Good topic with the WC approaching.

I had been following soccer for years but decided last year that our field players actually are not very good and so have lost enthusiasm for the WC and this generation.

I'd rather get into field player discussions.

Like, did we ever find a number 9?
What happened to Gio?

I could go on and on.

concordtom said:

---

Good topic with the WC approaching.

I had been following soccer for years but decided last year that our field players actually are not very good and so have lost enthusiasm for the WC and this generation.

I'd rather get into field player discussions.

Like, did we ever find a number 9?
What happened to Gio?

I could go on and on.

---

If you think the field players are not very good, I think you gave up too soon. The US has easily the best field players it has ever had. They are not the level of field players of France or Argentina, but I think they are good enough to play with anyone.

Yes, the US has a decent #9 (center forward) in Flo Balogun. For those who don't know him, he is from a Nigerian background grew up in England, and plays in France. I wish he was a little bigger, but he knows what he is doing and finishes well with both feet. He has decent backups like Ricardo Pepi and Haji Wright who both score a lot of goals in lesser leagues.

Gio Reyna has had injury problems. He also had the same thing happen that happened to Ivan Rabb, his position disappeared. Rabb was a power forward when power forwards disappeared. Reyna is a central midfielder who is an elegant passer but does not play defense. Now almost all teams play pressure defense and so he really needs to go to a top team that is so good it can have one defensive loafer. But no top team has found him to be good enough for that role. Reyna is now a backup on a smaller German team but still in the top division. And he has been injured for the last month. It is unclear if he will make the squad, but then again, he is so good he could be the star if he does.

Before he got injured during this season Christian Pulisic was probably the top-ranked attacker in Italy. Weston McKennie is in my opinion multiple levels better than any midfielder that the US has ever had. Jedi Robinson was considered a top 5 left back in the world before he injured his knee. This is the golden generation, don't give up.

I could go on and on but someone else has to participate so I am not talking to myself.

I have followed every usmnt senior squad game for many years.

Of course we will advance out of our group. Being a host we will be rated as a top team and so the group is not tough.

We may even win a first round elimination game. Probably should.

But weve had no impressive victories with this core group lately. And no new phenom like Haaland has shown up.

I wonder how it can be that a nation of 300+M cannot get a Erling Haaland.

USMNT schedule

June 25 opponent not yet determined, but it will be a European team, group of 4 winner (mini tourney) at end of March.

…final Gtoup D opponent to be determined via a UEFA playoff (Turkey, Slovakia, Romania, or Kosovo)

https://www.espn.com/soccer/team/fixtures/_/id/660/united-states?

The 2026 FIFA World Cup will feature 48 teams divided into 12 groups (A-L) of four, with the top two teams and eight best third-placed teams advancing to a new round of 32.

Co-hosts USA (Group D), Mexico (Group A), and Canada (Group B) are leading their respective groups, with matches beginning in June 2026 across North America.

All tourney info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_FIFA_World_Cup


If we win D, we play a 3rd place team from B-E-F-I-J.

If we get 2nd place in d, we play 2nd place in G.

If we qualify as a top 3rd place team, we go any number of places and god help us.




This might be a good graphic

Based on the December 2025 draw, Group L (England, Croatia, Ghana, Panama) is widely considered the "Group of Death" (toughest) for the 2026 World Cup due to featuring two top-10 teams.

Group F (Netherlands, Japan, Tunisia, UEFA Playoff) is also highly competitive.

Group D (USA, Australia, and others) and Group J (Argentina) are considered some of the easiest paths.


Toughest Groups (Groups of Death)

Group L: Features England (4) and Croatia (10), making it extremely challenging.
Group I: Regarded as very difficult with France (3), Senegal, Norway, and a strong playoff team.
Group F: Labeled highly competitive with the Netherlands (7) facing Japan and Tunisia.


Easiest Groups

Group D: Considered the softest draw for host USA, avoiding top-10 teams.
Group J: Viewed as a comfortable path for Argentina (2).
Group G: Described as an easy draw for Belgium.

