PatAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

First goal scored by a CONCACAF team that isn't Mexico.

CONCACAF is the BDF of soccer.

---

What I hate about this opinion is it ignored the World Cups prior to this. You know, where we sent 2 or even all 3 teams through to knockout rounds.

---

I think CONCACAF needs to take a deep look inside if itself in the near future and determine whether they want to let their lesser sides and referee pool continue to bog down our offerings on the world stage with chintzy floppy play (that gets thoroughly exposed like it did today) or actually get behind its sides that want to make a real effort to compete on the world stage (and have the resources to do it).

I don't know what the real answer is, but the anti-USA attitude needs to get lost. Perhaps stronger use of VAR across the board in matches and a willingness to make examples out of the worst offenders?

And with respect to the quality of teams making subsequent rounds, I get it that they've made runs but outside of maybe Mexico, none of the squads that have made a run where they don't hit a plateau. Costa Rica might make the round of 8, but this time they're playing [name a truly world-class country] and their ticky-tack CONCACAF ball isn't going to cut it no matter how polished they try to make it.

Feel like this 2nd Columbia goal was actually against the recent run of play. Massive goal

Colombia games are nice to watch on tv

blindey said:

---

PatAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

First goal scored by a CONCACAF team that isn't Mexico.

CONCACAF is the BDF of soccer.

---

What I hate about this opinion is it ignored the World Cups prior to this. You know, where we sent 2 or even all 3 teams through to knockout rounds.

---

I think CONCACAF needs to take a deep look inside if itself in the near future and determine whether they want to let their lesser sides and referee pool continue to bog down our offerings on the world stage with chintzy floppy play (that gets thoroughly exposed like it did today) or actually get behind its sides that want to make a real effort to compete on the world stage (and have the resources to do it).

I don't know what the real answer is, but the anti-USA attitude needs to get lost. Perhaps stronger use of VAR across the board in matches and a willingness to make examples out of the worst offenders?

And with respect to the quality of teams making subsequent rounds, I get it that they've made runs but outside of maybe Mexico, none of the squads that have made a run where they don't hit a plateau. Costa Rica might make the round of 8, but this time they're playing [name a truly world-class country] and their ticky-tack CONCACAF ball isn't going to cut it no matter how polished they try to make it.

---

Someone said it jokingly, but there is probably a lot of truth in the statement, about Panama and Costa Rica struggling without a CONCACAF ref.

Damn that was a helluva pass from James

That polish guy was looking to snap some legs with that tackle

So lots of Columbia fans at a World Cup In Russia must mean the cocaine business is good? I may as well not watch Narcos because I know who wins.

Colombia is putting on a show today. Lots of talent on this team. They can make a run if they pass the ball effectively like they have done today.

I saw the joke too. But I think some of it really is attributable to the attitude that permeates CONCACAF right now. Ultimately, the region needs to ask itself, "would we rather (a) do what we can to put the best and most competitive teams on the field or (b) look the other way as much as we can as a favor to lesser squads who can then get exposed for the frauds they are when they meet real competition and are officiated by refs that aren't tainted by the CONCACAF attitude."

Since option (b) gets lesser countries a chance to play in the World Cup every now and again, most of the region might really support option b because their country could be the next Panama or Jamaica or whatever.

I know I'm derailing this thread a bit, but it sort of goes with the question of whether you would want to see Mexico win it all. There is certainly something to be said for winning a friendly against a rival with a recent World Cup victory. All just food for thought.

But one thing is clear: Panama's display against England today was embarrassing.

blindey said:

---

PatAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

First goal scored by a CONCACAF team that isn't Mexico.

CONCACAF is the BDF of soccer.

---

What I hate about this opinion is it ignored the World Cups prior to this. You know, where we sent 2 or even all 3 teams through to knockout rounds.

---

I think CONCACAF needs to take a deep look inside if itself in the near future and determine whether they want to let their lesser sides and referee pool continue to bog down our offerings on the world stage with chintzy floppy play (that gets thoroughly exposed like it did today) or actually get behind its sides that want to make a real effort to compete on the world stage (and have the resources to do it).

I don't know what the real answer is, but the anti-USA attitude needs to get lost. Perhaps stronger use of VAR across the board in matches and a willingness to make examples out of the worst offenders?

And with respect to the quality of teams making subsequent rounds, I get it that they've made runs but outside of maybe Mexico, none of the squads that have made a run where they don't hit a plateau. Costa Rica might make the round of 8, but this time they're playing [name a truly world-class country] and their ticky-tack CONCACAF ball isn't going to cut it no matter how polished they try to make it.

