, enlighten me as to just what does constitute 'creative' play in soccer.

And your being more than a tad disingenuous to some great teams to say creativity started and ended with the Brazilain National sides of the 60's and 70's. On the National scene alone off hand I can think of the the Dutch side of the 70's, and their '88 version; the French team of the '80's with just about the best midfield quartet ever assembled in the same National side alongside Brazil of 1970; and a fantastically gifted, creative Danish team of the early to mid eighties. And that's just off the top of my head without even thinking about it. Let alone some outstandingly talented, creative club sides full of flair like Sacchi's Milan of the three great Dutchmen when he revolutionised Italian football by opening it up and attacking; probably the finest club side England's ever had, Liverpool's '88 version; some of the great Ajax sides and non less the current European Champions Barcelona. And that's before you've even started.

Seriously, if you don't consider the football those sides played creative, attacking football; I don't know what you would consider such.

Hail.

[Elessar78]

7. 4-4-2 is not an archaic tactic. If played right, using width to get behind, it's effective against most systems. That's the problem with modern day coaches, They want to be too clever and over complicate what basically is one of the simplest games around.

And not to be pernickerty, but England didn't play a conventional 4-4-2 in '66. It was more a diamond in midfield, with little to no width. a 4-1-2-1-2 if you like, with Styles holding, Peters and Ball doing the leg work, and Charlton supporting Hurst and Sir Roger up front That's what got them the nickname "The Wingless Wonders." Totally innovative in it's day as the accepted norm was for 2 outside and 2 inside forwards pushed right up. Being so narrow and playing through the middle with an attacking midfielder coming through was pretty unheralded at the time.

4-4-2 system of England

The English acknowledged the coming of the libero, but coined their own term for the position. They called the player the sweeper, the man who moved about at the back of the defense, cleaning up the errors of his teammates. Wingers were an endangered species and what looked like their burial took place in 1966, when England won the World Cup using a formation that included no wingers at all. It was dubbed the "penguin" formation. Wingless! Sir Alf Ramsay, England manager, said he had experimented with wingers, but found none to his liking.

An increasing emphasis on not conceding goals led to the packing of numbers in midfield. Just as the 4-2-4 formation had lost a forward to midfield and became the 4-3-3, the process continued and the 4-3-3 became the 4-4-2. England’s World Cup-winning side included a novelty in midfield — the evolution of the screen man. Nobby Stiles fulfilled this function as a defensively-oriented player detailed to mark or act as a sweeper between the back four and midfield.

http://www.nscaa.com/subpages/2006033115392999.php

I don't agree that it's a simple game at all. It's amazingly complex. People say that QB is a complex position. Well every player with the ball in soccer becomes a QB and without it a receiver. He's got to know everything on the fly and action is going on 360 degrees, not just in front of him. No one stops to set for him before each action. Plus it must be done in an oxygen deprived state—no one gets breaks while the defense plays.

As far as formations, it's not too clever. The current game demands 4-3-3. Spain/Barca, Man Utd, Chelsea, etc. or you can walk the wingers back a few yards and you have a 4-5-1. The formations just reflects the attributes the players you have and the needs of the modern game.

IMO, formation is overrated anyway but more so when it's used as a reason for lack of results. You can't blame formation when you play Panama.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Dunga got fired because he underachieved. He lost to eventual finalist, and workmanlike, Holland. Unlike the US places like Brazil and Germany know when something isn't working anymore. The game has evolved Brazil knows this and is willing to change.

Dunga would of been fired even if Brazil had won the last World Cup, such was the feeling in the whole Country toward him.

One of the most disliked Brazilian teams of all time? Parreira's '94 vintage. And they WON the World Cup in the US. But they did it in an ultra defensive manner totally foreign to the Brazilian game.

When it comes to the Brazilian National team, winnings not enough. You have to win in style. A 'creative' style that's in the Brazilian soul. Go figure.

