471 replies to this topic

[DLew On Roids]

I like the attitude, but that arrangement was so NASL. OH GOD, 35-YARD LINE FLASHBACK, MAKE IT STOP!

Sousa marches would be good for American fan songs. Except for The Liberty Bell, of course.

Edited by DLew On Roids, 25 June 2010 - 09:06 AM.

[Zososoxfan]

It was a great win, but let's not overdo it--it's probably not even in the top 3 moments in American World Cup soccer. This is a team that was expected (though not a lock) to advance and barely pulled that off.

Beating England in 1950, advancing in 1994 when they were expected to be roundly trounced, and getting 3rd in 1930 back when we had a reasonably competitive side were bigger moments.

Heck, beating Spain last year meant more for the legitimacy of American soccer than this win.

(and that's assuming that we limit things to the men's game; Brandy Chastain in 1999 probably did more for soccer viewership of both the men's and women's teams in America than any game the men have ever played)

Not to pick on you Sumner, but I've had enough of the 1930s reference. Take US soccer in context and I think it's pretty hard to argue that a win in what [I think] was an 8-team tournament 80 years ago, is a top 3 moment. I think 1994 has to be the biggest accomplishment, #2 in my book would be the quarterfinals run, and #3 is either England in '50 or this WC.

People I know who don't give two shits about soccer are following this closely. Importantly, I think, my gambling buddies are getting into soccer now too. If this team beats Ghana and has a chance to make the semis against Korea/Uruguay, I think it tops just about everything provided they don't shit the bed.

[Spacemans Bong]

It was 13 teams in 1930. It wasn't the greatest ever World Cup in terms of teams, admittedly, but the semifinals are the semifinals. Or 3rd, if you want to watch Tony's neck veins bulge one more time.

In that same vein, beating England doesn't really mean a whole lot. It was barely reported in the US and its knockon effect was that we didn't qualify for another 40 years.

I think you have to go with 1994 in terms of World Cup finals moments, or 1989 if you want to extend it to qualifiers.

I do think they'll lose if they face Uruguay in the quarters (if they make it that far - Ghana are totally capable of beating us 2-0, since they can defend better than we can). Uruguay are a very good team. If we get south korea, then all bets are off, because they're almost exactly the same team we are.

Edited by Spacemans Bong, 25 June 2010 - 09:20 AM.

[Zomp]

It was a great win, but let's not overdo it--it's probably not even in the top 3 moments in American World Cup soccer. This is a team that was expected (though not a lock) to advance and barely pulled that off.

Beating England in 1950, advancing in 1994 when they were expected to be roundly trounced, and getting 3rd in 1930 back when we had a reasonably competitive side were bigger moments.

Heck, beating Spain last year meant more for the legitimacy of American soccer than this win.

(and that's assuming that we limit things to the men's game; Brandy Chastain in 1999 probably did more for soccer viewership of both the men's and women's teams in America than any game the men have ever played)

I disagree. I think it is the biggest moment in American Soccer because of the world wide coverage of the sport now vs 1950 and 1930.

Its bigger than 1994 because of the players at our disposal now (thanks, of course, to 94). Of our starting 11 only 2 or 3 make their living playing in the joke of a league they call MLS. American players are now playing abroad and being taken very seriously. We have the best American Soccer player ever playing on the team right now, and it appears he's finally turned the corner and has the stones to play successfully in Europe. They also have one of the world's best keepers.

and its WAY bigger than beating Spain in a glorified friendly.

In all of the victories people are listing that they think are bigger, it was because we were the underdogs who pulled out a victory when nobody believed we could. To me, that doesn't signify the biggest moment because the next year people would still take us as underdogs.

The match the other day was about the US team showing that it should be taken seriously from here on out. They won their group that included a footballing super power in England, and a very good Slovenia team (any European team that makes it out of their qualifying rounds should be taken seriously). It shouldn't have been so complicated, they should have beaten Slovenia and if they took their chances well vs Algeria it wouldn't have even been close.

