Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
USMNT
- Thread starter SerenityNigh
- Start date
- Status
Garrick
Awesome, lid.
Question for the Americans
Why the three stars?
Have I missed you winning the World Cup 3 times?
No idea, honestly.
The women's crest adds the stars on top.
Pagan_83
Player Valuation: £1m
Well imagine how many stars you'd have for global conflicts you'd won? Think outside the box Ijjy.
ijjysmith
Calm
Would look daft though.
Pagan_83
Player Valuation: £1m
Found this one Yahoo Answers:
because its 3 strikes and their out the world cup
No its because.
The three stars represent the three branches of the organization (Youth, Adult, Pro ... before the recognition of the fourth branch: Athletes)
it was launched in 1995 in conjunction with Nike coming on board.......
because its 3 strikes and their out the world cup
No its because.
The three stars represent the three branches of the organization (Youth, Adult, Pro ... before the recognition of the fourth branch: Athletes)
it was launched in 1995 in conjunction with Nike coming on board.......
zirc
Player Valuation: £40m
God that is the worst chant ever
this just went up on the AO Tucson page.
EvertonAmerican
Player Valuation: £950k
Okay, okay. Fine. You guys were pretty boss in the wars. Canada was too. Therefore we should all claim some stars and shove them in ze Germans faces.
EvertonAmerican
Player Valuation: £950k
It isn't great, but it beats the "You can't do that!" chants that have become a spreading problem amongst our Universities when an opponent commits a foul of some sort.
Prolonged possession a must for U.S.
DaMarcus Beasley says the U.S. gave Germany too much respect and can't do the same against Belgium.
One of the most common Sunday League rallying cries makes absolutely no sense to a first-time viewer of football. "Still nil-nil, lads" is the call, made immediately after a goal has been scored.
The concept is relatively simple. At some point, "still nil-nil" became a shortened form of saying "Despite the fact we've just scored, we shouldn't let that affect our game plan. We should continue with our starting approach, which resulted in us going ahead in the first place."
That's something of a mouthful, however, and so it's "still nil-nil." But only when it's not. If the score is 0-0, no one needs reminding that it's still 0-0.
Among Jurgen Klinsmann's various methods of preparing his U.S. side -- the rigorous scouting of opponents, the high-quality physical preparation and the effective use of different formations -- maybe he's neglected a vital part. When the United States go ahead, there's no one screaming to the players that it's "still nil-nil."
Jurgen Klinsmann's preparation for this World Cup has been impressive.
The U.S. games against Ghana and Portugal were highly eventful, with the "game state" changing every time a goal was scored. In the 2-1 win over Ghana, the U.S. went ahead, then Ghana drew level, then the Yanks were ahead again. Including the starting 0-0 scoreline (which didn't last long), there were four different game states. Similarly, the draw against Portugal saw five different game states -- 0-0, 0-1, 1-1, 2-1, 2-2 -- although the last goal was scored so late that there was barely any play at 2-2.
When the game state changes, the approach of both sides inevitably changes too. The Americans' problem, however, is that they have been too easily affected by this, especially when they've gone ahead.
An easy, if basic, way to measure this is by considering the possession statistics during the various changes in game state. For example, when the U.S. were leading 1-0 against Ghana for 81 minutes, they had just 38 percent of the possession. When Ghana equalised, the U.S. suddenly sprung into life, and in the buildup to John Brooks' famous header, they had 59 percent of the ball. But once the goal was scored, it immediately dropped back down to 28 percent. When needed, they could dominate the game, but they were too submissive when ahead and invited lots of pressure.
There was a similar situation in the Portugal game. At 0-0, the U.S. started with a respectable 40 percent of possession but quickly went behind and were forced to dominate. At 1-0 down, they had exactly 50 percent of the ball, and when spurred on by Jermaine Jones' thunderbolt, the U.S. recorded 52 percent of possession in the buildup to Clint Dempsey's goal. But then, at 2-1 up, they had just 21 percent of possession.
