USA men's soccer

**Let's Go State** · 08-04-2012, 02:36 PM

Did the men not make the Olympics? I've googled it and searched the us website and can't find any answers.

**geburgess** · 08-04-2012, 02:36 PM

Nope we failed to qualify. Happens when you don't use your best players to get in the Olympics...

**BuffettClone** · 08-04-2012, 02:40 PM

That's why they should make american rules football an olympic sport. USA would be better than the rest of the world but the rest of the world is better than us in soccer so it evens out

**Let's Go State** · 08-04-2012, 03:00 PM

That would be a problem. Seems like we burn them out on the world cup.

**JD720** · 08-04-2012, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by geburgess

Nope we failed to qualify. Happens when you don't use your best players to get in the Olympics...

Who were we missing besides Altidore? I'm not that familiar with our youth teams.

**3TrueFans** · 08-04-2012, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by geburgess

Nope we failed to qualify. Happens when you don't use your best players to get in the Olympics...

The rules as far as rosters go for Olympic soccer are different than for normal tournaments.

**shagcarpetjesus** · 08-04-2012, 03:38 PM

The US men didn't get out of the group stages of the qualifying tournament. They let El Salvador tie them up 3-3 in their final match with a ridiculously late goal which prevented them from advancing to knock-out play. They also lost to Canada which was an equally bad result that didn't help.

As 3TrueFans pointed out, Olympic competition for the men isn't typical international soccer as it's basically a U23 tournament with the exception that teams that qualified for London get to add 3 "overage" players to their roster. Hence, the talk about Beckham possibly playing for GB prior to the Olympics & why guys like Ryan Giggs are.

I don't think the US did anything particularly unusual with the U23 roster. Technically, a player like Altidore would qualify as U23 but his club hasn't exactly been cooperative with releasing him for duty with the senior squad so I don't know that you can knock US Soccer for not including him. They fielded the best team they could for the most part, they just played like crap in qualifying.

**Wesley** · 08-04-2012, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by shagcarpetjesus

The US men didn't get out of the group stages of the qualifying tournament. They let El Salvador tie them up 3-3 in their final match with a ridiculously late goal which prevented them from advancing to knock-out play. They also lost to Canada which was an equally bad result that didn't help.

As 3TrueFans pointed out, Olympic competition for the men isn't typical international soccer as it's basically a U23 tournament with the exception that teams that qualified for London get to add 3 "overage" players to their roster. Hence, the talk about Beckham possibly playing for GB prior to the Olympics & why guys like Ryan Giggs are.

I don't think the US did anything particularly unusual with the U23 roster. Technically, a player like Altidore would qualify as U23 but his club hasn't exactly been cooperative with releasing him for duty with the senior squad so I don't know that you can knock US Soccer for not including him. They fielded the best team they could for the most part, they just played like crap in qualifying.

Fire the coach. He needed more gas in his tank.

**jdoggivjc** · 08-04-2012, 03:57 PM

I guess it just doesn't bother me that USA didn't qualify for the Olympics. Because it's a U23 tournament nobody's really playing their best players. This would be the first time in a century that Great Britain has even fielded a team. Didn't Nigeria win the gold a few Olympics back? That ought to tell you something right there.

Outside of it being more football, I would argue the rest of the world cares less about the Olympics than they do about the Confed Cup. Or, at least the world implied that when USA finished runner-up in 2009.

**buchacho** · 08-04-2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

I guess it just doesn't bother me that USA didn't qualify for the Olympics. Because it's a U23 tournament nobody's really playing their best players. This would be the first time in a century that Great Britain has even fielded a team. Didn't Nigeria win the gold a few Olympics back? That ought to tell you something right there.

Outside of it being more football, I would argue the rest of the world cares less about the Olympics than they do about the Confed Cup. Or, at least the world implied that when USA finished runner-up in 2009.

Great Britain stopped entering teams into the olympics in the 70s if i recall after professional players were allowed to participate. as for the quality of the competition, it may only be u23, but there is still loads of talent which is why it is frustrating the US didn't qualify as it would have been an excellent opportunity for some of our younger players to showcase themselves for clubs around the world and show for klinsman possibly earning a spot on the senior team.

**jdoggivjc** · 08-04-2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by buchacho

Great Britain stopped entering teams into the olympics in the 70s if i recall after professional players were allowed to participate. as for the quality of the competition, it may only be u23, but there is still loads of talent which is why it is frustrating the US didn't qualify as it would have been an excellent opportunity for some of our younger players to showcase themselves for clubs around the world and show for klinsman possibly earning a spot on the senior team.

No, Great Britain stopped entering teams in the Olympics because they couldn't field teams, as the four separate football confederations that ultimately make up Great Britain Football (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) all "recommended" (more like told) their players not play for a Great Britain team. If the Olympics were deemed important in the football world the four confederations would more likely set aside their differences to field a team. The truth is no confederation in Europe (or any fan, for that matter) sees anything but World Cup, UEFA Euro, UEFA Champions League, and the individual leagues (EPL, whatever they call it in Spain, Bundesliga, Serie A, etc) as important.

**shagcarpetjesus** · 08-04-2012, 05:17 PM

Other countries that don't have a team participating in men's Olympic soccer: the Netherlands, France, Italy, Germany, and Argentina. In terms of international soccer, it's just not a hugely important tournament. I would have liked to see the US make it to London because the experience for the younger guys in the player pool (Agudelo, Shea, Boyd, Gyau, Corona, etc) would have been huge. But I don't think it's some sort of devastating blow to US soccer development.

**Trainer** · 08-04-2012, 05:34 PM

Even if we did qualify, we would lose to Nemar like everyone else.

**IHavNoCyCash** · 08-04-2012, 07:07 PM

I'm concerned about the future of US soccer. Our core players are all past their prime or will be off it when the world cup starts in 2 years.

Our core: Howard (old, though GK age slower), Donovan (last world cup was when he was at peak), Dempsey (doing good for Fullham in EPL, we'll see), and Bradley (old). I don't see a lot of talent from our youth academy coming up. Altidore could be very good but looks lazy out there. Shea I've heard good things from. Adu had a ton of hype but looks like a bust.

Maybe it's just me, but we need some players to step up or we could be in trouble for 2018.

**Let's Go State** · 08-04-2012, 07:08 PM

Watching GBR lose to south Korea today make me think they care.

As far a U23 tourney, why did GBR have a 38 year old captain out there doing the penalty kick?

I saw the us play against Canada and it was embarrassing.

The benefit is that the women will get some great well deserved attention.