Even Less Respect

Make no mistake; the US-Mexico is the world's foremost budding soccer rivalry.  The games almost always end with the bad blood spilling over, the loosing side fouling their opponent mercilessly in retribution for lost pride.  We're no choir boys ourselves; that mean streak works both ways.  The irony of the situation lies in the inextricable link between the two sides.  The success and failure of one is in many ways a measure of the other, especially when facing European and South American teams.  The US can monitor Mexico's progress and take hope or head, ditto for the Mexicans. 

Mexico are a more technically astute side than the US, and they probably always will be.  Viewed from the other side of the Rio Grande, they're entitled to look down on our pragmatic, athletic approach to the game.  They've cultivated skill as individual players to a greater extent than our own (to this point in the development of the sport in this country), and as a result feel aesthetically superior.  (On a touchier subject, maybe this is why the US Latino audience hasn't really surfaced as a factor as yet.)  From a purist's point of view, they're correct, when perched upon that particular speech stump.  Of course, aesthetics never helped Mexico become world champion.  Practically speaking, the greatest value of such a stance is in its role of intellectual fodder for those more impassioned, late-night alcohol-frenzied bull sessions: who was the better team, the '85 Bears or the '89 49ers? 

Why will Mexico always have skill to dangle over our heads, as it were?  It's a matter of culture.  North of the border, we learn how to win. It's a healthy slice of the nation's personality pie.  Historically, our model of success is pragmatism: do what it takes to win because every one loves a winner.  We may not do it pretty, but we do it effectively.  That's the American way, always has been, probably always will be. 

We're a little more Chelsea ('85 Bears) and the increasingly other "tri-colors" are a little more Arsenal ('89 Niners), so to speak.  In the end, you get the same debate.  Win with flare, or just win?  Both are wise world views, but, despite the wisdom contained within each, the practitioner of one will instinctively look down on the other from the hallowed pulpit of their credo.  The FIFA world rankings clearly favor the flare, as the US has never outranked its southern neighbor, despite a 7-win, 3-loss, and 1-tie record over the last eleven match-ups (10-7-7 since 1990) during which time the Mexicans haven't between the US outside the confines of the dreaded Estadio Azteca with its 110,000-or-so howling fans.     

Don't expect the Mexican national team to respect their US foils any time soon, or from Europe either (with the exception of Germany in light of our performance against them in the last World Cup).  Its strange how rarely the regular starting units of Europe's finest are fielded when the US is the opponent for friendly matches.  It's as if loosing to the US still carries the stigma of old on the Continent.  Fielding an experimental unit or a group of youngsters is insulation from any potential embarrassment.  A realist would say its sound policy to experiment with the roster during friendly matches when little or nothing is on the line, which is the case when playing the "inferior" US. 

Winning Tradition

Yes, we're developing one under the leadership of Bruce Arena.  But some may ask, what does it matter, no one notices anyway?  To that question, one can only respond with a second:  If that had stopped Nietzsche and Freud from pursuing their lives' work, how different would our world be? 

In fairness, however, that's a legitimate question.  Why do so relatively few, even in our own country, follow the trails and travails of the national team program?  Considering the majority of the population looks at soccer as a kids', women's and/or immigrant game, is that really such a surprise?  The game is foreign, dominated by other (sometimes 2^nd and 3^rd world) countries, and we hate to lose.  For decades, rather than accept the game as the world's most popular, many in the sporting press relegated it to a hooligan's side-show because that is all the understood about the sport, that which happened off the field.  True understanding of the sport within the press is a new phenomenon.  Consider this website just five years ago versus now and you can see the influence of ex-players and coaches from all levels.  You now have folks who grew up "soccer players" doing the reporting, and this love of the game translates in that work. 

Aside from media ignorance, fans are often the sport's biggest detractors.  In particular, the more extreme of US-based European football fans scoff at the MLS and label it inferior to all those other high profile leagues.  Claiming the level of play and tradition unattainable for MLS, these fans point to the Real Madrid result* and laugh, yes, laugh at and mock, the state of the game in their own country.  For that group, the US, as a footballing nation, will never achieve anymore than an also-ran status.  Each achievement on the international stage rationalized a fluke or the result of fatigue in other rosters due to a longer, more arduous professional campaign in the build to the World Cup.  Amazingly it's often these same fans to whom all players are "lads" or "boys," who mock the inferior skill level of MLS, yet memorize the EPL table, who know little or nothing of Europe's most skillful league, La Primera.  (We all know Real Madrid, Beckham, Barcelona, and Ronaldinho, but can you tell me who the goalie for Racing Santander is?)  What does that say for their enlightened opinions?  You be the judge. 

*On August 23^rd, an intrepid group of Major League Soccer All-Stars jetted to Madrid to challenge Real Madrid, a club voted the most successful of the 20^th century in world football, only to receive a 5-0 drubbing at the hands of the Spanish team.  The merits of sending an all-star squad to face a professional team are dubious to say the least and a topic worthy of its own blog.