But, the way they did it. Backs pushed against the wall, surely the last chance of the game, catching an exhausted team on the counter attack. That is something that good teams do. I'm using cliches, but they found a way to win. The US Soccer team won't be taken lightly by teams anymore.

[Infield Infidel]

But, the way they did it. Backs pushed against the wall, surely the last chance of the game, catching an exhausted team on the counter attack. That is something that good teams do. I'm using cliches, but they found a way to win. The US Soccer team won't be taken lightly by teams anymore.

Exactly. This wasn't the biggest win in the context of who we played and what stage we are in in the World Cup, but it is the biggest moment, and by far. This is Papi hitting the extra inning dinger in game 4 vs the Yankees. This is Vinatieri kicking the OT FG vs the Raiders.

It didn't win us any title, or get us to a final even, but it was a single, last-second galvanizing moment that allows us to live another day.

It also is making people, casual sports fans, and big-time sports fans, in this country give a shit about soccer. I just got back from SA, on a trip with a South African and an American who didn't give a crap about soccer, called it a nancy sport but has season tickets to the Tampa Bay Bucs. That guy is a huge sports fan but didn't give a crap about soccer until we watched USA-England at a house party with other big soccer fans. First soccer match he saw from beginning to end. Then we went to USA-Slovenia, and for any American sports fan who watched it, anywhere in the world, if that game couldn't get you hooked then nothing could. This is a likable team that we can be proud of. He saw how insane a soccer match and soccer fans can be, and now the guy is hooked on USA Soccer and having a big ass BBQ tomorrow for the game.

I'm sure sports fans heard about USA-Slovenia, then watched USA-Algeria and were on the edge of their seats for 90 minutes of 0-0 soccer. They found out that 0-0 doesn't mean boring. This moment made lifelong international soccer fans out of a lot of people. This is what we need, even if it's only every 4 years and Qualies and maybe Gold Cups and Confed Cups. We need sports fans to go nuts for USA Soccer, and this team is making it happen.

Edited by Infield Infidel, 25 June 2010 - 09:57 AM.

[rguilmar]

I disagree. I think it is the biggest moment in American Soccer because of the world wide coverage of the sport now vs 1950 and 1930.

Its bigger than 1994 because of the players at our disposal now (thanks, of course, to 94). Of our starting 11 only 2 or 3 make their living playing in the joke of a league they call MLS. American players are now playing abroad and being taken very seriously. We have the best American Soccer player ever playing on the team right now, and it appears he's finally turned the corner and has the stones to play successfully in Europe. They also have one of the world's best keepers.

and its WAY bigger than beating Spain in a glorified friendly.

In all of the victories people are listing that they think are bigger, it was because we were the underdogs who pulled out a victory when nobody believed we could. To me, that doesn't signify the biggest moment because the next year people would still take us as underdogs.

The match the other day was about the US team showing that it should be taken seriously from here on out. They won their group that included a footballing super power in England, and a very good Slovenia team (any European team that makes it out of their qualifying rounds should be taken seriously). It shouldn't have been so complicated, they should have beaten Slovenia and if they took their chances well vs Algeria it wouldn't have even been close.

But, the way they did it. Backs pushed against the wall, surely the last chance of the game, catching an exhausted team on the counter attack. That is something that good teams do. I'm using cliches, but they found a way to win. The US Soccer team won't be taken lightly by teams anymore.

Couldn't agree more.

For single moments, it's hard to beat a last-gasp goal to clinch advancement to the knockout stages of a World Cup. Also, it was the most watched game in US soccer history. More Americans saw that goal live (and probably on replay) than any other goal the US has ever scored. It also guarantees that the US-Ghana game will have an enormous viewing audience.

People are mentioning other great and important games, but what are the absolute defining moments in those games?

[djhb20]

I mean, if you've watched those reaction videos, you can't tell me that anyone would have imagined they'd see something like this at the World Cup. My wife's from Argentina, and I've been putting up with years of "US soccer is a joke, why does nobody care, etc" I've been sending her youtube videos of the celebrations for two straight days now.

