OT: Danmark!!!!

[chiefhogskin48]

Bulldog, you may be discounting the chances of the 4 teams you mentioned at the end of your post. Sout Korea has been one of the more impressive teams in the tourney if only because of their amazing fitness level and ability to use their speed and quickness to pressure opponents. Italy may well be more talented, but all things considered the South Koreans are playing better a bit better right now with a nation behind them.

As for Italy and the United States, one of those teams will face Germany and I believe that either team is capable of beating the German squad. The US loss to Poland is not as pathetic as one might think- people seem to forget that Poland did not just sneak in the WC, but rather dominated their qualifying bracket. Their early performance in the WC was surprisingly poor and does not reflect the true quality of their team (the same goes for France, Argentina, and Portugal).

And of course Mexico, Korea, and Japan swept rather impressively through their groups, so I dont think they are sighing relief as you say. If I had to rank the chances of these 4 teams, it would be

#4- Japan

#3- USA

#2- Mexico

#1- S. Korea

Do I expect any of these teams to make the fianls? Nope. But I dont think they'll all go out like chumps, either. Any one of those teams could make some noise in a collection of teams in which not a single one, save Brazil, has looked the least bit dominant.

It should be exciting, and I will be up tonight watching USA (hopefully) have an historic victory. But even if we dont win, I will remain completely satisfied that they at least provided us the opportunity to watch my countrymen compete in a 4th game (so long as we dont get dominated, of course)

[bulldog]

as I said, there may be another upset in the making in the round of 16, but I don't expect to see any these teams in the Final.

we all need to look back and see what kind of talent and experience is usually required to win a World Cup.

teams that have won before on home ground such as England and Argentina have long soccer histories and storied teams.

while the homecrowds have pushed the Koreans and Japanese so far, I don't think either bracket really paired them against top teams in the tournament.

the star-crossed Portuguese couldn't seem to do anything right in this World Cup, Poland and the US are not among the elite teams.

in Japan's draw, Tunisia was not expected to advance. Russia is not a soccer power either and played the tournament without it's best player. Belgium is an older, slower team that Japan was able to exploit with its speed.

from here on out, most of the teams have both athleticism and international match experience.

Brazil, Germany, Italy, etc. are sides more than capable of coming into a hostile venue and winning.

that is what sets them apart from the 'hopefuls' like the US and say Senegal.

Don't get me wrong. I am rooting for the US to advance over Mexico, but even in that game I think the odds are a little on the long side.

Hopefully the team will bounce back from the Poland debacle and play disciplined and inspired ball.

Either way this tournament has been the coming out party for Donovan, Beasley and the future of US soccer.

This younger generation of players is much more talented than the ones that have come in the past.

And that bodes well for the future.

Already Spanish and Italian league teams are looking at Beasley, only 19.

[chiefhogskin48]

Yep, we need more Donovans and Beasleys, and less Agoos', Cobi Jones', and Alexei Lalas'. What US soccer has learned is that you can be athletic AND skilled- they are not mutually exclusive qualities. Even in my youth soccer coaching (and playing) experience, the more athletic players are often brandished with the tag of being reckless, selfish, or unskilled. They are almost always put at forward, where they are usually sent on breakaways, rather than midfield where they can fully develop their skills. I think this is slowly changing now that there is a more adaquately developed Olympic Development program, as well as extremely competitive travel leagues (and of course collegiate soccer and the MLS). Bobby Convey is an example of the new advantage talented young players enjoy. At the age of 16 he was already on an MLS roster, and now, before the age of 20, he is a possible national team starter for 2006.

As mediocre as the MLS seems, it is an invaluable farm system for young US talent who want to make a living playing soccer, but don't have the pedigree for European leagues. And when stars are made in the MLS, losing them to European leagues is actually a GOOD thing, not only because of the transfer fees offered by European clubs but on account of the superior experience they will receive abroad. It's done wonders for O'Brien, Sanneh, and even Hejduk.

[bulldog]

MLS serves an important role that you described in allowing younger American players that first opportunity to shine. My concern is that because the biggest stars don't play in MLS in the US the league will never be successful in economic terms.

the NHL is unique in that while only a percentage of the top hockey players are American, US audiences get to watch the best Canadian and European players every night on their home clubs.

that has kept the sport alive in the US in between Olympic Games and energized a generation of youth since the 1970's that have raised the level of skill of the American teams.