Did someone mention international goalkeeper kits? Jorge Campos, best ever. Ever.

The only thing I don't like about that is the pattern. He looks like a Charlie Brown Christmas tree. Rene Higuita's hair and the Japanese flames are excellent.

There's some selection bias in there. Fulham, Newcastle, Reading and Wigan have only a handful of English players. About half of QPR, Aston Villa and Sunderland's rosters are foreigners. When you only have 3 English players, odds are they aren't on the national team. There's a chicken and the egg thing at work with most of those teams not being good, but not having English players hasn't hurt Arsenal, Manchester City or Chelsea.

I don't understand your point. Those teams are mostly terrible, so them having, or not, English players doesn't really matter.

The point was that England's 23 is composed mostly of players who play for good or very good teams in a very good league. Very few US players fit that description.

One of Arsenal's best players this year is English. Chelsea's best player over the past decade (ever?) is English. Cole is getting a bit old, but is still a very good left back. John Terry has been overrated for years, but has nevertheless been the heart of the defense for a team that just won the Champions League. Cahill is English. Joe Hart is English. Barry has started for both City and England a fair amount. Rodwell, Wilshere, Micah Richards.

And if you turn to Man U: Rio, Evans, Phil Jones, Smalling, Carrick, Young, Cleverly.

If you include Spurs in this group of the top English teams, you get Dempsey. I'll give you Bradley. And I guess Donovan could be at Everton with Howard if he had wanted. I love what Jozy has been up to recently, but he also washed out at a team that got relegated. Who else on the USMNT could even make the bench for the Manchester clubs, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, Everton, Liverpool?

I think we can agree that this is amazing.

I say this with an unblemished record of staunch heterosexuality...it's fabulous.

For me, the real failure is in talent development.

You are not alone; this must be the most common thing written about US Soccer.

them having, or not, English players doesn't really matter.

That's the point. If you took some of them and put them on other teams, the teams would still stink (although they would be better), but the players would still be international caliber players. What team they play for is largely irrelevant. They play for the top EPL teams because they are internationals, they are not internationals because they play for those teams. Donovan is a great example: he was a difference maker at Everton. That he plays in a lesser league didn't matter.

That's the point. If you took some of them and put them on other teams, the teams would still stink (although they would be better), but the players would still be international caliber players. What team they play for is largely irrelevant. They play for the top EPL teams because they are internationals, they are not internationals because they play for those teams. Donovan is a great example: he was a difference maker at Everton. That he plays in a lesser league didn't matter.

I still don't understand what you're saying. If you took the bad players from my team (Reading) and put them on Manchester City...that wouldn't happen. Because Manchester City has piles of cash and doesn't need journeymen. While Reading is poor and not very good. I just don't understand why Reading or Wigan or whoever has anything to do with what we're talking about here. There is not a single player on Reading who is particularly CLOSE to the class of a Cleverly or Walcott or Wilshere. Much less a Rooney. When bottom-tier clubs have guys who are that good, they get sold to better clubs.

Football is a competitive market with a lot of money. If there were US players who could be sold up the ladder, they would be sold. Instead, almost all of the US players play for mediocre teams. Our (second?) best player is a sometimes-contributor to one of the six/seven top teams in England. We have three other guys who could reasonably make those teams.

Meanwhile, England players ALL play for good teams, and are important contributors to those teams. Sure, they tend to be overvalued. But even with that, when your whole squad is made up of guys who routinely play for excellent teams who have no interest in signing Americans...that's a pretty compelling piece of evidence.

I mean, I agree with the consensus that the US should be able to play competitively with anyone for a game or two - and there are only 10/15 countries in the world I would consider *clearly* better than us. But I don't see any particular reason to think that we're at the top of the next tier. We could just as easily be #35 as #16 in the world. Our record in the World Cup since 2002 has been better than I'd expect - not by a massive degree or anything, but still better than I'd expect.

Was the 1990s the worst-ever decade for kits? It certainly seems so.

Teams like Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U and City can afford to buy the best players in the world regardless of nationality. While English teams have to have a certain number of "homegrown" players they don't have to play them. Roman had plenty of time and opportunity to replace Terry, Cole and Lampard over the years and hasn't. If a US player was good enough they would be playing for one of those teams I mentioned instead of a Stoke, Bolton or pre-implosion Rangers. Dempsey is playing for top team but he is the only one.

