USA vs Argentina

[Marvin]

He has torn a groin muscle and anyway he's reportedly out of favour with the Argentinian coach after withdrawing from a previous friendly

 

[mancity1]

Along with Richards and Yaya , Tevez will be highly unlikely to make the team against Sunderland.

A silly non descript friendly with all due respects against the USA is immaterial when we need him for as many games as possible for our crucial run in.

No doubt Mancini will have to bite the bullet and start Balotelli against Sunderland otherwise we will struggle to get on the scoresheet.

 

[Andouble]

Along with Richards and Yaya , Tevez will be highly unlikely to make the team against Sunderland.

A silly non descript friendly with all due respects against the USA is immaterial when we need him for as many games as possible for our crucial run in.

No doubt Mancini will have to bite the bullet and start Balotelli against Sunderland otherwise we will struggle to get on the scoresheet.

sure mate, every fan of every club thinks that, there's only one reason that countries schedule friendlies around the world, and it isn't for camaraderie. $ £ €

a friendly in U.S. at Giants Stadium is huge pay for both US and Argentina.

 

[Frank the Yank]

I dont think I have ever seen the intensity for a "friendly". Argentina looked like the Harlem Globetrotters for the first half. They were fabulous and a joy to watch. Howard made some good saves and they wasted some very good chances and scored 5 minutes before the first half. At one point they stroked the ball around and looked as if it were a cat toying with a helpless mouse. You know it wasnt really that we were shit. Its just they were just that good. They looked like worldbeaters and should ahve been more thanone goal up.

At halftime the US put on another attacker some 18 year old kid who plays in the MLS that I have never heard of. That changed the game. It was more open and the US started to actually punch back. We leveled off a set piece that the keeper really shold have held. We had some good chances to take the lead and the Argentinian back 4 looked a tad rattled.

It was a VERY competitive match and the players were into it with that twat Mascherano up to his old tricks. In injury time Bocanegra scythed someone he had a beef with. It was premeditated thats for sure.

If it were a fight, to be fair, it was Argentina on points but the US played its part and I thought shaded the second half. A sellout of over 75,000 on a cold Saturday night. I think if we played class teams like this on a regular basis instead of the dross in CONCACAF, we would make greater strides as a footballing nation. What assures us of being in the World Cup every four years ( a weak CONCACAF qualifying zone) could very well hinder us in progressing to that next level....

 

[NorCalBlue]

A very interesting game. The Argie formation up front looked a lot like ours when we play Tevez as the lone striker (i.e. when we play with no real striker at all, as Tevez spends most of his time coming back to pick up the ball, just like Messi). My guess would be that this is how Bob wants us to play, we're just not that good at it yet. But note that even a side as good as Argentina still struggled to score against a packed defense, and they were vulnerable to the US counter attacks and set pieces, just like City.

 

[KansasCITY]

1st half was absolutey miserable. I don't remember us ever getting a good shot or even getting it out of our half. Bradley was contempt with letting us sit behind the ball and watching Messi kill us. Could've been about 6-0 in 45 minutes. And then after Howard's wonder save it was a completely different team. I think Agudelo could be a Yank legend. Of course it was only a tap in but still, 2 goals in 2 appearances. Fans that were there did a good job tonight, but I wish they'd sing more actual songs instead of "woah-oh-oh-oh" for 90 minutes. Oh well.

 

[LoveCity]

Argentina should have won really, reminded me of us against Spurs/Arsenal except with a goal each. Argies suffered from the lack of a goalscoring striker to play with Messi, someone like Tevez or Higuain might have helped get around the parked bus.

 

[KansasCITY]

Argentina should have won really, reminded me of us against Spurs/Arsenal except with a goal each. Argies suffered from the lack of a goalscoring striker to play with Messi, someone like Tevez or Higuain might have helped get around the parked bus.

It reminded me a lot of the spuds game because of Tim Howard's performance.

 

[Andouble]

this is but a pipe dream as FIFA and the two confederations are averse to change, but it would definitely be welcome in my eyes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704396904576226623504504618.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter#printMode

A Plan to Improve U.S. Soccer
How a Confederation of Americas Would Benefit The Americans; The Problem With Friendlies

By GABRIELE MARCOTTI

On Saturday, 78,936 people filled New Meadowlands Stadium to watch the United States hold Argentina to a 1-1 draw. Short of actually beating one of the world's top teams, it was a good day for U.S. soccer. Bob Bradley's crew soaked up the pressure in the first half but held its own until Esteban Cambiasso put Argentina ahead just before the interval. Then, in the second half, the Americans switched to a 4-4-2 set, found an equalizer through teenage starlet Juan Agudelo and matched its illustrious opponent the rest of the day.

View Full Image
0327soccer1
Getty Images

Potential phenom Juan Agudelo scores the game-tying goal for the United States in its 1-1 draw with Argentina on Saturday.
0327soccer1
0327soccer1

In short: great crowd, pulsating match between two teams that played well and a coming-out party for the U.S.'s 18-year-old potential phenom. What's not to like? Not much. But it would have been better if the game had actually meant something.