Sure, maybe the Gaetjens goal is more famous overall, but there's no way it's as important to US soccer as Donovan's goal, made all the more important for the growth of US soccer by the fact that it was scored by the one player that a random sports fan in the US has a chance of naming. [If someone like Torres had scored it, it wouldn't have had nearly the impact.] I mean, imagine that doesn't happen, and it ends 0-0. The US is a serious disappointment by not advancing; sure we tied England, but who cares. Everyone outside the US concludes that the we're still nothing to worry about. Everyone in the US forgets about it immediately with the NBA draft yesterday, and it's all over. No growth at all. Regardless of what happens against Ghana, that goal probably grew US soccer more than any other single event has. And the Ghana match is a 2:30pm match on a Saturday, making it real easy to build an audience for.

[Jamoked]

So the lack of goals is the fault of the central defender and defensive midfielder, not the striker? I can agree some blame lies with Torres, but under the US's system Findley is expected to finish goals himself just as much as he's expected to help create them. He's a make-shift Charlie Davies, and Davies was an out-and-out striker, not a center forward or a deep-lying one. Gomez is just as capable of creating space (see: his diagonal run that drew defenders away on Bradley's goal against Slovenia) and is in goal-scoring form right now. I also think Buddle would work better with Altidore than people are giving them credit for, as Altidore played his best soccer with Hull paired with another big man in Vennegoor of Hesselink. Either one of them brings more to the table at this point than Findley.

Good post. IMO, the lack of goals in that first match and a half has more to do with the awful distribution out of the back, i.e. the long balls to relieve pressure, than Findley. You make a good point that Jozy's best work in the premiership came alongside Hesselink but it also supports my point that you can't singularly look at a forward's strike-rate in your evaluations, since the two combined for two goals when playing together. There are many variables in play.

Don't confuse my defense of Findley to be a knock on Gomez or Buddle, to me neither of the three have set themselves apart and Charlie is not walking through that door. Look, Findley could start and have an awful match and I could look like a giant idiot for arguing this, but I prefer him, and his work rate on 8 days rest. That's all.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Its bigger than 1994 because of the players at our disposal now (thanks, of course, to 94). Of our starting 11 only 2 or 3 make their living playing in the joke of a league they call MLS. American players are now playing abroad and being taken very seriously. We have the best American Soccer player ever playing on the team right now, and it appears he's finally turned the corner and has the stones to play successfully in Europe. They also have one of the world's best keepers.

We are in a different stage, but there is no way this is bigger than advancing in 1994. Whatever happens in this World Cup, US soccer is already on the map and taken relatively seriously, given the very reasons you state (players in top leagues) and other reasons (success in 2002, other results along the way). Advancing is big for us, but its not like the fate of US soccer hinged on whether we made the next round.

In 1994, the stakes were much higher: Become a worldwide laughstock by being the first host not to advance, thus delivering a huge and quite possibly fatal blow to a very fragile program just then experiencing a resurgence, or advance and give significant momentum to that program. Commentators around the world predicted that we would get embarrassed, and against the odds we advanced, acquitted ourselves well in the next game against the eventual champions, and basically made everything afterward possible. Say what you will about the MLS, but it wasn't even obvious in 1994 that the league was going to come together and last. And a whole generation of kids grew up knowing the names of US players and with the impression that US soccer was on the rise toward respectability, which was just an immense contrast with the 1970s and 1980s, when kids grew up thinking of US soccer as a total joke and without knowing a single player.

The stakes of the two situations aren't even close really.

Edited by Morgan's Magic Snowplow, 25 June 2010 - 11:11 AM.

[pk1627]

For single moments, it's hard to beat a last-gasp goal to clinch advancement to the knockout stages of a World Cup. Also, it was the most watched game in US soccer history. More Americans saw that goal live (and probably on replay) than any other goal the US has ever scored. It also guarantees that the US-Ghana game will have an enormous viewing audience.