257, without question, yes.

Pfft. You are not accounting for the sheer awesomeness of the stabilo highlighter neon yellow Dortmund kits, which counterbalances all the horribleness of the 90's, and then some.

But the 70's gave us the cocaine-fueled Caribous kit!

What can you say about the Berlusconis?

I'm glad they don't own my team. The racial stuff is bad enough, but the remarks about girls considering Silvio's history is just gross.

I think the kit horribleness decade ran from about 1987 to 1997. The earlier start allows for the inclusion of such classics as Brighton's vertically striped shorts, the Huddersfield home and away chessboard designs from 1987-88 (definitely should be checked out if you have never seen it), the Hull City tiger stripe design, and the Hummel monstrosities worn by Spurs and Villa, amongst others. Plus there are the Umbro lace up collar kits from 1992-3 - talk about impractical.

Now, this is a nice shirt.

Clean and simple.

I'm glad they don't own my team. The racial stuff is bad enough, but the remarks about girls considering Silvio's history is just gross.

What a bunch of a**holes those Berlusconis are. I feel horrible for all of the black players (especially Boateng), as now they know that ownership thinks that they actually own their black players like chattel. Pisses me off that in this day and age people still have to deal with this bs. I hope the UEFA just crushes them, but who knows with their crap sense of justice.

I'm not a huge fan of the crest on that shirt, it seems a little too simple and generic to my taste. But having looked at all those garish WC kits, you could certainly do worse.

Ugly 90's kits.

Words escape me.

The cherry on the top of the Berlusconi junior comment is that he said it at a campaign rally.

Just to conclusively demonstrate the type of people who support the PDL.

That link in 267really puts the early-90s in a shameful place. And of course the US kit from the '94 WC was pretty spectacular in its awfulness.

The early 90s were just a bad time style wise. You either had the grunge thing going or the over the top colors on the other end of the spectrum. "Happy medium" was not really a term used much in those years. Thank god I was in college and didn't have the money to try and spend to keep up with fashion.

Ugly 90's kits.

Words escape me.

I don't think the last 3 are that bad. The Everton seems to be there solely on the basis of 'ewww pink'.

I don't think the last 3 are that bad. The Everton seems to be there solely on the basis of 'ewww pink'.

2 of the last 3 aren't from the 90's, of course.

It seems to me that shortly after teams started adding sponsor logos, they decided "Oh well, our kits are now ruined, might as well go crazy." Then around 1999 teams got used to the sponsor logos and went back to classic-looking kits that just happened to have a logo in the middle.

I disagree that England is better. I think they are even. England is overrated because they are England.

England may be overrated, but there is no way the US is even close to England in terms of talent. England's second stringers would all be massive improvements compared to the US roster, almost across the board.

GK - Butland is extremely talented but not yet proven at international level. EDGE: USA

RB - Whoever's considered the second stringer, Walker or Johnson, is better than Cherundolo. EDGE: England

LB - Leighton Baines is better than Chandler or whoever Klinsmann might choose to play there. EDGE: England

CB - Anyone who's played here for England in recent years would waltz into the US team, easily. Lescott, Jagielka, Cahill, Smalling, Jones, Dawson, or the aging Rio and Terry. All better than the best American center backs. EDGE: England

CM - You could make a case for Bradley and pre-injury Stu Holden being better than some of the English second string midfielders, but England wins this by a mile on depth. Further, the US doesn't have anyone who's as good in possession as Carrick or Wilshere or even Osman. Donovan is close to Osman, but he's not really in the picture any more. EDGE: Even (at best)? Probably slight edge to England on depth and versatility.

LM/RM - Lennon, Milner, Young, and Ox (and Walcott if you consider him a winger still) are better than whatever the US could dredge up to play there, pretty much by default. They're also very good players. If you consider Dempsey a wide midfielder, he's probably about level with Milner. EDGE: England

FW - Jozy has blossomed for AZ this season, but I'd still rate him below the likes of Welbeck and Sturridge. Who would be Jozy's equal in England? Danny Graham? EDGE: England

It seems to me that shortly after teams started adding sponsor logos, they decided "Oh well, our kits are now ruined, might as well go crazy." Then around 1999 teams got used to the sponsor logos and went back to classic-looking kits that just happened to have a logo in the middle.

