kennyrester said: CaptainPrefrences said: If African, Asian an even some south americans nations ha the money and good leagues, they could beat any European team. So if they were much better at football than they are now they'd be better than the European teams? Good point...

Uh yes? If the proper amount of time, money and coaching was put into countries in Africa and Asia these countries like Egypt and Ghana, Japan South Korea would be world powers. There is so much un scouted talent in these two continents and tehy can never go far because of the lack of resources. I will use the USA as an example. Before there was the MLS league the US was crap an couldnt even qualify for a world cup. When the MLS came you started to see the US slowly dominate the concacaf region, an then they beat teams like Brazil Portugal and Spain.. its slwo but its working...

CaptainPrefrences said: kennyrester said: CaptainPrefrences said: If African, Asian an even some south americans nations ha the money and good leagues, they could beat any European team. So if they were much better at football than they are now they'd be better than the European teams? Good point...     Uh yes? If the proper amount of time, money and coaching was put into countries in Africa and Asia these countries like Egypt and Ghana, Japan South Korea would be world powers. There is so much un scouted talent in these two continents and tehy can never go far because of the lack of resources. I will use the USA as an example. Before there was the MLS league the US was crap an couldnt even qualify for a world cup. When the MLS came you started to see the US slowly dominate the concacaf region, an then they beat teams like Brazil Portugal and Spain.. its slwo but its working...

I was being sarcastic. Because your comment was so obvious. See?

No, I don't see actually.

CaptainPrefrences said: Uh yes? If the proper amount of time, money and coaching was put into countries in Africa and Asia these countries like Egypt and Ghana, Japan South Korea would be world powers. There is so much un scouted talent in these two continents and tehy can never go far because of the lack of resources. I will use the USA as an example. Before there was the MLS league the US was crap an couldnt even qualify for a world cup. When the MLS came you started to see the US slowly dominate the concacaf region, an then they beat teams like Brazil Portugal and Spain.. its slwo but its working...

We don't "dominate" the CONCACAF region.  The US are certainly competitive or superior to any team in the region, but we aren't a stronger team than Mexico.  Our club sides (MLS) are certainly not as good as Mexican club sides (look at CONCACAF Champions League results).  The national team is just as good if not better than Mexico and Costa Rica, but can hardly be said to "dominate" when those teams consistently beat us at home.  I think we will not see major improvement on the national team until we have some players regularly starting for top European teams (I'm not talking about Everton or Fulham here).

^ Thats true

When I look at the US squad right now, you have players not even starting for clubs like hannover, socheux, AGF (norway) 1860 munich, Start (norway). How are these players expecte to perform on the national stage when teh ydont start for shitty clubs?

If you look at the american soccer system, players end up turning pro way to late for a typical soccer player. Kids usually get scouted for colleges and not youth academies like European clubs have. These guys end up playing for their college till their early twenties an enter the USL.

Some players go straight to leagues like the USL which is a shitty part time league (no offense) and by the time they get to their MLS club they are 21-23. By the time they are fully comfortable playing pro they are 26 27 an only lower league European clubs will sign them. Look at Clint Dempsey, he went straight to MLS by teh time he was 20 and gaiend expirience to join a solid club liek Fulham..

Today I was watching a match and someone said Udinese had like 100 players. I think they like to sell and form a lot of players, the bought for example alexis sanchez when he was 16 and made him play in colo colo and river plate to form him and rise his price, by the time he was playing in the adult national team he was 16, and he made it to first division at 15 I think, now he plays in serie A and he is starter in a lot of matches.

To turn pro at 22 is a lot like captain said and its hard for these players to make it to big europeans teams.

Kasz216 said: kowenicki said: @slimenbeast That is exactly what I was saying. I think global qulaification would be right, why wouldnt it still be the world cup? all we end up with now is gimmes in the actual finals... pointless. My way you would actually get more different winners of the trophy as the group stages in the finals would be far tougher and a few upsets would occur. Because no African or asian teams would make the world cup. Ever. Not because the europeon nations are "better" or care more but because the europeon nations are RICHER and can waste more time and money developing world class atheletes. Sure in countries like the US the teams aren't as good because the best atheltes go to other sports... but for nations like africa.  It's that they can't afford the massive amount of time effort and money it takes to cultivate world class atheletes and squads.

i think money doesnt make a team better. just because you have more money to invest in an team doesnt mean it will be better. because we can see the world cup history and latinoamerica has win a lot of world cups.

luisgvm said: Kasz216 said: kowenicki said: @slimenbeast That is exactly what I was saying. I think global qulaification would be right, why wouldnt it still be the world cup? all we end up with now is gimmes in the actual finals... pointless. My way you would actually get more different winners of the trophy as the group stages in the finals would be far tougher and a few upsets would occur. Because no African or asian teams would make the world cup. Ever. Not because the europeon nations are "better" or care more but because the europeon nations are RICHER and can waste more time and money developing world class atheletes. Sure in countries like the US the teams aren't as good because the best atheltes go to other sports... but for nations like africa.  It's that they can't afford the massive amount of time effort and money it takes to cultivate world class atheletes and squads.   i think money doesnt make a team better. just because you have more money to invest in an team doesnt mean it will be better. because we can see the world cup history and latinoamerica has win a lot of world cups.

Thats because South America has magic, other continents like Europe rely on investment, so only SA and EU can win the WC.

pastro243 said: luisgvm said: Kasz216 said: kowenicki said: @slimenbeast That is exactly what I was saying. I think global qulaification would be right, why wouldnt it still be the world cup? all we end up with now is gimmes in the actual finals... pointless. My way you would actually get more different winners of the trophy as the group stages in the finals would be far tougher and a few upsets would occur. Because no African or asian teams would make the world cup. Ever. Not because the europeon nations are "better" or care more but because the europeon nations are RICHER and can waste more time and money developing world class atheletes. Sure in countries like the US the teams aren't as good because the best atheltes go to other sports... but for nations like africa.  It's that they can't afford the massive amount of time effort and money it takes to cultivate world class atheletes and squads.   i think money doesnt make a team better. just because you have more money to invest in an team doesnt mean it will be better. because we can see the world cup history and latinoamerica has win a lot of world cups. Thats because South America has magic, other continents like Europe rely on investment, so only SA and EU can win the WC.

jajajajjaa!!. oh i see. jajaja!!. magic. jeje!.

luisgvm said: pastro243 said: luisgvm said: Kasz216 said: kowenicki said: @slimenbeast That is exactly what I was saying. I think global qulaification would be right, why wouldnt it still be the world cup? all we end up with now is gimmes in the actual finals... pointless. My way you would actually get more different winners of the trophy as the group stages in the finals would be far tougher and a few upsets would occur. Because no African or asian teams would make the world cup. Ever. Not because the europeon nations are "better" or care more but because the europeon nations are RICHER and can waste more time and money developing world class atheletes. Sure in countries like the US the teams aren't as good because the best atheltes go to other sports... but for nations like africa.  It's that they can't afford the massive amount of time effort and money it takes to cultivate world class atheletes and squads.   i think money doesnt make a team better. just because you have more money to invest in an team doesnt mean it will be better. because we can see the world cup history and latinoamerica has win a lot of world cups. Thats because South America has magic, other continents like Europe rely on investment, so only SA and EU can win the WC. jajajajjaa!!. oh i see. jajaja!!. magic. jeje!.

There, el mago valdivia