Sure, the U.S. under-23 team might have lost to Mexico 4-0 this week, losing out on a chance to go to the Athens Olympics. But John Haydon of the Washington Times puts things in perspective:
Four years ago, the U.S. team played its Olympic qualifying games in the comfort of Hershey (Pa.) Stadium and had an easy ride. But let's face it: Mexico's victory this week can never make up for the loss the Mexicans suffered at the hands of Landon Donovan and Brian McBride in South Korea in 2002, and that's what really counts
Okay, I’m not would you’d call a soccer fan — inasmuch as I only follow it when the World Cup rolls around — so I guess I’m confused as to why the US team was trying to qualify for the Olympics with an under-23 team. Was Mexico’s team under 23, too? Are all Olympic soccer teams under 23? If someone could please shed some light for me, I’d much appreciate it.
In order to “protect” the World Cup, FIFA (Int’l Soccer body) ruled that the Olympics be a U-23 tournament for the men (no such restriction for the women), with three overage players allowed per team. There are no overage players in qualifying, so all teams in this qualifying tourney were U-23.
Thanks, Matt!
U.S. Soccer’s luck was bound to run out sooner or later. Most soccer nations occasionally fail to qualify for something (England in USA ’94, the Netherlands in Korea/Japan ’02, Brazil in Athens ’04), and we’ve been cruising through to every World Cup, Olympics and youth tournament for about 14 years.
Makes sense that it happens in the smallest of those events, the Olympics. Having to face Mexico in Mexico through no fault of your own (the U.S. won its group; Mexico didn’t) is brutal.
You’re more excited than I am about World Cup qualifying, though. CONCACAF qualifying creates a couple of good moments (Wolff’s goal in Columbus against Mexico, Tab Ramos’ screamer against Costa Rica for the ’98 Cup), but the games are excruciating to watch. For die-hards only.