Qualifiers based on region

4 EUFA still up for grabs




In addition to the four remaining UEFA spots,
Two "FIFA PLAYOFF" spots are still up for grabs, as explained here:

https://amp.foxsports.com/stories/soccer/2026-world-cup-playoffs-schedule-bracket-teams

Playoff 1 is amongst 3 teams, with Congo getting a March 26 BYE

FIFA Playoff 1 Bracket

March 26, 2026: New Caledonia vs. Jamaica - 10 p.m. ET
March 31, 2026: DR Congo vs. Winner of New Caledonia/Jamaica - 5 p.m. ET

The winner of FIFA Playoff 1 will join Portugal, Uzbekistan and Colombia in Group K.




Playoff 2 is amongst 3 teams, with Iraq getting a March 26 BYE

FIFA Playoff 2 Bracket

March 26, 2026: Bolivia vs. Suriname - 7 p.m. ET
March 31, 2026: Iraq vs. Winner of Bolivia/Suriname - 11 p.m. ET
The winner of FIFA Playoff 2 will join France, Senegal and Norway in Group I.

concordtom said:

---

The 2026 FIFA World Cup will feature 48 teams divided into 12 groups (A-L) of four, with the top two teams and eight best third-placed teams advancing to a new round of 32.

Co-hosts USA (Group D), Mexico (Group A), and Canada (Group B) are leading their respective groups, with matches beginning in June 2026 across North America.

---

Youth soccer is geared towards college acceptances not World Cup level competition. If it were you'd see a lot more poor minorities playing the game.

concordtom said:

---

I have followed every usmnt senior squad game for many years.

Of course we will advance out of our group. Being a host we will be rated as a top team and so the group is not tough.

We may even win a first round elimination game. Probably should.

But weve had no impressive victories with this core group lately. And no new phenom like Haaland has shown up.

I wonder how it can be that a nation of 300+M cannot get a Erling Haaland.

---

There is one Erling Haaland in the world. He passed Robert Lewandoski as the best striker in the world five or so years ago and there is no one in his hemisphere IMO as a classical striker. I don't think we should be beating ourselves up over not having a striker like him.

To me the biggest reason the US does not have better players is because players from 15-18 do not have proper competition or coaching. If I worked for US soccer I would bring over 100 German or Dutch or French or Spanish youth coaches until we have good enough ones of our own. There are other reasons the players are not better, but I think this is the biggest.

We do have another phenom named Cavan Sullivan. He is 16. Right now he is playing in MLS. Or sort of playing in MLS. He came on in the 70th minute last night. In a real soccer country he would be starting because his team would want to sell him for 50 million. Instead he has already signed with Manchester City and he does not play much because MLS teams are in the business or winning rather than selling players, while selling players is the business of all but the top teams in the world. He should not be sitting.

Because the US did not have to qualify they have "no impressive victories" lately because they have not played in any important games lately. They recently beat Uruguay 4-0 in a friendly without many of their top players. They struggled a bit at first with their new coach but they have been playing great lately. Your analysis is incorrect.

There is no reason to go into the World Cup feeling negatively about the US. This is the most talented team they have ever had, it is the best coach they have ever had, and it is at home. Anything could happen. Morocco made the semis last time, and I think the US has comparable talent.

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

The 2026 FIFA World Cup will feature 48 teams divided into 12 groups (A-L) of four, with the top two teams and eight best third-placed teams advancing to a new round of 32.

Co-hosts USA (Group D), Mexico (Group A), and Canada (Group B) are leading their respective groups, with matches beginning in June 2026 across North America.

---

Youth soccer is geared towards college acceptances not World Cup level competition. If it were you'd see a lot more poor minorities playing the game.

---

That was a good point 30 years ago. Now not so much.

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I have followed every usmnt senior squad game for many years.

Of course we will advance out of our group. Being a host we will be rated as a top team and so the group is not tough.

We may even win a first round elimination game. Probably should.

But weve had no impressive victories with this core group lately. And no new phenom like Haaland has shown up.

I wonder how it can be that a nation of 300+M cannot get a Erling Haaland.

---

Our Haaland would play American football.