I agree that Saturday's game will be on many TV sets. And the controversies we are sure to see may simply kill the sport in the States. There is simply no way a USA team is going to beat an African team in this venue.

[DLew On Roids]

I think it's the 1-0 win against T&T in 1989. Without that the USSF might have gone bankrupt because it had invested heavily in players (it owned most of the player contracts at the time) to try to get to the 1990 World Cup. Before the T&T game, the USA's captain, Mike Windischmann, told his teammates that they needed to win so they didn't have to go find real jobs.

Without the Caligiuri goal, the 1994 team doesn't advance, there's no American base of players to sustain MLS in 1996, and the USA remains the country that sends the occasional Peter Vermes to European junk leagues. It's the moment the USSF had been trying to reach since about 1969, when it started taking WC qualification seriously again. Everything changed with that game.

Edit: This We-Aren't-Beating-An-African-Team-In-South-Africa stuff doesn't fly with me. One African team got out of the group stages. No one in South Africa cares about Ghana. Accra is about as close to Rustenberg as it is to Berlin. We may lose, but it isn't because the fix is in for Africa.

Edited by DLew On Roids, 25 June 2010 - 11:21 AM.

[Zososoxfan]

I disagree. I think it is the biggest moment in American Soccer because of the world wide coverage of the sport now vs 1950 and 1930.

Its bigger than 1994 because of the players at our disposal now (thanks, of course, to 94). Of our starting 11 only 2 or 3 make their living playing in the joke of a league they call MLS.

The match the other day was about the US team showing that it should be taken seriously from here on out.

The US Soccer team won't be taken lightly by teams anymore.

Your first statement says what I was thinking eloquently. Soccer for the US in the 30s-50s has very little to do with the sport now.

I disagree about the US being taken lightly. If they get spanked by Ghana, the US really has only taken one step (getting out of the group), when another huge one (quarterfinals against a weak opponent) was begging to be taken. When a team gets a fortuitous draw and takes advantage of it, then they are going to be taken seriously.

I agree that this has captured Americans' attention and that's what puts this on equal standing with '94 (I think both events are hugely significant and don't care to bother which is more so), but a semifinal matchup against Brazil or Ned would do a WHOLE SHITLOAD MORE.

Look, this is exciting as all hell, but I think you're kidding yourself if you think that an American team beaten by Ghana in the first elimination round is scaring anyone. For me, that definition involves being clearly involved in the 2nd rung of world national soccer. I think most people would agree that there is a top echelon in x-national soccer (this year's results aside) that always has elite talent and based only on this criteria should be a serious contender, that consists of Brazil, Argentina, England, France, Italy, and Germany. Then there's that 2nd rung of international powerhouses that just can't quite get over the hump which includes Portugal, Ned (arguably a first rung team), Spain (biggest historical underachievers, but with consistently elite talent) and IMHO, Mexico and Uruguay. I think the US is in the next group of teams that would include Chile, Paraguay, Czech Rep., Cameroon, Ghana, and Korea, to name a few. These are countries that have real talent, but haven't established themselves yet. When these teams get "golden years," they look like 2nd tier teams, but they aren't there consistently.

I'm rambling, but hopefully this makes some sense.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I think it's the 1-0 win against T&T in 1989. Without that the USSF might have gone bankrupt because it had invested heavily in players (it owned most of the player contracts at the time) to try to get to the 1990 World Cup. Before the T&T game, the USA's captain, Mike Windischmann, told his teammates that they needed to win so they didn't have to go find real jobs.

Without the Caligiuri goal, the 1994 team doesn't advance, there's no American base of players to sustain MLS in 1996, and the USA remains the country that sends the occasional Peter Vermes to European junk leagues. It's the moment the USSF had been trying to reach since about 1969, when it started taking WC qualification seriously again. Everything changed with that game.

This is a legitimate argument.

In any case, both 1989 against T&T and advancing in 1994 were on completely different levels of magnitude than making the round of 16 in the 2010 World Cup.

