Off-topic: USA - Mexico (spoiler)

If you don't know by now, then you probably don't care, but YES!

We played a conservative defensive game, took our counterattacks when they came, and won despite what might have been the cheapest tactics I have ever seen. Mexico's sportsmanship was appalling, and I commend the US team (especially Mastroeni and Jones) for refusing to take the bait and get ejected on a retaliation penalty. I would be furious with the ref for allowing all of that to go on, but he did us a real favor by blowing the call on the O'Brien handball.

Did I mention how fantastic our two goals were? Both were fantastic finishes set up by perfect passes. Kudos to Reyna-Wolff-McBride and Lewis-Donovan. And another great game from Friedel, who I spent the lead-up to the World Cup hoping would be benched in favor of Keller.

I can't wait for Friday.

Great win. Germany will be an incredible test, but winning a knock-out game finally makes the US a legitimate team. A far cry from 32nd from 4 years ago.

For people who follow the sport more than every four years: why are we *so* much better than the last World Cup? Arena?

They didn't show it on many of the replays, but I'm still in awe of Wolff's pass on the first goal. He was either very lucky or displaying a Gretzky-like awareness of where the open man is.

The poor sportsmanship of some of the Mexican players (apparently they skipped the postgame exchange of jerseys, although I saw a number of US players who'd already removed theirs) were unfortunate, but I was heartened to see a crowd shot after the game with two Mexican fans having a friendly conversation with two Americans. One of the Mexicans was saying (assuming I read his lips correctly) "Go all the way." Kind of like Cornell fans rooting for Clarkson in the NCAAs and vice-versa. Arriba CONCACAF!

We were already improving in the early days of Arena's tenure, when we beat Germany (granted, it was mostly their second-stringers, but still...) in the 1999 Confederations Cup in Mexico.

It is partly (mostly) Arena, but it is mostly that our players are now getting adequate training overseas. A number of our players play in the top European leagues (Germany and England, mostly, plus O'Brien at Ajax, a top international team in a very-good-but-not-great league).

Those who are still playing in MLS (Donovan, Beasley, Wolff - even Mastroeni) are mostly kids who are going to be playing in Europe very soon (unless they are afraid of homesickness). The World Cup has been a very good stage for them. I've never understood why McBride stayed in MLS - big fish/small pond, I guess. I wouldn't be surprised if Pope goes abroad also. He is a little older, but not old, and he has played very well.

The U.S. has also started a developmental program that is bad for college soccer, but good for national team development. The top players are scouted and brought together to prepare them for an international game, and the results include Donovan and Beasley, IIRC.

Check out [worldcup.espnsoccernet.com] for the affiliations of the top U.S. players.

As for McBride's goal, JTW, it was a little luck and a little Gretzky. He played into that space on purpose because he expected and hoped that McBride would be there, but he didn't KNOW that he was. That was such a spectacular one-touch that I was still smiling minutes later. I am STILL smiling about Lewis' cross to Donovan.

Hmm - I'm not sure about that logic, BRA. IIRC, more of our players are now US-born and trained than they used to be (e.g. Tom Dooley, who grew up in Germany but had no shot in heck of making the German machine). I think we just have significantly better talent than ever before, thanks to more (professional) opportunities and therefore more developmental leagues that seek to fill those opportunities. The fact that many of our top players now play in top foreign leagues is more of a testament to the strength of our domestic training programs which are now strong enough to place players into those leagues. The truth is probably out there somewhere - our leagues get players into the foreign leagues, where they get better training and have more success, which in turn strenthens US programs, etc. Let's hope this cycle continues!

Does anyone think that MLS has anything to do with the improvement?

(sound of crickets chirping)

Why is MLS so *bad*? I understand that US interest and sponsorship will probably never produce the equivalent of a Juventus or Manchester United, but can't the 600 pound gorilla at least produce a dozen Serie B Italy teams?

I don't think MLS is actually that bad. I've heard people who've watched more European soccer than I have say that MLS is roughly on par with the English First Division, which isn't so bad considering it's only been around for, what, eight years now?

And MLS will stay like the English First Division until there is enough interest in this country to fill stadiums and get the game on TV. Once that happens they will be able to pay salaries on the world scale and keep our best talent at home. Until then, the best talent from the US will go to Europe, just like the best talent from S. America, Africa, etc.

The best MLS teams would probably be in relegation battles for the Premiership every year. The worst would probably be stranded in the second division and trying to stave off relegation to the third.

As for my logic, Robb, I think you could reasonaly read my post in the way you did, but it isn't what I meant. Yes, improved developmental programs are making our players better and therefore interesting to top-flight Euro squads. I mentioned this in my post. The improvement in international competition, however, comes from the fact that our best young players are taking the opportunties to go to Europe and refine their skills against the best competition. (You said some of this as well.)

It also doesn't hurt that the U.S. plays an aggressive schedule of friendlies and tournaments against good competition, so our lines play together more often than most top European teams. (The top European leagues can be real ballbreakers about releasing players to play in friendlies. Yes, our Euro players have to jump through the same hoops, but our guys seem to be willing to fight their clubs more to play for the U.S. in non-WC games.)

What is the ranking of the leagues?

(a) Italian
(b) French
(c) Spanish
(d) English
(e) German
(f) US
(g) other

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say:

Italian
English
Spanish
German
Argentinian
Brazilian
French
Dutch
Then maybe MLS

With the first four roughly even, then the second four roughly even

Argentina's usually able to field a good international team, but their national league never struck me as particularly noteworthy. I'd probably have Brazil higher than them at the least. But again, it's kinda like trying to rank college hockey conferences. There are some top-notch teams in otherwise mediocre leagues (like the aforementioned Ajax) and some really top-notch teams in leagues that are perceived to be really good (like Real Madrid and FC Barcelona in the Spanish League). I'd venture to say that the Spanish League on a whole isn't as good as people think. Italian Seria A and English Premiere League are a step above the others on overall talent, and it's usually a coin toss between them on any given year, with Seria A having the historical edge. Do the French play soccer?

Hard to tell. All of the people who play professionally in France are Senegalese.

Yeah, they also probably arranged the rules so that both teams lose every game, since that's what the French are so accustomed to.

As they say in Pisa...
Forza Senegal!