---

We have such a big country we could have Haaland level athletes in American football and soccer. As I said above, I think the problem is elsewhere.

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I have followed every usmnt senior squad game for many years.

Of course we will advance out of our group. Being a host we will be rated as a top team and so the group is not tough.

We may even win a first round elimination game. Probably should.

But weve had no impressive victories with this core group lately. And no new phenom like Haaland has shown up.

I wonder how it can be that a nation of 300+M cannot get a Erling Haaland.

---

Our Haaland would play American football.

---

We have such a big country we could have Haaland level athletes in American football and soccer. As I said above, I think the problem is elsewhere.

---

Right, there are 60 times as many people in the US than in Haalands country.

concordtom said:

---

I have followed every usmnt senior squad game for many years.

Of course we will advance out of our group. Being a host we will be rated as a top team and so the group is not tough.

We may even win a first round elimination game. Probably should.

But weve had no impressive victories with this core group lately. And no new phenom like Haaland has shown up.

I wonder how it can be that a nation of 300+M cannot get a Erling Haaland.

---

All of the "Haalands" in the US play either NBA basketball, NFL football or MLB baseball. This takes all our top talent, or so I've heard. But you're still right; with 330M people, you'd THINK we could get some competitive players.

Then again, Malcolm Gladwell points out one flaw in our system: our single annual youth player age cut-off date. We eliminate probably a third of our athletic talent due to this one issue.

TandemBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I have followed every usmnt senior squad game for many years.

Of course we will advance out of our group. Being a host we will be rated as a top team and so the group is not tough.

We may even win a first round elimination game. Probably should.

But weve had no impressive victories with this core group lately. And no new phenom like Haaland has shown up.

I wonder how it can be that a nation of 300+M cannot get a Erling Haaland.

---

All of the "Haalands" in the US play either NBA basketball, NFL football or MLB baseball. This takes all our top talent, or so I've heard. But you're still right; with 330M people, you'd THINK we could get some competitive players.

Then again, Malcolm Gladwell points out one flaw in our system: our single annual youth player age cut-off date. We eliminate probably a third of our athletic talent due to this one issue.

---

The youth player age cut off date was changed from January 1 to August 1 twenty two days ago. Is that a change you were pushing for? Why?

No, it's the SINGLE cut-off date that's the problem. The youngest players in whatever age-year calendar you choose get short schrift. One cut-off date means you have a group of players almost a year younger than the oldest players. At young ages, the differences in athletic development are significant. So a kid 9-11.9 months younger than his peers may struggle to compete. The struggling players don't move up to higher level play, fail to receive more practice and playing time and miss out on the additional and better coaching.

So when you add it all up, we end up alienating approximately one third of our youth athletic talent. Stats show that most pro athletes emerge as the oldest quartile or third of their age groups. The young ones are "jettisoned" before they even have a chance. Those kids who develop later athletically have already been "weeded out."

Again, this is Gladwell's (or others') hypothesis.

TandemBear said:

---

No, it's the SINGLE cut-off date that's the problem. The youngest players in whatever age-year calendar you choose get short schrift. One cut-off date means you have a group of players almost a year younger than the oldest players. At young ages, the differences in athletic development are significant. So a kid 9-11.9 months younger than his peers may struggle to compete. The struggling players don't move up to higher level play, fail to receive more practice and playing time and miss out on the additional and better coaching.

So when you add it all up, we end up alienating approximately one third of our youth athletic talent. Stats show that most pro athletes emerge as the oldest quartile or third of their age groups. The young ones are "jettisoned" before they even have a chance. Those kids who develop later athletically have already been "weeded out."

Again, this is Gladwell's (or others') hypothesis.

---

Isn't there a single cut off date for almost all American sports, including soccer, at least when you aren't playing for your school?

oski003 said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

No, it's the SINGLE cut-off date that's the problem. The youngest players in whatever age-year calendar you choose get short schrift. One cut-off date means you have a group of players almost a year younger than the oldest players. At young ages, the differences in athletic development are significant. So a kid 9-11.9 months younger than his peers may struggle to compete. The struggling players don't move up to higher level play, fail to receive more practice and playing time and miss out on the additional and better coaching.