[jose melendez]

Edit: This We-Aren't-Beating-An-African-Team-In-South-Africa stuff doesn't fly with me. One African team got out of the group stages. No one in South Africa cares about Ghana. Accra is about as close to Rustenberg as it is to Berlin. We may lose, but it isn't because the fix is in for Africa.

That's wrong. talked to my Zimbabwean friend in Cape Town the other day who loves America and he apologized and told me he was rooting for Ghana.

That said, I agree that there will be no fix.

[Jed Zeppelin]

That's wrong. talked to my Zimbabwean friend in Cape Town the other day who loves America and he apologized and told me he was rooting for Ghana.

That said, I agree that there will be no fix.

With the US probably having the most exciting Cup so far, it would be silly to fix the match against them.

[Zomp]

We are in a different stage, but there is no way this is bigger than advancing in 1994. Whatever happens in this World Cup, US soccer is already on the map and taken relatively seriously, given the very reasons you state (players in top leagues) and other reasons (success in 2002, other results along the way). Advancing is big for us, but its not like the fate of US soccer hinged on whether we made the next round.

Good post, and while I don't disagree that the "fate of US Soccer" hinged on that result...I do think it would have been a huge blow to the US to not advance to the knockout rounds for two World Cups in a row. In 2006 they had incredibly unfair high expectations on them that resulted in casual fans being turned off. The spine of that team matured into this one (with some important additions) and I'm not sure what some fans would have made of the US failing again with a seemingly easy group.

Zoso, I agree with your "level" of teams. But if the US can get into the quarterfinals and maybe even the (gulp) semis, to me it won't matter who they play. New fans won't care if they beat a superpower to get there or not.

[MentalDisabldLst]

The hardcores on this site already know this, but for the rest of us gearing up for tomorrow's game, I should remind everyone that in 2006, Ghana beat the USA 2-1, when a win would've sent us to the knockout rounds.

That said, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that our fans in the stands avoid a "WE EN-SLAVED YOU!" chant.

[The Allented Mr Ripley]

Here's a really good article regarding the stakes involved for the US in qualifying for the 1990 World Cup. The future of the sport in this country (as well as hosting the '94 World Cup, there were rumblings FIFA might rescind the offer) was in the balance.

Edited by The Allented Mr Ripley, 25 June 2010 - 12:02 PM.

[DLew On Roids]

That's wrong. talked to my Zimbabwean friend in Cape Town the other day who loves America and he apologized and told me he was rooting for Ghana.

That said, I agree that there will be no fix.

Accepting your assumption that your friend is representative, will there be enough people like him in the stands passionately supporting Ghana to give Ghana a home-field advantage? I root for, say, the Netherlands when they play Portugal, but I wouldn't scream my lungs out for them. I didn't notice a particular home-field advantage for African countries in the group matches, though I'll admit the vuvuzelas may have had something to do with it.

[jose melendez]

The hardcores on this site already know this, but for the rest of us gearing up for tomorrow's game, I should remind everyone that in 2006, Ghana beat the USA 2-1, when a win would've sent us to the knockout rounds.

That said, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that our fans in the stands avoid a "WE EN-SLAVED YOU!" chant.

It would be racist and false. The people who were enslaved by Americans aren't still in Ghana.

[AusTexSoxFan]

In talking about our back line, If Bob thinks that Gooch is too much of a liability against Ghana, I wouldn't mind at all seeing a guy like Clay Goodson get a start at center back.

He's tall, has good speed, can help clear out the middle when defending corner kicks and is a good weapon on the offensive end on our corner kicks as evidenced by his header across the area to Herc Gomez for one of the goals against the Czech Republic.

I know he's a bit of an unknown quantity, but he's a good player and he goes about with a quiet confidence.

So, for me, this wouldn't be a bad back four to go with:

Dolo-DeMerit-Goodson-Boca

[Ramon AC]

That said, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that our fans in the stands avoid a "WE EN-SLAVED YOU!" chant.