Saturday's exhibition was nothing more than a friendly, soccer's equivalent of Grapefruit League baseball. The national team convenes for a few days, hopes to build some chemistry in training and then tries to assess whether it's getting better or not against an opponent that's probably doing the same. When the priority is improving, rather than winning, friendlies can be frightfully dull—especially, as is often the case, if players focus more on avoiding injury and over-exertion before returning to the clubs that actually pay their salaries.

Saturday's match wasn't like that. Indeed, many observers were delighted that both sides took it seriously. But when it comes to friendlies, that's the exception, not the rule.

And that's the problem for the U.S., in particular. Every four years, it's expected to do something meaningful in the World Cup. Yet in between, the Americans only play a handful of competitive games against quality opposition. The rest are friendlies.

Blame geography. FIFA, the game's governing body, carves up soccer into six regional confederations. Depending on their relative strength, all send a number of teams to the World Cup. Most of a country's competitive games will be against opponents from its own confederation. These are usually qualifying games for the World Cup or continental championship.

The United States—like Mexico, another middle-to-upper tier soccer nation—is in something called CONCACAF, the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football. Simply put, it isn't very good. Apart from Mexico and the U.S., only once has a CONCACAF nation advanced past the group stage of the World Cup.

This means the U.S. only plays a handful of quality opponents in competitive matches in every World Cup cycle. Between June 2008 and the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, the Americans played 18 competitive games in CONCACAF qualifying. Apart from the two clashes with Mexico, the bulk of those matches weren't games that help a nation improve (or are attractive to broadcasters and advertisers, though that's obviously a secondary consideration).

It's not just that the likes of El Salvador, Trinidad and Guatemala aren't very good. (They're not, but that's beside the point.) The problem for the U.S. is that these games don't mimic anything it would find in a World Cup.

Since it's March, here's an apt analogy: This is a bit like what a Big East team might encounter playing a mid-major on the road in a small gym and hostile atmosphere. The underdog opponent is determined to seize the day by playing the kind of basketball that, say, Connecticut doesn't see in conference play. In short, there's lots to lose—the U.S. has often struggled in such venues—and little to gain.

That's why the best possible thing for U.S. soccer may be combining CONCACAF and its equivalent in South America (CONMEBOL) into one confederation of the Americas. With its 10 members, CONMEBOL is the smallest confederation, but it's filled with the game's historical and current heavyweights: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and others. Creating one pan-American confederation would allow the U.S. and Mexico to play more competitive games on a regular basis. Second-tier CONCACAF teams—countries that rarely meet top opposition, even in friendlies—would benefit, too.

South American teams would get something out of this arrangement, as well. They'd play a wider variety of teams and styles, which would be a welcome break from playing each other over and over again. There are also financial benefits, like accessing the television markets in the U.S. and Mexico, which would translate into an increase in rights fees and lucrative sponsorship deals. It's not a coincidence that both Argentina and Brazil, arguably the sport's biggest draws, chose to play friendlies in the United States in the past nine months: It pays to do so.

The same theory applies at the club level. A Copa Libertadores—South America's version of the UEFA Champions League—featuring American clubs would be more lucrative and attractive for these reasons. Mexican teams already play in the competition, evidence that rules are flexible in soccer.

There are logistical issues involved, of course, mostly pertaining to scheduling and travel. But they are far from insurmountable.

Skeptics cite two main reasons why this won't happen, both grounded in soccer's Realpolitik. The first is that a merger would mean the combined confederation would have eight World Cup spots for its 45 members, putting the U.S. and Mexico at risk of not qualifying. The possibility exists now, too, but it's pretty remote: Both nations have qualified for every World Cup since 1994. And a World Cup without either of the two North American heavyweights would impact the value of the broadcasting rights. The U.S. World Cup television-rights deal was the most-lucrative for FIFA in 2010, and Mexico wasn't far behind.

The other reason is purely political. Confederations matter in soccer, particularly within FIFA's power structure. A merger would mean that one of the two presidents, either CONMEBOL's Nicolas Leoz or CONCACAF'S Jack Warner, would lose some clout. It would also be more difficult to engage in things like bloc-voting and the kinds of deal-making to which any political organization can fall prey.

Both, sadly, are valid, which is why it's probably best not to hold your breath: This won't happen any time soon. There are too many whose personal interests would suffer if there were a merger, even if it might be good for the sport. And for U.S. soccer, this means growth will likely continue at the current pace: not frustratingly slow, but nowhere near as accelerated as it could be.

 

[Unknown_Genius]

this is but a pipe dream as FIFA and the two confederations are averse to change, but it would definitely be welcome in my eyes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704396904576226623504504618.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter#printMode

A Plan to Improve U.S. Soccer
How a Confederation of Americas Would Benefit The Americans; The Problem With Friendlies

By GABRIELE MARCOTTI

On Saturday, 78,936 people filled New Meadowlands Stadium to watch the United States hold Argentina to a 1-1 draw. Short of actually beating one of the world's top teams, it was a good day for U.S. soccer. Bob Bradley's crew soaked up the pressure in the first half but held its own until Esteban Cambiasso put Argentina ahead just before the interval. Then, in the second half, the Americans switched to a 4-4-2 set, found an equalizer through teenage starlet Juan Agudelo and matched its illustrious opponent the rest of the day.