---------- Post added June-13th-2011 at 10:46 AM ----------

4-4-2 system of England

The English acknowledged the coming of the libero, but coined their own term for the position. They called the player the sweeper, the man who moved about at the back of the defense, cleaning up the errors of his teammates. Wingers were an endangered species and what looked like their burial took place in 1966, when England won the World Cup using a formation that included no wingers at all. It was dubbed the "penguin" formation. Wingless! Sir Alf Ramsay, England manager, said he had experimented with wingers, but found none to his liking.

An increasing emphasis on not conceding goals led to the packing of numbers in midfield. Just as the 4-2-4 formation had lost a forward to midfield and became the 4-3-3, the process continued and the 4-3-3 became the 4-4-2. England’s World Cup-winning side included a novelty in midfield — the evolution of the screen man. Nobby Stiles fulfilled this function as a defensively-oriented player detailed to mark or act as a sweeper between the back four and midfield.

http://www.nscaa.com/subpages/2006033115392999.php

Didn't I just detail all that and more in the part of the post you quoted about the '66 side? Shrugs, thanks for adding I guess.

---------- Post added June-13th-2011 at 10:56 AM ----------

I don't agree that it's a simple game at all. It's amazingly complex. People say that QB is a complex position. Well every player with the ball in soccer becomes a QB and without it a receiver. He's got to know everything on the fly and action is going on 360 degrees, not just in front of him. No one stops to set for him before each action. Plus it must be done in an oxygen deprived state—no one gets breaks while the defense plays.

As far as formations, it's not too clever. The current game demands 4-3-3. Spain/Barca, Man Utd, Chelsea, etc. or you can walk the wingers back a few yards and you have a 4-5-1. The formations just reflects the attributes the players you have and the needs of the modern game.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on soccer being a simple game complicated by men who should know better. And often take the fun out of the game by overcomplicating it so.

The current game doesn't "demand" 4-3-3, or 4-5-1/ 4-2-3-1. Those formations might be in vogue in the main, but that's not to say an attacking 3-5-2 with the wing backs pushed on, or a traditional 4-4-2 wouldn't be equally as effective with the right personnel played in the right manner.

Nothings changed in soccer. It's a simple game based on the giving and receiving of passes, controlling the ball and making the space and yourself available to a teammate for the next pass. Too many modern coaches try to over complicate it and it's lead, in the main, to a pretty poor standard of entertainment across the board in the game of today.

Tactics naturally need to play a part, but not to the point in a lot of modern cases were players aren't allowed to just go out and play.

Hail.

[Skin'emAlive]

Elessar,

A huge underlying factor in our inability to find talent is the system. I dont need to go into the ins and outs of how the system is a complete failure. Im only talking about the problem at hand which can be rectified. That is the empty suit that is Bob Bradley. Did he really achieve that much at the cup? We were in possibly the most fortunate group of the tournament. We are winning in spite of him. His piss poor tactics are only usurped by his awful substitution packages. Obviously you are blind to it all, so there is nothing more to say. But i will not accept that we do not have the talent to compete with the likes of Panama!

[Skinz4Life12]

Did you go to the game? You could have gotten an Andy Najar bobblehead for your girl! haha

No I wish. I was out celebrating a birthday but was watching the game at the bar. She wanted one of those bobbleheads too!! I was so pumped when he scored too..

[Elessar78]

It's not disingenuous. High level soccer is an intensely choreographed and extensively rehearsed set of movements by a group of people. It's amazing to watch, just like Cirque Du Soleil is amazing to watch but the acrobats are just executing predetermined movements. Maybe the choreography is creative because it came out of nothing, but executing at a high technical ability isn't creative, IMO. Again, it's spectacular skill and I appreciate the skill of dribbling past defenders but it's no more creative than a QB throwing a 5 yard slant.

Also, I'm not saying that this "creativity" doesn't exist but that it's overrated. Many fans think that it's the key to why their team is not winning BUT the fact is on many winning teams creativity takes a back seat to solid, sound, fundamental play. it's really not right to use "lack of creativity" as a reason we don't beat Panama.