So when you add it all up, we end up alienating approximately one third of our youth athletic talent. Stats show that most pro athletes emerge as the oldest quartile or third of their age groups. The young ones are "jettisoned" before they even have a chance. Those kids who develop later athletically have already been "weeded out."

Again, this is Gladwell's (or others') hypothesis.

---

Isn't there a single cut off date for almost all American sports, including soccer, at least when you aren't playing for your school?

---

When my kids starting playing soccer like 15 years ago the cutoff was something like 9/1 corresponding to the school year. Then about five years into playing they aligned the cutoff to birth year, with the explanation that the rest of the world used birth year. There was some noise about changing it back. Maybe that happened.

Again, this is an issue from like 20 years ago. While Gladwell's original insight was interesting and useful, the world has adjusted. Good soccer players play a year or two above their age. In fact, if you are playing with your age, it means you are not a serious prospect. And scouting takes into account both years and months. At least in soccer I don't think many players are being lost to bad birth months.

There is a clear pathway from being a standout youth to being a professional soccer player. The problem is that the pathway is less good that in other places once you hit high school due to lack of proper coaching and teams not understanding they are supposed to play their young players at the highest levels so they can sell them. This result is stagnation at these important ages.

Players with a European grandparent or stronger connection to Europe can start playing there at 16. This is what Pulisic and Reyna did, and it is the best way forward. Otherwise they have to wait until they are 18. But many are trapped in MLS contracts by that time. MLS is an outlier in that it is not primarily a selling league.

Such cutoffs exist in all sports and everywhere.
I think the thing that really makes us also-rans in soccer is that it's not the cultural heartbeat here.
So, you can say we lose x% because of cutoff date. I'll say that we lose 5x% because of lack of passion.

Yes, tons of top athletes go to other sports, and that is a huge factor.
But we need the passion to be here first because there is a large enough population that if enough people were really into it from a cultural standpoint, a training standpoint, a recruiting and salary and opportunities standpoint, we could do Football and Basketball and Soccer and .....

Soccer is a game where you have to learn the nuances, you aren't just born a Carl Lewis type sprinter. That's a much simpler skill to perfect. AND, you have to have the teammates to become a big time goal scorer.

My question was therefore stupid. Haaland raised in USA would surely not become Haaland.
Maybe the WC will give a boost, but it's temporary. We need annual passion.

Perhaps this is why I've kind of given up.
Sluggo won't like this, but, hey, it's makes for decent online chat room debating.

TandemBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I have followed every usmnt senior squad game for many years.

Of course we will advance out of our group. Being a host we will be rated as a top team and so the group is not tough.

We may even win a first round elimination game. Probably should.

But weve had no impressive victories with this core group lately. And no new phenom like Haaland has shown up.

I wonder how it can be that a nation of 300+M cannot get a Erling Haaland.

---

All of the "Haalands" in the US play either NBA basketball, NFL football or MLB baseball. This takes all our top talent, or so I've heard. But you're still right; with 330M people, you'd THINK we could get some competitive players.

Then again, Malcolm Gladwell points out one flaw in our system: our single annual youth player age cut-off date. We eliminate probably a third of our athletic talent due to this one issue.

---

The US has two players developed here, McKennie and Pulisic, who might be considered top 50 in the world players. There are plenty of players here who are better athletes than those two but are not better soccer players. For instance, Alex Freeman is Antonio Freeman's (of Packers fame) son. Antonio Freeman was at the top level of athleticism in the NFL, and his son is at a similar level athletically but taller. Alex is a very good soccer player, maybe good enough to make the World Cup team. But his soccer skills are just okay by world top 5 league standards. If he was raised in Spain/France/England/German/Holland, I wonder where he would be. He is not the only one I see who has first class athleticism but is somewhat limited by their soccer skills. That is why I think development is the key.

concordtom said:

---

Such cutoffs exist in all sports and everywhere.
I think the thing that really makes us also-rans in soccer is that it's not the cultural heartbeat here.
So, you can say we lose x% because of cutoff date. I'll say that we lose 5x% because of lack of passion.