---

What can CONCACAF do to bolster our offerings? I think the only long term solution would be to have a joint Copa America with CONMEBOL every 4 years to compete with the EUROS. That gets the CONCACAF teams better games more often and that last Copa was an absolute success. CONCACAF also represented itself well enough.

Good thinking on the joint Copa America. I'd support that.

And I think you're on the right track re getting more competitive teams to play competitive games against each other.

here's something that will definitely impact the Friendly schedule from everyone outside of UEFA:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Nations_League

European League for national teams. Starts this year...we won't be seeing the US playing friendlies in Europe against Poland, France, Ireland, etc.. not after this starts. Conmebol and concacaf need to respond to this

blindey said:

---

PatAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

First goal scored by a CONCACAF team that isn't Mexico.

CONCACAF is the BDF of soccer.

---

What I hate about this opinion is it ignored the World Cups prior to this. You know, where we sent 2 or even all 3 teams through to knockout rounds.

---

I think CONCACAF needs to take a deep look inside if itself in the near future and determine whether they want to let their lesser sides and referee pool continue to bog down our offerings on the world stage with chintzy floppy play (that gets thoroughly exposed like it did today) or actually get behind its sides that want to make a real effort to compete on the world stage (and have the resources to do it).

I don't know what the real answer is, but the anti-USA attitude needs to get lost. Perhaps stronger use of VAR across the board in matches and a willingness to make examples out of the worst offenders?

And with respect to the quality of teams making subsequent rounds, I get it that they've made runs but outside of maybe Mexico, none of the squads that have made a run where they don't hit a plateau. Costa Rica might make the round of 8, but this time they're playing [name a truly world-class country] and their ticky-tack CONCACAF ball isn't going to cut it no matter how polished they try to make it.

---

What anti-USA attitude? The Gold Cup is hosted here every time. Not sure how many other federations can say that. And that's just one example.

As far as what you can do, a joint Copa America would help some. But I'm not sure how you do that where it actually means something.

It's just the unfortunate part of what happens to be our region. You have USA and Mexico and nothing.

A theoretical solution would be to have say an America federation. But let's say that happens: the USA would miss the World Cup more frequently. Look at CONMEBOL and some of the teams that miss the WC at times.

Best way to make the teams competitive is just interest at home and continuing to have more players play in the big leagues and teams of Europe.

OregonAggie said:

---

here's something that will definitely impact the Friendly schedule from everyone outside of UEFA:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Nations_League

European League for national teams. Starts this year...we won't be seeing the US playing friendlies in Europe against Poland, France, Ireland, etc.. not after this starts. Conmebol and concacaf need to respond to this

---

Would love to see something like this in the Americas.

I definitely would not be supportive of an American federation for the reason you listed.

Concacaf could have a gold cup the year after the World Cup to determine Confederations Cup attendee. The year after could be a joint Copa America. It can be be done.

I do think one thing that could help regionally is the MLS continuing to grow and prosper. As this league strengthens, I think the entire region will benefit. I don't think it will ever compete with the top European leagues but the South American leagues don't either.

Here is a totally left field idea. Let the minnows create a joint international squad in lieu of national teams.

I'm just kinda throwing it out there, but I think MLS is holding our top players back. I'd almost like to see some kind of thing where, if you're 18-25 and you want in the USMNT pool, then you better be playing abroad.

Things are getting better, with Pulisic and others playing in Europe, but instead of 5 or 15, it needs to be 50. Let the Latin American players aspire to playing in America, and lets find a way to send our best to compete with the best.

LeonardSkinner said:

---

I'm just kinda throwing it out there, but I think MLS is holding our top players back. I'd almost like to see some kind of thing where, if you're 18-25 and you want in the USMNT pool, then you better be playing abroad.

Things are getting better, with Pulisic and others playing in Europe, but instead of 5 or 15, it needs to be 50. Let the Latin American players aspire to playing in America, and lets find a way to send our best to compete with the best.

---

I fully agree that we need our young players playing Europe as opposed to playing here in MLS. The problem is the FIFA rule against transfers of minors under the age of 18. We really need our best 13-17 year olds going there and training in big systems such as Barcelona's but rules prevent them.

By the time these clubs can bring them over, like Weston Mckinnie to Schalke, they've already missed opportunities at being developed there. I damn well think Mckinnie will be fine but where would he be now if Schalke brought him over at 15? That rule really kills our kids' development.

We have damn well derailed this thread...

Don't think many would disagree, but we're already heading this way. Most of our next generation of players are in Europe or at least Mexico these days.

If you look at the call ups for recent friendlies there's maybe a quarter of the roster in MLS with lots in England and Germany with a handful playing in Mexico and a few other euro leagues.