[gbear]

The creativity is often off the ball predictability of movements. When the ball goes down the wing, from where does the support come and what lanes does it open? Is it an overlap down the side line? Is the support running vertically up the field like a train track to the goal (works mainly with speed)? Is the one running towards the goal the forward or the halfback whose defender may not expect a break. Does the defender cover the breaking midfielder as the deepest threat or stick with his original mark? The decisions made on the fly with a lack of predictability determine to my eyes whether I consider the attack at all creative. I know the attacks which gave my last team the most trouble were the mid attacked the net, and the forward hung out around the 18. At 6'4", I was tasked with contesting anything in the air, but when our mids didn't get to the forwards, we gave up some 18 yard scoring opportunities.

It comes down to the ability of all the players to play all the positions around their position. The Dutch and the Brazillians have typified this approach over the years.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

It's not disingenuous. High level soccer is an intensely choreographed and extensively rehearsed set of movements by a group of people. It's amazing to watch, just like Cirque Du Soleil is amazing to watch but the acrobats are just executing predetermined movements. Maybe the choreography is creative because it came out of nothing, but executing at a high technical ability isn't creative, IMO. Again, it's spectacular skill and I appreciate the skill of dribbling past defenders but it's no more creative than a QB throwing a 5 yard slant.

Also, I'm not saying that this "creativity" doesn't exist but that it's overrated. Many fans think that it's the key to why their team is not winning BUT the fact is on many winning teams creativity takes a back seat to solid, sound, fundamental play. it's really not right to use "lack of creativity" as a reason we don't beat Panama.

How exactly do you "choreograph" a soccer game? You can set out a pattern of plan, and be disciplined within that. But there's no knowing how a game will evolve once the play gets underway. I honestly don't understand the point your trying to make there. I guess you could say set pieces are choregraphed to a certain extent, but open play has so many variables as to what could happen at any given second that it's the furthest thing from being choregraphed possible.

I'm still at a loss as to what you consider "creative" play in soccer. Everything that is you've dismissed as everything but. I honestly can't fathom what would excite you out on the park. And no question the games gone, in the main, totally results orientated at the expense of free flowing, expansive expression. But is that what you really want to see as a fan? Rigid robots in a rigid system, making sure you don't concede first and hope to nick one up the other end? I know I don't, and I know most players don't like to play that way. I want to be entertained when I pay to see a soccer game. And I want to have fun as a player when I'm playing. Not be handicapped by a coach fearing for his job and boring the living piss out of people to get the all important result. Often in a tedious manner. I'd rather go down fighting knowing my team had given it their all, than settle for a draw in a dour, defensive battle. You don't attack, you don't score goals. It's not rocket science.

The modern attitude is what has turned so many traditional fans away from the game. A game that was at one time the bastion of the working class. A release at the end of a hard weeks work to lose yourself for an hour and a half in your towns team. Not pay hard earned money to be sat there bored rigid by a lot of today's coaches who are too clever for their own good on what is still ostensibly a simple game.

Hail.

[Kilmer17]

I'd like everyone in the soccer watching world to pay attention to something tonight.

The referee is Marlon Mejia from El Salvador. And if the US loses tonight, El Salvador will advance.

It's amazing to me that the US continues to allow this kind of crap from CONCACAF.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

The referee of the US game is from El Salvador with El Salvador waiting to go through at the USA's expense?

How in the heck has there been no official concern raised from the USSF? That's absolutely ridiculous if that's allowed to happen and open to all sorts of collusion.

Hail.

[renaissance]

Group B final standings:

1. Jamaica (advances to quarterfinals)

2. Honduras (advances to quarterfinals)

3. Guatemala (advances to quarterfinals)

4. Grenada (eliminated)

Group C wraps up tonight.

Panama has already advanced to the quarterfinals.

USA wins or ties and they are in.

Canada wins and they are in.

[Kilmer17]

The referee of the US game is from El Salvador with El Salvador waiting to go through at the USA's expense?

How in the heck has there been no official concern raised from the USSF? That's absolutely ridiculous if that's allowed to happen and open to all sorts of collusion.

Hail.

Concacaf at it's finest. The USSF is getting paid handsomely for putting on this tournament. So they wont rock the boat.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Concacaf at it's finest. The USSF is getting paid handsomely for putting on this tournament. So they wont rock the boat.