The pattern is obvious. The U.S. have proved capable of competing against, and dominating, very good sides. But whenever they go ahead, they become too passive. If you can outplay Ghana and Portugal, it seems silly to retreat into your shell merely because you're leading.
It's inevitable that teams dominate more when they require a goal, but not to this extent. The U.S. are perfectly capable of retaining possession to put themselves ahead, but they have yet to prove they can retain possession to ensure they remain ahead.
The point isn't that the U.S. should always attempt to dominate possession. At this World Cup, there has been little correlation between possession and results, so sitting back and defending deep is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
The problem is that the Yanks aren't particularly suited to this style of play. They defend extremely narrow in midfield and force the opposition out wide but then appear nervous when defending crosses.
That was particularly obvious against Portugal -- see Geoff Cameron's mistake for Nani's opener and the fact Cristiano Ronaldo crossed for Silvestre Varela's late equaliser. Against Germany, too, there was a big problem when Jerome Boateng received the ball out wide, with Thomas Muller allowed a golden chance in this respect and Omar Gonzalez producing a Cameron-esque slice when trying to clear.
Geoff Cameron and the U.S. defense have struggled to defend threats from wide areas.
Nor, in fact, are the U.S. suited to counterattacking. The ball carriers like Graham Zusi and Alejandro Bedoya have performed competently, but no more. Michael Bradley, who has excelled at club level over the past three years with his ability to convert defence into attack smoothly, has covered a lot of ground but contributed little in possession. Up front, the absence of Jozy Altidore means the U.S. don't really have an out-ball -- no one to hold it up, no one to sprint in behind. They're just not suited to being a reactive side. They're more suited to playing high up the pitch, passing the ball well and getting the full-backs forward.
When the U.S. play football, they have been excellent. When they purely defend, they are never entirely confident. In the group phase, they allowed the opposition 55 shots -- along with Ecuador, more than any other side in the competition. It seems strange when you consider how much quality the U.S. have shown and their ability to (in spells) outplay Ghana and Portugal quite comfortably.
They're capable of outplaying Belgium too, and considering Belgium's tendency to start matches slowly and depend on late strikes from substitutes, it wouldn't be surprising if the U.S. went ahead in their round of 16 clash on Tuesday in Salvador. If that happens, the call from the bench should be simple: Still nil-nil, lads!
DaMarcus Beasley says the U.S. gave Germany too much respect and can't do the same against Belgium.
One of the most common Sunday League rallying cries makes absolutely no sense to a first-time viewer of football. "Still nil-nil, lads" is the call, made immediately after a goal has been scored.
The concept is relatively simple. At some point, "still nil-nil" became a shortened form of saying "Despite the fact we've just scored, we shouldn't let that affect our game plan. We should continue with our starting approach, which resulted in us going ahead in the first place."
That's something of a mouthful, however, and so it's "still nil-nil." But only when it's not. If the score is 0-0, no one needs reminding that it's still 0-0.
Among Jurgen Klinsmann's various methods of preparing his U.S. side -- the rigorous scouting of opponents, the high-quality physical preparation and the effective use of different formations -- maybe he's neglected a vital part. When the United States go ahead, there's no one screaming to the players that it's "still nil-nil."
Jurgen Klinsmann's preparation for this World Cup has been impressive.
The U.S. games against Ghana and Portugal were highly eventful, with the "game state" changing every time a goal was scored. In the 2-1 win over Ghana, the U.S. went ahead, then Ghana drew level, then the Yanks were ahead again. Including the starting 0-0 scoreline (which didn't last long), there were four different game states. Similarly, the draw against Portugal saw five different game states -- 0-0, 0-1, 1-1, 2-1, 2-2 -- although the last goal was scored so late that there was barely any play at 2-2.
When the game state changes, the approach of both sides inevitably changes too. The Americans' problem, however, is that they have been too easily affected by this, especially when they've gone ahead.
An easy, if basic, way to measure this is by considering the possession statistics during the various changes in game state. For example, when the U.S. were leading 1-0 against Ghana for 81 minutes, they had just 38 percent of the possession. When Ghana equalised, the U.S. suddenly sprung into life, and in the buildup to John Brooks' famous header, they had 59 percent of the ball. But once the goal was scored, it immediately dropped back down to 28 percent. When needed, they could dominate the game, but they were too submissive when ahead and invited lots of pressure.