Yes, tons of top athletes go to other sports, and that is a huge factor.
But we need the passion to be here first because there is a large enough population that if enough people were really into it from a cultural standpoint, a training standpoint, a recruiting and salary and opportunities standpoint, we could do Football and Basketball and Soccer and .....

Soccer is a game where you have to learn the nuances, you aren't just born a Carl Lewis type sprinter. That's a much simpler skill to perfect. AND, you have to have the teammates to become a big time goal scorer.

My question was therefore stupid. Haaland raised in USA would surely not become Haaland.
Maybe the WC will give a boost, but it's temporary. We need annual passion.

Perhaps this is why I've kind of given up.
Sluggo won't like this, but, hey, it's makes for decent online chat room debating.

---

I am fine with you giving up. Less competition for tickets. I have mine for the World Cup.

The passion among young people for soccer is higher than for any other sport where I live on the Peninsula. We just need a little more time to develop. Pulisic's father is a coach. Reyna's father is a coach. Their kids will have two generations who can teach them.

It is true that American Haaland would be unlikely to be as good as real Haaland. Real Haaland's father played in the Premier League so he has probably had proper training since birth.

Tom is right, it's a matter of soccer culture, or the lack thereof here. There is not much of a pickup game culture like you have for basketball.

Soccer is way less popular in my school than it was when I was a kid. So many other sports have grown and soccer seems to get screwed by that more than any other sport.

Cal88 said:

---

Tom is right, it's a matter of soccer culture, or the lack thereof here. There is not much of a pickup game culture like you have for basketball.

---

Soccer is a regional sport in the US like hockey. Up and down the west coast it is bigger than any other youth sport. Pickup culture is mostly dead in basketball anyway, and it has not hurt the game.

It could be that people have different expectations. No, the US will not win the World Cup. And its players are somewhere between the 10th and 20th best in the world. I have been watching every USMNT game I could see since 1990. The growth in the support and skill since then has been amazing. And it continues to go in the right direction. I can wait a little longer to be the best. Just like I can wait for the Bears to be champions.

I'm envious of all y'all who appreciate and love soccer. My daughter is on a club and will start high school next year, but I'm a late Baby Boomer, didn't grow up with the sport and, try as I might, just can't get really into it.

The sports I grew up watching and dabbling in, baseball, football, basketball, track and field and boxing, I just have this deeper understanding of that I will never have for soccer (unless my daughter ends up getting really good, instead of just decent). My loss; I have no doubt that it's a "beautiful game".

sluggo said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Tom is right, it's a matter of soccer culture, or the lack thereof here. There is not much of a pickup game culture like you have for basketball.

---

Soccer is a regional sport in the US like hockey. Up and down the west coast it is bigger than any other youth sport. Pickup culture is mostly dead in basketball anyway, and it has not hurt the game.

It could be that people have different expectations. No, the US will not win the World Cup. And its players are somewhere between the 10th and 20th best in the world. I have been watching every USMNT game I could see since 1990. The growth in the support and skill since then has been amazing. And it continues to go in the right direction. I can wait a little longer to be the best. Just like I can wait for the Bears to be champions.

---

Good answer

Big C said:

---

I'm envious of all y'all who appreciate and love soccer. My daughter is on a club and will start high school next year, but I'm a late Baby Boomer, didn't grow up with the sport and, try as I might, just can't get really into it.

The sports I grew up watching and dabbling in, baseball, football, basketball, track and field and boxing, I just have this deeper understanding of that I will never have for soccer (unless my daughter ends up getting really good, instead of just decent). My loss; I have no doubt that it's a "beautiful game".

---

Dabbling in boxing?
That explains your sparring nature here. Or lack thereof.

Okay, silly pun.

Second point, it's not such a beautiful game. What's so great about having 20 top athletes fail to score for 90 minutes and thus have a game decided by a simulated penalty dive or kicks from the mark?