I wonder if games being more widely distributed on tv had something to with it, too. As in, "Hey, look at us!" Also, San Jose Sharks gear was a phenomenon in the early 1990's--I sold Starter and New Era stuff at a JC Penney then while I was in junior college and we couldn't keep the stuff on the shelves--and I think "sports consultants" might have pushed teams to "differentiate" their brands for marketing purposes to hilarious effect. It's kind of forgotten now, but the Sharks really changed the way sports teams marketed themselves as a fashion brand.

I'm waiting for Sepp Blatter to say that there was no racism in the statement about Balotelli and that Balotelli was in the wrong no matter how he reacts.

For me, the real failure is in talent development.

Very much yes to this. Hell, I ran a soccer club for 15 years and am still on the Board, and the whole system is fracked.

We could just as easily be #35 as #16 in the world.

Nate Silver's rankings have us 38th.

Nigeria are going to the finals.

Also, Croatia is knocking the crap out of South Korea. Jelavic scored which may be good news for you Evertonians. Maybe that's the confidence boost he needed.

HIPSTER THINK FACTORY
Apparently there's a movement afoot to celebrate "Bielsa Day" on March 3rd.

Because 3-3-13.

It's kind of forgotten now, but the Sharks really changed the way sports teams marketed themselves as a fashion brand.

Were they the ones who chose the color on the basis that it was colorful enough to appeal to women, but not so colorful that men would not buy it?

Were they the ones who chose the color on the basis that it was colorful enough to appeal to women, but not so colorful that men would not buy it?

Yes. They were the first to do intensive focus grouping and all that kind of crap that we've all come to loathe.

HIPSTER THINK FACTORY
Apparently there's a movement afoot to celebrate "Bielsa Day" on March 3rd.

Because 3-3-13.

But we'll be watching the NLD which is so mainstream and played out.

It's kind of forgotten now, but the Sharks really changed the way sports teams marketed themselves as a fashion brand.

Was it the Sharks' jerseys that started the fashion trend where every rap/hip-hop artist wore hockey jerseys?

Oregon's status as Nike's experimental lab monkeys got things rolling. Then Under Armour and its ugly crap. Yesterday I watched my alma mater play in this.

I would imagine its only a matter of time before it starts hitting soccer jerseys. I guess its still better than the 90s.

I have a slightly different perspective on what was driving horrible kits. It wasn't so much disdain at sponsor logos as it was a desire to convince supporters that they "needed" to buy every single kit the club produced or risk not being seen as "real fans". This concept really began to take off in the 90s, and at the time the kit manufacturers seemed to believe that a new kit (especially an away or "third" kit) had to be radically new to some degree in order to convince people to buy it. At the same time, there was an idea that these kits had to "look good with jeans" in order to sell. The result was that even the "biggest" clubs were saddled with some genuinely horrific duds (see, e.g. Arsenal's bruised banana, Chelsea's tangerine and grey Coors-sponsored monstrosity and Manchester United's "invisible" grey and black "third"). Once the clubs and manufacturers realized that they had a fan base that would buy anything that was "new", even if it only meant a different collar style, the designs became less radical (and the "look good with jeans" concept morphed into the kit as polo shirt trend one sees today).

The whole "gotta get 'em all" kit buying ethos has never taken off on the continent to anything like the degree it has in the UK, which is part of the reason why continental kits tended not to as atrocious during the same period (though there certainly were some shockers, particularly among "big" clubs).

Poor Mali, 4-0 down to Nigeria after 60 minutes.

But we'll be watching the NLD which is so mainstream and played out.

Well, we could pretend to be watching it ironically.

Do you think we'll be able to find some obscure Argentinian beer with which to toast our hero?

But we'll be watching the NLD which is so mainstream and played out.

Which reminds me, if we're worried about Kinsale's not being open, I'll extend the formal invitation to come to my place, so we don't have to bother Shooty's lovely companion with shouting at the TV. This assumes the NLD is on FSC, of course, but I think that's a safe bet.