Your avatar is astonished and disgusted at this statement.


edit: Ray may be incensed, but I think it's funny.

Edited by Ramon AC, 25 June 2010 - 12:50 PM.

[dwightinright]

I agree that Saturday's game will be on many TV sets. And the controversies we are sure to see may simply kill the sport in the States. There is simply no way a USA team is going to beat an African team in this venue.

The African teams won 3 of 18 games in the WC, with 5 draws.

And, in the "refs are human" department, I think a ref is going to be very reluctant to make a tough call against the US unless he's 100% sure.

[Huntington Avenue Grounds]

It would be racist and false. The people who were enslaved by Americans aren't still in Ghana.

Yeah, any former slaves that went back to Africa were sent to Liberia. Who was a champion of that cause? Abraham Lincoln.

[MentalDisabldLst]

It would be racist and false. The people who were enslaved by Americans aren't still in Ghana.

Well, sure. But if you're looking to get under the skin of the opposing team and/or fans, good taste is neither a requirement nor usually desirable (see: English football songs, and/or recent anti-LA Lakers chants)... and precise historical accuracy isn't far behind.

[dwightinright]

Well, sure. But if you're looking to get under the skin of the opposing team and/or fans, good taste is neither a requirement nor usually desirable (see: English football songs, and/or recent anti-LA Lakers chants)... and precise historical accuracy isn't far behind.

There's a difference between something in bad taste and out and out racism though. The racist chants that have been heard on occasion at matches in Europe are not something to be emulated.

Edited by dwightinright, 25 June 2010 - 12:46 PM.

[OilCanShotTupac]

FWIW, the bar in Covington, KY in this video was one of the stops on SoSH's 2008 post-Cincinnati Bash pub crawl.

[Tony C]

Accepting your assumption that your friend is representative, will there be enough people like him in the stands passionately supporting Ghana to give Ghana a home-field advantage? I root for, say, the Netherlands when they play Portugal, but I wouldn't scream my lungs out for them. I didn't notice a particular home-field advantage for African countries in the group matches, though I'll admit the vuvuzelas may have had something to do with it.

Even though I agree with your general point, I'm sure South Africans will root for Ghana over the U.S., and if they're there they'll be loud.

But I doubt it'll be much of an advantage. One, there's no fix in. Two, if there was a fix in, it'd be in favor of the US., three, as someone mentioned, I'd have to think the refs will be aware the U.S. has been screwed and will be a bit chary (also, btw, in terms of meories the dive for which the ref fell in 2006 that led to a Ghana goal) of screwing the U.S..

More broadly, I wonder if the vuvuzelas drown out -- literally and figuratively -- a home field advantage. It's impossible to know without being there, but over the tv it just sounds like a loud, dull, ominipresent sound. Without the ebbs and flows of cheering that psychologically add a sense, somehow, of either being with the tide or against the tide. I dunno...just speculation, obviously.

[Vinho Tinto]

It would be racist and false.

Is this now a standard in soccer chants or does Adebeyor's father wash elephants and his mother is a whore?

[Dummy Hoy]

Here's a really good article regarding the stakes involved for the US in qualifying for the 1990 World Cup. The future of the sport in this country (as well as hosting the '94 World Cup, there were rumblings FIFA might rescind the offer) was in the balance.

Great article. Thanks.

[Rasputin]

This moment made lifelong international soccer fans out of a lot of people. This is what we need, even if it's only every 4 years and Qualies and maybe Gold Cups and Confed Cups. We need sports fans to go nuts for USA Soccer, and this team is making it happen.

As potentially one of these people, what can I look forward to after the World Cup?

[Billy R Ford]

As potentially one of these people, what can I look forward to after the World Cup?

For the US, they have a friendly against Brazil scheduled for August, and will probably have a few more over the fall/winter- they usually have a friendly in January that features the best American MLSers because the regulars are playing in Europe.

Their next real competition will be next summer's Gold Cup, the North American championship. The Gold Cup will be held in the US, including games in Foxborough, and the last two finals have pitted the US against Mexico (US won in '07, and Mexico in '09).

