and why?

Easily the world cup team. Soccer in the Olympics is 23 and under so everyone over the age of 23 (McBride, Reyna, Mastroeni, Donovan, you get the idea) can't compete. This, and the fact that Arena coaches the WC team make a big difference, I believe that he is not the coach of the olympic team.

[This message has been edited by riley290 (edited 2/16/2006 11:32a).]

I think you get like two elder players on the Olympic team. But the WC team is still, by far, the better team. The Olympics is a glorified Junior World Champioinships when it comes to soccer.

What Riley said.

The WC team would clobber the Olympics team. But the US Olympic team is pretty good. Usually very competitive with rest of world. The WC team was competetive last WC but that's about it.

We did make the elimination round in '94 as well.

[This message has been edited by Sooner Born (edited 2/16/2006 1:54p).]

what's the point of the age limit?

No idea. My guess is that Fifa (Soccer's governing body) imposed it to protect the World Cup and it's importance.

What riley said was correct the Olympic team is 23 and under with 3 overage players. For comparison, think of the best players in the NBA under 23 and then think how well they'd do against a team of NBA players of all ages.

Here's the lineups:
NBA U23--------------------NBA All-Stars
PG Dwayne Wade------------Allen Iverson
SG Carmelo Anthony--------Kobe Bryant
SF Lebron James-----------Lebron James
PF Chris Bosh-------------Tim Duncan
C Channing Frye----------Shaq

then take into account the backups. It's not the best comparison b/c there's an even bigger gap in talent in soccer b/c of the number of players on the field, but it should provide a little insight.

Also, performances should be taken with a grain of salt at the Olympics b/c most countries don't send all of their best players.

[This message has been edited by dubag (edited 2/17/2006 1:18a).]

quote:

---

Also, performances should be taken with a grain of salt at the Olympics b/c most countries don't send all of their best players.

---

England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland don't even send teams because they would have to merge into one UK team for the Olympics only.

Here's a better question, even if it is one that is asked a lot:

Who's better...the best club team in the world (Chelsea/Juventus) or the best national team in the world (Brazil)?

In a match between the best club team and the best national team, I'd be inclined to pick the best club team ordinarily but Brazil is just so damn good.

Brazil is the exception though. Because they have a national style that they grow up emulating, their national team system is like one big club.

Sooner's right. Brazil is the exception, but I'd still have a hard time picking a national team over a club team.

Brazil (with a month in camp together) vs Chelsea

Who would you choose?

Brazil would win easily. At least 2-0.

That is the question...if Brazil has no time to prepare, I would take the club team. If they have a month and get to play a game or two together, then I would say Brazil. It would be a great game to see.

quote:

---

If they have a month and get to play a game or two together, then I would say Brazil.

---

That's kind of why the clubs are better though. They just get more time with their players. In theory, national teams should best club teams because they are the best of the best. But they don't get near the training time that club teams get.

The only thing that makes this an interesting question in my book is the fact that Brazil is head and shoulders above every other nation.

In other words, if you took the 2nd best of each (say whichever of Chelsea/Juventus you think is worst) against...say Argentina or whomever you think is second behind Brazil, the club team wins in a cakewalk no matter how much time the national team has to prepare.

I dont know about a "cakewalk".