There was a similar situation in the Portugal game. At 0-0, the U.S. started with a respectable 40 percent of possession but quickly went behind and were forced to dominate. At 1-0 down, they had exactly 50 percent of the ball, and when spurred on by Jermaine Jones' thunderbolt, the U.S. recorded 52 percent of possession in the buildup to Clint Dempsey's goal. But then, at 2-1 up, they had just 21 percent of possession.
The pattern is obvious. The U.S. have proved capable of competing against, and dominating, very good sides. But whenever they go ahead, they become too passive. If you can outplay Ghana and Portugal, it seems silly to retreat into your shell merely because you're leading.
It's inevitable that teams dominate more when they require a goal, but not to this extent. The U.S. are perfectly capable of retaining possession to put themselves ahead, but they have yet to prove they can retain possession to ensure they remain ahead.
The point isn't that the U.S. should always attempt to dominate possession. At this World Cup, there has been little correlation between possession and results, so sitting back and defending deep is a perfectly reasonable strategy.
The problem is that the Yanks aren't particularly suited to this style of play. They defend extremely narrow in midfield and force the opposition out wide but then appear nervous when defending crosses.
That was particularly obvious against Portugal -- see Geoff Cameron's mistake for Nani's opener and the fact Cristiano Ronaldo crossed for Silvestre Varela's late equaliser. Against Germany, too, there was a big problem when Jerome Boateng received the ball out wide, with Thomas Muller allowed a golden chance in this respect and Omar Gonzalez producing a Cameron-esque slice when trying to clear.
Geoff Cameron and the U.S. defense have struggled to defend threats from wide areas.
Nor, in fact, are the U.S. suited to counterattacking. The ball carriers like Graham Zusi and Alejandro Bedoya have performed competently, but no more. Michael Bradley, who has excelled at club level over the past three years with his ability to convert defence into attack smoothly, has covered a lot of ground but contributed little in possession. Up front, the absence of Jozy Altidore means the U.S. don't really have an out-ball -- no one to hold it up, no one to sprint in behind. They're just not suited to being a reactive side. They're more suited to playing high up the pitch, passing the ball well and getting the full-backs forward.
When the U.S. play football, they have been excellent. When they purely defend, they are never entirely confident. In the group phase, they allowed the opposition 55 shots -- along with Ecuador, more than any other side in the competition. It seems strange when you consider how much quality the U.S. have shown and their ability to (in spells) outplay Ghana and Portugal quite comfortably.
They're capable of outplaying Belgium too, and considering Belgium's tendency to start matches slowly and depend on late strikes from substitutes, it wouldn't be surprising if the U.S. went ahead in their round of 16 clash on Tuesday in Salvador. If that happens, the call from the bench should be simple: Still nil-nil, lads!
pfim
Player Valuation: £40m
I'm not sure the possession thing is a mindset so much as it is a function of the players on the pitch. Bradley as a number 10, Bedoya as a glorified fullback, Gonzalez over Cameron...With our midfield and fullbacks, we'd be better off with a 4-3-3 than our current formation.
Beasley-Besler-Gonzalez-Johnson
Beckerman
Jones-Bradley
Dempsey-Altidore?-Johansson
This might be too foward-thinking for the personnel, and probably too late to try something like this...but I think this formation gives us more possession and a better counter attack. It also fits our three midfielders very well.
What we're playing now with Zusi and Davis/Bedoya gives us no possession and no counter attack. We might have the slowest attack in the field...
Beasley-Besler-Gonzalez-Johnson
Beckerman
Jones-Bradley
Dempsey-Altidore?-Johansson
This might be too foward-thinking for the personnel, and probably too late to try something like this...but I think this formation gives us more possession and a better counter attack. It also fits our three midfielders very well.
What we're playing now with Zusi and Davis/Bedoya gives us no possession and no counter attack. We might have the slowest attack in the field...
