I think that you mistake the press' thought s on the game for the the
ideas of all of the Americans. Our press is still very ignoraant. There
is only about 3 or 4 members of the press who can write about the game
intelligently in all of the US. We do have a good team AND IMPROVE
DAILY. Although I do think we played much better against Mexico. More
chances were created. I think the time is over for us to ssay that we are
the underdogs against every European or S. American team we play. We can
play with almost any body in the world. Maybe not beat them regularly but
give them all of the action the opposing team wants. It might be another
50 years until we are the best. But there is no reason to play in a
defensive shell to win some mythical championship that all of the fans
won't remeber in two weeks time. We must at least go forward with the
hope of scoring a goal. It also didn't do much for the game on television
when Harkes said that they were looking for a tie which would in turn
still give them a championship. Just a few thoughts.,
Quote:
> You guys at ESPN don't have a f**ing clue. For once your country has a
> relatively decent side, but all you can do is snidely put the game down.
> In your report today, you emphasise (i) is was a boring 0-0 tie (it
> wasn't, it was a fascinating duel that could have gone either way - what
> is it about Americans' mentality that they can't accept that a lack of
> goals doesn't mean a lack of e***ment?); (ii) that most of the crowd
> was supporting Colombia (hnmm I saw plenty of very enthusiastic and nosiy
> US fans), and (iii) crowds were half what they were in US Cup '93 (of
> course, you weren't playing 3 of the biggest names in soccer this time as
> you point out, so why even bother making the comparison?).
> Get a life ESPN, and get behind a pretty decent US National team!
by