Answer: nothing! I mean m, the pk shootout has its drama but there is no way it should be used in a Final. Stamina used to be one of the components. But now they like 5 subs, and going to pk's because it is simply too hard to score is quite telling!

Oh, I've got my complaints and solutions!!

Make scoring easier.
How? Possibly:
Fewer players
Larger goals

Alter scoring:
Not all play should come down to a goal or not. Like, you can have tiebreakers built into play so that a team that wins more corners or time possession, or TOP in the offensive half, or fewest fouls, or a combination of…
Or, you could give 1.5 points for a goal played off foot vs head. (Corner headers are less beautiful)

If you made goals bigger, that would encourage more long shots, but I like dribbling talent, so I'd reward close in shots more.


If you scored time of possession in the attacking half you would reduce incentive to play bunker ball, force teams to come out of their shell.

FIFA will never make any changes because
1: history.
2: you cannot officiate ToP at all levels easily. I've figured out how to exactly count the time - it's complicated. You can't count time when ball is not actively in play, and possession is subjective!


FIFA wants a simple universally applied rules game. It is why they resisted replay review and goal line technology for so long.

All that said, changes would highlight the Michael Jordans (offensive wiz players) and their wizardry even more. That would create more highlights and more kids would grow up wanting to be like Mike.

Again, it won't happen. But that's how I'd make the game more beautiful.

concordtom said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm envious of all y'all who appreciate and love soccer. My daughter is on a club and will start high school next year, but I'm a late Baby Boomer, didn't grow up with the sport and, try as I might, just can't get really into it.

The sports I grew up watching and dabbling in, baseball, football, basketball, track and field and boxing, I just have this deeper understanding of that I will never have for soccer (unless my daughter ends up getting really good, instead of just decent). My loss; I have no doubt that it's a "beautiful game".

---

Dabbling in boxing?
That explains your sparring nature here. Or lack thereof.

Okay, silly pun.

Second point, it's not such a beautiful game. What's so great about having 20 top athletes fail to score for 90 minutes and thus have a game decided by a simulated penalty dive or kicks from the mark?

Answer: nothing! I mean m, the pk shootout has its drama but there is no way it should be used in a Final. Stamina used to be one of the components. But now they like 5 subs, and going to pk's because it is simply too hard to score is quite telling!

Oh, I've got my complaints and solutions!!

Make scoring easier.
How? Possibly:
Fewer players
Larger goals

Alter scoring:
Not all play should come down to a goal or not. Like, you can have tiebreakers built into play so that a team that wins more corners or time possession, or TOP in the offensive half, or fewest fouls, or a combination of…
Or, you could give 1.5 points for a goal played off foot vs head. (Corner headers are less beautiful)

If you made goals bigger, that would encourage more long shots, but I like dribbling talent, so I'd reward close in shots more.


If you scored time of possession in the attacking half you would reduce incentive to play bunker ball, force teams to come out of their shell.

FIFA will never make any changes because
1: history.
2: you cannot officiate ToP at all levels easily. I've figured out how to exactly count the time - it's complicated. You can't count time when ball is not actively in play, and possession is subjective!


FIFA wants a simple universally applied rules game. It is why they resisted replay review and goal line technology for so long.

All that said, changes would highlight the Michael Jordans (offensive wiz players) and their wizardry even more. That would create more highlights and more kids would grow up wanting to be like Mike.

Again, it won't happen. But that's how I'd make the game more beautiful.

---

For the 202526 La Liga season (as of late February 2026), 0-0 draws have occurred in approximately 4.5% to 5% of matches, with reports indicating 9 or 10 such results out of roughly 249+ matches played.

In recent seasons, approximately 2.9% to 3% of Premier League games have ended in a 0-0 draw at the end of regulation time. During the 2023-24 season, only 11 out of 380 matches (2.89%2.98%) finished with a goalless scoreline, marking one of the lowest rates in the competition's history.

How many matches have fewer than 3 scoring highlights?

concordtom said:

---

How many matches have fewer than 3 scoring highlights?

---

Probably half, but you wrote as if it is standard for games to go scoreless. It isn't.

Oh.
Thx for the value add.