What are the three stars on the US soccer logo all about?!

D

Danielle(:

New member
Quit bitching about your 'hard group'. USA are a Seed C team (probably going down to Seed D in 2010), so you will always have a hard group.
England are a Seed A team, will stay a Seed a team in 2010, and so we will always have an easy group.


You are not 'unlucky' or any of that shit; the reason you can't qualify is because you're in a low Seed pool.
 
I'd have to agree with this, I've always said USA is a top 15 team...probably 13-10th depending on how they are doing. Alot better than what the rest of the world thinks
 
well...Germany has three stars because we won 3 WorldCups
Brazil has 5
Italy 3 as well...and so on


and now the US just comes along and has 3 stars in its logo?!
Bitch pleez
 
God, I hope we get to play England just to show you how dumb you are. Your team has just done so well in WCs the last few years havent they? When was the last time you did any real damage in the WC?
 
Well we've won it once more than you guys have .
1998 we got knocked out to argentina on pens, after Beckham was sent off for being an idiot. Argentina were one of the best sides in the competition and one of the best sides in todays World Cup also.
In 2002 we were knocked out in the quarters to Brazil, after a freak free-kick by Ronaldhinio. We lost 2-1. Brazil went on to win the world cup and this tournament they are one of the favouritres.


Compared to USA: In 2002 you went out to at the same stage as England, the quarters, to Germany, who did NOT win the tournament. This is probably your best accomplishment in football. The only reason you got to the quarters in 2002 was because you were insanlel lucky; a win and a draw in the groups, with a -1 goal difference. You were then drawn with Mexico (it should have been Italy topping group G, but somehow Mexico surprised - no need to state that Italy would have knocked you out in the last 16). By 'getting to the quarters', I hope you realise you only won TWO games the entire tournament.
In 1998 you finished last in your group, a feat you're aspring to recreate this tournament, it would seem.

England would beat the shit out of the USA at football in a match between them.


Meh, the stats and public opinion both point to one thing; USA football sucks.
 
Wow, you've won it once. Being that you have played the sport much longer and have had a professional league to develop your talent for decades that isnt much of an accomplishment. We have only had a pro league for 10 years and it has made our national team 100x better in that short time. What do you think is going to happen in the next 10 years when the MLS keeps on developing our talent?

In 2002 we dominated Portugal, Mexico, and Germany but was unfortunate to lose 1-0 to Germany or who knows what would of happened.

We also lost to in '94 to Brazil who went on to win the cup in a game that we played them evenly with a mediocre team.

Also, I find it funny that you use Beckham's red card as an excuse for a loss but when we US fans do that, we are whining.

Your biased is clouding your judgement, thats okay. I will let your NATs do the talking for me in the next few years.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4356050.stm

POT ONE
Germany (hosts)
Brazil (holders)
Argentina
England
France
Italy
Mexico
Spain

POT TWO
Australia
Angola
Ghana
Ivory Coast
Togo
Tunisia
Ecuador
Paraguay

POT THREE
Croatia
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Sweden
Switzerland
Ukraine

POT FOUR
Iran
Japan
Saudi Arabia
South Korea
Costa Rica
Trinidad & Tobago
US
Special pot: Serbia & Montenegro



You really are fucking dumb. As you can see, US are a POT FOUR group, along with teams such as Costa Rica, Iran and KSA.

:teehee:
 
Nearly all of the best players in the English Premiership are foreign. If the MLS ever gets to be a proper league I'm sure teams will import foreign players too, as there isn't enough American talent atm.

Beckham was (is?) one of the best players of his posistion in the world. No USA player is. Also, Beckhams sending off was out of pure stupidity and didn't even happen while the game was in play. Both of the US reds in the previous game were because of bad tackles.

Korea would have beaten you in the Semis, and been in the final.


NATs = ?
I know that my bias is speaking, but seriously...anyone except an American would accept that English football is more developed and more advanced than American 'soccer'. (Not to mention we get the name ight).
The English team has had more sucsess in the history of World Cups, has had more sucsess over the past few world cups, is 2nd seed in the 2006 World Cup and is likely to finish a LOT better than America in the 2006 World Cup.

Player by player, England > USA. We have a great young keeper (Robinson), as opposed to the aging Keller. Our defense is arguably the second best in the world. Our midfield is arguably the best in the world. Our star player is arguably the best in the world. Our strikers are certianly top-5 in the world.
Beckham, Rooney, Gerrard, Lampard...they're all household names and iconic figures of World sport and between them start for Real Madrid, Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea; four of the richest and most sucsessful clubs in the world. I barely know any of the American players, and they certainly aren't in clubs ready to challenge the best in Europe.

I realise that Americans are patriotic, but really, suggesting that you're better than England at our natioanl sport is taking the piss.
 
Yes - Brazil are first seed and England are 2nd seed.
As you can see both Brazil, England and the 6 other good teams are in Pool A. If USA were a Seed A team then they would not be drawn in the same group as Italy, and may have got past the group stages.

IT IS NOT 'BAD LUCK', IT IS THE FACT YOU ARE A SHITTY TEAM.
 
Back
Top