2012 will be relatively quiet, though there'll be friendlies, and qualification for the 2014 World Cup will begin as the minnows of North America are weeded out (ie, all the small Caribbean island countries). Then 2013 will feature the final (and most intense) round of World Cup qualifying, the 2013 Gold Cup, and hopefully the 2013 Confederations Cup. And then 2014 of course will be the next World Cup.

[I12XU]

2012 will be relatively quiet

Well, there is the Olympics.

[URI]

Well, there is the Olympics.

The Olympics is like the Futures Game (kind of) as each team can only have 3 players that are older than 23. Some teams use this as an excuse to get caps to older players that would never really play for the national teams in things like the World Cup (Rocchi for Italy), as a last thank you to retired players (McBride for the US), or because fuck it, we're gonna win this thing (Requelme for Argentina).

In short, FIFA doesn't really give a shit so it's below the radar. It's just something to pass the time between World Cups and various confed Championships.

[brienc]

I'm curious to hear what folks here think of the idea of holding the World Cup every 2 years.

[SumnerH]

For single moments, it's hard to beat a last-gasp goal to clinch advancement to the knockout stages of a World Cup. Also, it was the most watched game in US soccer history. More Americans saw that goal live (and probably on replay) than any other goal the US has ever scored. It also guarantees that the US-Ghana game will have an enormous viewing audience.

US-England had almost twice the viewership in the US as US-Algeria:
http://tvbythenumber...s-jump-68/55272

The average American TV audience for the first three games played by Team USA are up 68% in 2010 compared to the same point during the 2006 World Cup, according to an analysis released this afternoon by The Nielsen Company.
An average of 11.1 million viewers caught the English and Spanish language broadcasts for each of USA’s three Group C matchups in this year’s World Cup. In 2006, USA’s three group stage games averaged 6.6 million viewers. [...]
Average U.S. Viewership for USA World Cup Matches, 2010
Date Game Networks Viewers (P2+)
6/12/2010 USA-England ABC/Univision 17.1 million
6/18/2010 USA-Slovenia ESPN/Univision 7.5 million
6/23/2010 USA-Algeria ESPN/Univision 8.6 million
Average 11.1 million

(For comparison, the women's US-China final in 1999 had over 18 million viewers on ABC.)

[tims4wins]

US-England had almost twice the viewership in the US as US-Algeria:
http://tvbythenumber...s-jump-68/55272



(For comparison, the women's US-China final in 1999 had over 18 million viewers on ABC.)

Yeah, but US-England was also on a Saturday. To the above point, so many people saw that goal live.

[TheYellowDart5]

US-England had almost twice the viewership in the US as US-Algeria:
http://tvbythenumber...s-jump-68/55272



(For comparison, the women's US-China final in 1999 had over 18 million viewers on ABC.)

That 1999 final also took place in an era before streaming games were available online, either legally (through ESPN 3 in this case) or via the billion streaming sites that exist, so I don't know if comparing those figures really says all that much.

People who wanted to watch that final only had ABC as the option. People who wanted to watch USA-England or (especially, since it was on a weekday) USA-Algeria had other options available.

[djhb20]

The hardcores on this site already know this, but for the rest of us gearing up for tomorrow's game, I should remind everyone that in 2006, Ghana beat the USA 2-1, when a win would've sent us to the knockout rounds.

That said, I'm going to go ahead and suggest that our fans in the stands avoid a "WE EN-SLAVED YOU!" chant.

That match is a perfect example of the difference from 4 years ago. I had to go to four different places to find someplace open in the morning to watch it (in White Plains, NY) and only found a bar that was incredibly depressing and was open to cater to the morning drinkers, not for the game. I had to ask to put the game on, and there was nobody else there to watch the game. At half-time, Applebee's had opened, and it was on in there, with maybe one other person interested.

Even before any games were played, this sort of thing was not an issue this time 'round.

[God, everything about that match sucked.]