OregonAggie said:

---

LeonardSkinner said:

---

I'm just kinda throwing it out there, but I think MLS is holding our top players back. I'd almost like to see some kind of thing where, if you're 18-25 and you want in the USMNT pool, then you better be playing abroad.

Things are getting better, with Pulisic and others playing in Europe, but instead of 5 or 15, it needs to be 50. Let the Latin American players aspire to playing in America, and lets find a way to send our best to compete with the best.

---

I fully agree that we need our young players playing Europe as opposed to playing here in MLS. The problem is the FIFA rule against transfers of minors under the age of 18. We really need our best 13-17 year olds going there and training in big systems such as Barcelona's but rules prevent them.

By the time these clubs can bring them over, like Weston Mckinnie to Schalke, they've already missed opportunities at being developed there. I damn well think Mckinnie will be fine but where would he be now if Schalke brought him over at 15? That rule really kills our kids' development.

---

Is that a FIFA rule, or a government body rule regarding passports and work permits? I always assumed the latter. I think the MLS clubs commitment to more development at early ages is also helping, and there is nothing wrong with players wanting to move on at age 15 or so. Some players will also still just naturally develop a little later in life, and the MLS will be there for them too.

fig96 said:

---

Don't think many would disagree, but we're already heading this way. Most of our next generation of players are in Europe or at least Mexico these days.

If you look at the call ups for recent friendlies there's maybe a quarter of the roster in MLS with lots in England and Germany with a handful playing in Mexico and a few other euro leagues.

---

I guess what I mean is that I'd almost be in favor of codifying this. If I, Leonard Skinner, sign a contract at age 18 with the Portland Timbers, awesome. But know that I'm not getting any looks from the national team unless I work my way up to moving overseas.
And MLS has to buy in to the fact that they won't get to keep the young, potentially great American talent.

Right now, playing in MLS leads to complacency and a limit on player development.

jxs40 said:

---

Here is a totally left field idea. Let the minnows create a joint international squad in lieu of national teams.

---

So they actually do this in cricket and the result is a world power that competes with the big boys. Would be interesting to see the Caribbean part of CONCACAF field a team comparable to the West Indies cricket team. They'd be competitive at least.

blindey said:

---

jxs40 said:

---

Here is a totally left field idea. Let the minnows create a joint international squad in lieu of national teams.

---

So they actually do this in cricket and the result is a world power that competes with the big boys. Would be interesting to see the Caribbean part of CONCACAF field a team comparable to the West Indies cricket team. They'd be competitive at least.

---

Oh, like getting the best players from Jamaica, T&T, etc. Pfft, they wouldn't stand a chance against a team like the USMNT.






**takes another shot of vodka to fend off the tears**

England kicking the crap out of Panama. Panamanian players holding English players has led to two penalty kicks by Kane, which he made.

zooguy96 said:

---

England kicking the crap out of Panama. Panamanian players holding English players has led to two penalty kicks by Kane, which he made.

---

Man that game must have started really late in Russia...

It's a FIFA rule. If a kid has a EU member country passport, then he can sign with a team between age 16 to 18. Otherwise he basically can't (there are exceptions to the rule but they only apply to very few players).

Pulisic and Hyndman we're both able to sign with European team at 16 because they had European passports due to their family background.

OregonAggie said:

---

It's a FIFA rule. If a kid has a EU member country passport, then he can sign with a team between age 16 to 18. Otherwise he basically can't (there are exceptions to the rule but they only apply to very few players).

Pulisic and Hyndman we're both able to sign with European team at 16 because they had European passports due to their family background.

---

So it's kind of a mix of both, because the governments decide who/when you can get a passport.

Big Sam was spotted in a pub watching England/Panama by himself, eating a big mac he brought in. Thats magnificent.

Belgium v England could be a crap fest if they both try to lose to avoid Brazil down the line.

yep, Belgium going to sit a lot of their stars.

If I was managing either side I wouldn't take any injury risks but I'd still want to win.

Out in Left Field said:

---

Belgium v England could be a crap fest if they both try to lose to avoid Brazil down the line.

---

This article sums up the situation pretty well and with some humor.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.slate.com/culture/2018/06/england-vs-belgium-tank-better-world-cup-bracket-draw.html

The loser of the game is really the winner because it gives them an easier path to the final...it's a good quick read if y'all have time.

bagger05 said:

---

If I was managing either side I wouldn't take any injury risks but I'd still want to win.

---

Why?

England and Belgium will also have the benefit of knowing who won the earlier Group H games. If Japan wins Group H, both teams would be smart to try to emphatically try to lose. Because Japan in Round of 16 and Switzerland and Sweden in Round of 8 would be the easiest path to a semifinal probably ever.