Honestly man, that's a disgraceful situation. There should be something in place that if a scenario like this comes up, the officiating team can be changed. If you lose tonight, even if the official has been 100% honest in his decisions; the potential for allegations of cheating is unlimited.

Seriously, soccer's governing bodies, starting from the very top of the World game and the absolute clowns at FIFA aren't worth a damn. Rather than being in it for the integrity and best interests of the game; their in it for themselves and the money they can make out of it.

Modern day soccer is so far removed from the game I grew up with it's untrue. And most of the changes haven't been for the better either.

Hail.

[Kilmer17]

Soccer has the most corrupt organizations in the world. Look no further than the announcement this winter that Qatar gets the 2022 WC, followed by bribery scandals (duh) that get swept under the rug by the people running it.

CONCACAF currently has two presidents. One who was removed by FIFA for corruption, but refuses to actually admit he is no longer in charge, and the second who is actually a REPLACEMTN for the first second one, because THAT GUY was removed for corruption. Add to that, CONCACAF is run as a democracy, which means every one of the tiny little Carribean Islands (23 of them) have the exact same voting strength as the US and MEX.

Ever wonder why Jack Warner (the first Pres who refuses to leave) from Trinidad and Tobago wins every election? BEcause the Islands vote en blocke. Then (SHOCKINGLY) TnT always seems to end up with the easiest draws in compettitions. Hmmmmmmm.

The US at some point should tell CONCACAF and FIFA to **** off. Start their own quadrennial soccer tournament and invite the worlds best 32 teams.

[RichmondRedskin88]

Soccer has the most corrupt organizations in the world. Look no further than the announcement this winter that Qatar gets the 2022 WC, followed by bribery scandals (duh) that get swept under the rug by the people running it.

CONCACAF currently has two presidents. One who was removed by FIFA for corruption, but refuses to actually admit he is no longer in charge, and the second who is actually a REPLACEMTN for the first second one, because THAT GUY was removed for corruption. Add to that, CONCACAF is run as a democracy, which means every one of the tiny little Carribean Islands (23 of them) have the exact same voting strength as the US and MEX.

Ever wonder why Jack Warner (the first Pres who refuses to leave) from Trinidad and Tobago wins every election? BEcause the Islands vote en blocke. Then (SHOCKINGLY) TnT always seems to end up with the easiest draws in compettitions. Hmmmmmmm.

The US at some point should tell CONCACAF and FIFA to **** off. Start their own quadrennial soccer tournament and invite the worlds best 32 teams.

Works for me but what will the new video game be called? International Federation Football/Soccer '12?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

If the US and Mexico, and I'll throw Jamaica, T&T IF they TOTALLY remove Warner finally and the Canuck's in there too; are getting held back by 23 little Island Nations; it's WAY past time you all clubbed together and petitioned for some restructuring. Let the Caribbean and smaller Central American Country's have their own federation.

And if the others won't stand by you, heck, start lobbying the South American Country's to put pressure on FIFA to let the US join that confederation. Heck, you've already started getting invites to the South American Championships. It's not that far a leap. And the better standard of opposition would only serve to increase the quality in the US game.

Easier said than done in the political climate of modern day soccer, but change is LONG overdue for you guys.

Hail.

[Kilmer17]

Apparently, Mexico has already begun talks with COMNEBOL about switching. If that happens, the US will quickly follow.

Although, if we cant beat Panama at home, I dont know how we'd expect to beat any SA team away.

[r3dsk1ns4L1fe]

Oh boy this is a tough one. My parents are from El Salvador so of course I'm going to cheer them on, the only time I go cheer against the U.S. is when they play the motherland. Anyways we're counting on Canada to either lose to Panama or win by no more than a goal/tie (we're up on goal differential and hold the tiebreaker) more so than the U.S. losing to Guadeloupe to advance. I don't agree with a Salvadoran ref officiating the U.S. game because I also want them to advance but if they play like they are capable of this should have no effect on the outcome.