I dreamt that US of A scored 2 late goals to win the game. I've backed US of A to win and both teams to score due to this dream.
U.S. buoyed by fan support back home
SAO PAULO -- The last time the U.S. played in a World Cup in Brazil, just one American reporter was on hand, using vacation time and paying his own way.
Sixty-four years later, about 100 credentialed U.S. media members are covering the tournament -- and that doesn't even include staffers from the networks broadcasting the games.
Back home, millions of people are watching on giant screens or office computers, at bars and public gatherings. In their protected Brazilian bubble, U.S. players find out about it via email, text, tweet, Facebook, cable television and all sorts of other inventions that didn't exist in 1950.
"All the bars and the pubs and restaurants are packed, and it's all over social media and people are taking off work," goalkeeper Tim Howard said. "That says a lot. They do that for the Super Bowl. So the fact that they're doing it for the World Cup is special."
U.S. VS. BELGIUM: TUESDAY, 4 ET
The Americans traveled Sunday to Salvador for Tuesday's second-round game against Belgium.
Chicago's Soldier Field will host a viewing party on for Tuesday's U.S. match. The watch party had been scheduled for Grant Park, but need a bigger venue for the anticipated crowd. Soldier Field has a 61,500-seat capacity.
Sunday also marked the anniversary of the famous 1-0 victory over England at Belo Horizonte, still considered by many the biggest upset in World Cup history.
Dent McSkimming of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was the only American reporter there in 1950. Now every game is televised live back home, drawing audiences that would make every U.S. league other than the NFL jealous.
Stars in other sports are taking notice. San Francisco Giants pitcher Tim Lincecum pulled on a U.S. road jersey after throwing a no-hitter last week.
This kind of attention and hype would have been unimaginable not just in 1990, when the U.S. returned to the World Cup after a 40-year absence, but even as recently as 2010.
"Obviously when we were in Korea, when we were in Germany, South Africa, the support has always been there, but it's just a lot bigger," said defender DaMarcus Beasley, the first American to play in four World Cups. "We get a lot more mainstream people that never really watched soccer or been a fan of soccer. And obviously people are going to say, 'Ah, people only come out during the World Cup. They don't support every game.' But we see it differently. We see what's going on behind the scenes, and we know our support is growing in the right direction, and us getting out of our group is a way to help improve our growth from a soccer standpoint."
Players have cited the large crowds at home and the thousands of U.S. fans in Brazilian stadiums as forces that motivated them during difficult moments.
"It is the reason we exist," said Korey Donahoo, president of the American Outlaws supporters group, "to inspire a difference in the team and to help spur the players on to greater things." The three U.S. group stage games averaged more than 18 million viewers between English-language ESPN and Spanish-language Univision. The 2-2 Sunday evening draw with Portugal was the most-watched soccer game in American history with 24.7 million TV viewers.
The finale against Germany started at noon EDT when much of the country was at work -- or at least supposed to be. A record audience of 1.05 million streamed that match on WatchESPN.
"Four years ago it was impressive, and the fact that it seems even bigger now is a testament to our country," Howard said. "I don't know if we can get that type of electricity every weekend. I don't think that's where we're at as a country in terms of the soccer fanaticism."
By comparison, Boston's six-game World Series win over St. Louis last October averaged 14.9 million viewers on Fox, San Antonio's five-game victory over Miami in this month's NBA Finals averaged 15.5 million on ABC, and Los Angeles' five-game win over the New York Rangers in the NHL's Stanley Cup finals averaged 5 million on NBC and NBCSN.
But "American football" is still the king in the U.S. The opening weekend of the NFL playoffs this past season averaged 34.7 million viewers for four games.
"This is a very special time for us back home in America and with the growth of soccer," defender Omar Gonzalez said. "With us getting out of the group, it definitely helps a lot. The viewership on different channels has been great, and we want to keep it going."
A win over Belgium would advance the U.S. to a quarterfinal against Argentina or Switzerland on Saturday at noon EDT, another potential record-setter.
"We're on a positive trendline in this sport. I don't think there's any denying that," U.S. Soccer Federation President Sunil Gulati said. "What this does is, it jumps up to a much higher trendline."