View Full Image
0327soccer1
Getty Images

Potential phenom Juan Agudelo scores the game-tying goal for the United States in its 1-1 draw with Argentina on Saturday.
0327soccer1
0327soccer1

In short: great crowd, pulsating match between two teams that played well and a coming-out party for the U.S.'s 18-year-old potential phenom. What's not to like? Not much. But it would have been better if the game had actually meant something.

Saturday's exhibition was nothing more than a friendly, soccer's equivalent of Grapefruit League baseball. The national team convenes for a few days, hopes to build some chemistry in training and then tries to assess whether it's getting better or not against an opponent that's probably doing the same. When the priority is improving, rather than winning, friendlies can be frightfully dull—especially, as is often the case, if players focus more on avoiding injury and over-exertion before returning to the clubs that actually pay their salaries.

Saturday's match wasn't like that. Indeed, many observers were delighted that both sides took it seriously. But when it comes to friendlies, that's the exception, not the rule.

And that's the problem for the U.S., in particular. Every four years, it's expected to do something meaningful in the World Cup. Yet in between, the Americans only play a handful of competitive games against quality opposition. The rest are friendlies.

Blame geography. FIFA, the game's governing body, carves up soccer into six regional confederations. Depending on their relative strength, all send a number of teams to the World Cup. Most of a country's competitive games will be against opponents from its own confederation. These are usually qualifying games for the World Cup or continental championship.

The United States—like Mexico, another middle-to-upper tier soccer nation—is in something called CONCACAF, the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football. Simply put, it isn't very good. Apart from Mexico and the U.S., only once has a CONCACAF nation advanced past the group stage of the World Cup.

This means the U.S. only plays a handful of quality opponents in competitive matches in every World Cup cycle. Between June 2008 and the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, the Americans played 18 competitive games in CONCACAF qualifying. Apart from the two clashes with Mexico, the bulk of those matches weren't games that help a nation improve (or are attractive to broadcasters and advertisers, though that's obviously a secondary consideration).

It's not just that the likes of El Salvador, Trinidad and Guatemala aren't very good. (They're not, but that's beside the point.) The problem for the U.S. is that these games don't mimic anything it would find in a World Cup.

Since it's March, here's an apt analogy: This is a bit like what a Big East team might encounter playing a mid-major on the road in a small gym and hostile atmosphere. The underdog opponent is determined to seize the day by playing the kind of basketball that, say, Connecticut doesn't see in conference play. In short, there's lots to lose—the U.S. has often struggled in such venues—and little to gain.

That's why the best possible thing for U.S. soccer may be combining CONCACAF and its equivalent in South America (CONMEBOL) into one confederation of the Americas. With its 10 members, CONMEBOL is the smallest confederation, but it's filled with the game's historical and current heavyweights: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and others. Creating one pan-American confederation would allow the U.S. and Mexico to play more competitive games on a regular basis. Second-tier CONCACAF teams—countries that rarely meet top opposition, even in friendlies—would benefit, too.

South American teams would get something out of this arrangement, as well. They'd play a wider variety of teams and styles, which would be a welcome break from playing each other over and over again. There are also financial benefits, like accessing the television markets in the U.S. and Mexico, which would translate into an increase in rights fees and lucrative sponsorship deals. It's not a coincidence that both Argentina and Brazil, arguably the sport's biggest draws, chose to play friendlies in the United States in the past nine months: It pays to do so.

The same theory applies at the club level. A Copa Libertadores—South America's version of the UEFA Champions League—featuring American clubs would be more lucrative and attractive for these reasons. Mexican teams already play in the competition, evidence that rules are flexible in soccer.

There are logistical issues involved, of course, mostly pertaining to scheduling and travel. But they are far from insurmountable.

Skeptics cite two main reasons why this won't happen, both grounded in soccer's Realpolitik. The first is that a merger would mean the combined confederation would have eight World Cup spots for its 45 members, putting the U.S. and Mexico at risk of not qualifying. The possibility exists now, too, but it's pretty remote: Both nations have qualified for every World Cup since 1994. And a World Cup without either of the two North American heavyweights would impact the value of the broadcasting rights. The U.S. World Cup television-rights deal was the most-lucrative for FIFA in 2010, and Mexico wasn't far behind.

The other reason is purely political. Confederations matter in soccer, particularly within FIFA's power structure. A merger would mean that one of the two presidents, either CONMEBOL's Nicolas Leoz or CONCACAF'S Jack Warner, would lose some clout. It would also be more difficult to engage in things like bloc-voting and the kinds of deal-making to which any political organization can fall prey.

Both, sadly, are valid, which is why it's probably best not to hold your breath: This won't happen any time soon. There are too many whose personal interests would suffer if there were a merger, even if it might be good for the sport. And for U.S. soccer, this means growth will likely continue at the current pace: not frustratingly slow, but nowhere near as accelerated as it could be.

I agree with all that, its winner for all sides, but unfortunatly, isn't going to happen anytime soon. There should definitely be a merger for the Asian and Oceanian zones.