When bottom-tier clubs have guys who are that good, they get sold to better clubs.

Of course. And that's why what team a player plays for doesn't matter. They're still the same player if they're on Chelsea or if they are on QPR. The top teams in the EPL have the best English players because they're the top teams, they're not the top teams because they have the best English players.

Which reminds me, if we're worried about Kinsale's not being open, I'll extend the formal invitation to come to my place, so we don't have to bother Shooty's lovely companion with shouting at the TV. This assumes the NLD is on FSC, of course, but I think that's a safe bet.

It's an 11 am start so Kinsale's is probably a viable option, too.

Also, just a reminder, the Shooty 2013 World Tour will be at the Football Factory this afternoon for the Honduras-USA fun. It's on W. 33rd street between 5th and 6th avenue.

If you consider Dempsey a wide midfielder, he's probably about level with Milner.

James Milner is a good example of how England gets overrated by being England. Milner is a nice player but nothing special. Dempsey is well above him. Dempsey has carried entire teams on his back, Milner hasn't. In 7 World Cup 2010 and Euro 2012 games, he was taken off in 5 off them by the 60th or so minute (in the 31st against the US after beating beaten up and down the field by Cherundolo). That would never happen to Dempsey unless he was hurt.

Of course. And that's why what team a player plays for doesn't matter. They're still the same player if they're on Chelsea or if they are on QPR. The top teams in the EPL have the best English players because they're the top teams, they're not the top teams because they have the best English players.

Yeah but the point was that the big teams want those players, to a degree they don't want the American ones. They are starting for top teams on merit, and Americans are not able to crack those teams.

It's an 11 am start so Kinsale's is probably a viable option, too.

Also, just a reminder, the Shooty 2013 World Tour will be at the Football Factory this afternoon for the Honduras-USA fun. It's on W. 33rd street between 5th and 6th avenue.

I'm fine with Kinsale's, just wanted to offer. Chez RB does have the advantage of allowing us to drink before noon.

I might come down to the USA game, but that depends how long it takes the plumbers currently destroying my bathroom to put it back together.

I'm fine with Kinsale's, just wanted to offer. Chez RB does have the advantage of allowing us to drink before noon.

I'm more interested in Ghost Cat.

282, I think that the desecration of college sports attire in the US is driven by different factors, primarily recruiting and "image building".

Everything seems to be driven by a "17 year olds like black and shiny things" aesthetic and a "if we wear bizarre things people will show/talk about us" rather than a primary desire to sell replica merchandise.

I'm more interested in Ghost Cat.

Between the presence of four strangers in the apartment, and the drilling and banging and everything else, Ghost Cat is in full-stealth mode. I may not see her again until April.

Louis Saha joins Gazza as players to have played for both Tottenham and Lazio.

Yeah but the point was that the big teams want those players, to a degree they don't want the American ones. They are starting for top teams on merit, and Americans are not able to crack those teams.

Argentina and the Netherlands are better than England (and obviously the US), yet only a handful of Argentinians and Dutch nationals are on EPL teams. Why is that? Why is there only one player on Mexico in the EPL? They are clearly ahead of the US yet the US has more players there. Colombia has none. Why don't they have any?

The top teams in the EPL have the best English players because they're the top teams, they're not the top teams because they have the best English players.

And they don't want the best American players because they are all crap.

Those early 90's kits are ugly, but I do miss the days when Umbro shorts were cool. Remember that?

And that USMNT jersey above looks like a hockey crest.

Argentina and the Netherlands are better than England (and obviously the US), yet only a handful of Argentinians and Dutch nationals are on EPL teams. Why is that?

Because they play for elite clubs in other top leagues.

Everyone gives the US credit for having Michael Bradley as a major contributor on Roma. But he, Dempsey, and Howard are the only Americans contributing to winning clubs in top leagues.

Let's see, where do Argentina's national team players play their club football: Barcelona, City, PSG, Real, Barcelona, Real, Valez, Valencia, Newcastle, City, Getafe, Benfica, Sampdoria.

Woe is them. All their players play for crap teams.

As for the Netherlands being better than England, after their ###-show last Euros, I am not entirely convinced. Their 'golden generation' is old and basically done. They are still far better represented among top clubs than the US is.