SAO PAULO -- The last time the U.S. played in a World Cup in Brazil, just one American reporter was on hand, using vacation time and paying his own way.
Sixty-four years later, about 100 credentialed U.S. media members are covering the tournament -- and that doesn't even include staffers from the networks broadcasting the games.
Back home, millions of people are watching on giant screens or office computers, at bars and public gatherings. In their protected Brazilian bubble, U.S. players find out about it via email, text, tweet, Facebook, cable television and all sorts of other inventions that didn't exist in 1950.
"All the bars and the pubs and restaurants are packed, and it's all over social media and people are taking off work," goalkeeper Tim Howard said. "That says a lot. They do that for the Super Bowl. So the fact that they're doing it for the World Cup is special."
U.S. VS. BELGIUM: TUESDAY, 4 ET
The Americans traveled Sunday to Salvador for Tuesday's second-round game against Belgium.
Chicago's Soldier Field will host a viewing party on for Tuesday's U.S. match. The watch party had been scheduled for Grant Park, but need a bigger venue for the anticipated crowd. Soldier Field has a 61,500-seat capacity.
Sunday also marked the anniversary of the famous 1-0 victory over England at Belo Horizonte, still considered by many the biggest upset in World Cup history.
Dent McSkimming of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was the only American reporter there in 1950. Now every game is televised live back home, drawing audiences that would make every U.S. league other than the NFL jealous.
Stars in other sports are taking notice. San Francisco Giants pitcher Tim Lincecum pulled on a U.S. road jersey after throwing a no-hitter last week.
This kind of attention and hype would have been unimaginable not just in 1990, when the U.S. returned to the World Cup after a 40-year absence, but even as recently as 2010.
"Obviously when we were in Korea, when we were in Germany, South Africa, the support has always been there, but it's just a lot bigger," said defender DaMarcus Beasley, the first American to play in four World Cups. "We get a lot more mainstream people that never really watched soccer or been a fan of soccer. And obviously people are going to say, 'Ah, people only come out during the World Cup. They don't support every game.' But we see it differently. We see what's going on behind the scenes, and we know our support is growing in the right direction, and us getting out of our group is a way to help improve our growth from a soccer standpoint."
Players have cited the large crowds at home and the thousands of U.S. fans in Brazilian stadiums as forces that motivated them during difficult moments.
"It is the reason we exist," said Korey Donahoo, president of the American Outlaws supporters group, "to inspire a difference in the team and to help spur the players on to greater things." The three U.S. group stage games averaged more than 18 million viewers between English-language ESPN and Spanish-language Univision. The 2-2 Sunday evening draw with Portugal was the most-watched soccer game in American history with 24.7 million TV viewers.
The finale against Germany started at noon EDT when much of the country was at work -- or at least supposed to be. A record audience of 1.05 million streamed that match on WatchESPN.
"Four years ago it was impressive, and the fact that it seems even bigger now is a testament to our country," Howard said. "I don't know if we can get that type of electricity every weekend. I don't think that's where we're at as a country in terms of the soccer fanaticism."
By comparison, Boston's six-game World Series win over St. Louis last October averaged 14.9 million viewers on Fox, San Antonio's five-game victory over Miami in this month's NBA Finals averaged 15.5 million on ABC, and Los Angeles' five-game win over the New York Rangers in the NHL's Stanley Cup finals averaged 5 million on NBC and NBCSN.
But "American football" is still the king in the U.S. The opening weekend of the NFL playoffs this past season averaged 34.7 million viewers for four games.
"This is a very special time for us back home in America and with the growth of soccer," defender Omar Gonzalez said. "With us getting out of the group, it definitely helps a lot. The viewership on different channels has been great, and we want to keep it going."
A win over Belgium would advance the U.S. to a quarterfinal against Argentina or Switzerland on Saturday at noon EDT, another potential record-setter.
"We're on a positive trendline in this sport. I don't think there's any denying that," U.S. Soccer Federation President Sunil Gulati said. "What this does is, it jumps up to a much higher trendline."
- Status