[Dehere]

I'm curious to hear what folks here think of the idea of holding the World Cup every 2 years.

I hate it. It would cheapen it for me.

A great deal of the appeal is not just in the competition itself but in the feverish level of worldwide excitement that builds up around every WC. You couldn't help but diminish that by playing every two years.

[rajendra82]

I agree that Saturday's game will be on many TV sets. And the controversies we are sure to see may simply kill the sport in the States. There is simply no way a USA team is going to beat an African team in this venue.

Team USA already beat an African team (Algeria).

[URI]

Team USA already beat an African team (Algeria).

Geographically yes, but culturally, there isn't a whole lot uniting the Arab world and Sub-Saharan Africa.

[Dehere]

US-England had almost twice the viewership in the US as US-Algeria:
http://tvbythenumber...s-jump-68/55272
(For comparison, the women's US-China final in 1999 had over 18 million viewers on ABC.)

Twice the reported viewership. We don't know how many millions of people watching at work went unrecorded by Nielsen. I know ESPN is doing some custom analysis of this but it could be weeks until they release anything.

The women's final in 1999 is kind of a singular event, IMO. Something was happening there that went beyond the traditional sports audience. Somehow for one month they captivated teenage girls and rode it to that shockingly high number.

On the subject of TV viewership, I just saw an interesting stat. The England-Slovenia game earned a 78 share in England on Wednesday afternoon. 78% of the TVs that were turned on were watching the match. By comparison the Super Bowl will generally do a share in the low 60s in the US.

[Sille Skrub]

Do you think they will let me bring my vuvuzela into Game On tomorrow?

[rguilmar]

US-England had almost twice the viewership in the US as US-Algeria:
http://tvbythenumber...s-jump-68/55272



(For comparison, the women's US-China final in 1999 had over 18 million viewers on ABC.)

Whoops! How did I miss that one?

The point is still that more people saw the Donovan goal than any of the other aforementioned games, and that the goal will lead to a huge audience on Saturday.

[cjdmadcow]

On the subject of TV viewership, I just saw an interesting stat. The England-Slovenia game earned a 78 share in England on Wednesday afternoon. 78% of the TVs that were turned on were watching the match. By comparison the Super Bowl will generally do a share in the low 60s in the US.

Additional info from the BBC:
England's World Cup tie with Slovenia was seen by an average of 10 million people, according to overnight figures.

The audience reached a peak of 14m at 1630 BST, close to the final whistle when England secured qualification with a 1-0 victory.

The number of people who viewed the match is likely to have been higher, as many watched on big screens in pubs and public spaces.

It also does not take into account how many saw the game while at work.

According to the BBC, a peak of 800,000 people streamed the match via the internet.


Wait till you see the figures for Sunday's game v Germany. 3.00pm on a Sunday afternoon against our greatest international rivals, I expect big numbers.

[SteveCrawford]

ok will wait as ratings junkie/consumer in general, so many factors...

[In Vino Vinatieri]

Yankee Doodle is too fast and complicated for a crowd to sing it credibly. You need something with a lot of half notes and whole notes.

America The Beautiful is my recommendation, in a pinch. It has the added bonus of being really pretty. But it's not nearly crude and sassy enough to be a true football-fan song.

Maybe he was referring to this?



A dancing hamster can sing it! Surely some drunks in a crowd can manage to at least get a round of it going.

[Infield Infidel]

The "South Africans rooting for African's" thing is kind of overblown. I sat in South African sections at each game I went to. At Argentina v Nigeria, more South Africans were pretty mixed in their rooting exploits. The crowd erupted every time Messi got the ball, although there were probably as many Argentines at the game as South Africans.

At USA v Slovenia, no one but Slovenians were rooting for Slovenia. South Africans joined us in chanting U-S-A, filmed us singing the Star Spangled Banner, and then started with Obama chants (O-BAM-A, Yes We Can, etc). It was a weird thing being overseas and having locals root for USA

[ElUno20]

My concern is prince boateng in the midfield.