by Robert Burns and John Juhasz, FoxSoccer.com

More of the same, lads. More of the same.

Let's do this thing ...

Hey guys, i'm a first time poster long time reader. With the possible inclusion of Jermaine Jones to the MNT, do you think it's a smart move? There's no denying his talent level and his success with his club sides. But with the recent success in the center of the park with Clark and Bradley, would it be foolish to throw Jones in there and risk the chemistry, even though he might be the most talented player in the MF? I could see Bob Bradley slowly integrate him in, because either way we can definitely use his talent.
Jason Fray of Oak Park, Calif.

Robert: Welcome to the circus, Jason. For a long time now, I've defended MLS and its players' contribution to the U.S. talent pool, but Wednesday night's match against Honduras showed me a great deal.

Even though Charlie Davies and Benny Feilhaber play in Scandinavia, the difference made by seasoned European players was enormous. It was plain for all to see what kind of an impact those two made on the game and that's why the U.S. won with conviction in the second half.

And while Ricardo Clark is busy every week against the Red Bulls or Quakes, Jermaine Jones is facing guys like Bastian Schweinsteiger, Diego, Josué and Piotr Trochowski. That's World Cup talent there that won't overwhelm the guy in South Africa since he's more than used to it.

I've followed Jones for a long time now, and while certainly not the most dominant defensive midfielder in the Bundesliga, he plays for a top-five Schalke team (that admittedly underperformed last season) and contributes a great deal to its success.

So of course, his potential inclusion to the U.S. squad is a great thing, but will he walk into the starting XI just because of his European pedigree? Certainly not — he'll have to earn his spot just like everyone else.

While I'm convinced that Michael Bradley will be a regular for the U.S. in South Africa (and deservedly so), Clark and the rest of the d-mids in the pool are all fighting for that one spot. Let's see how Jones performs if he gets called up for some of the USA's upcoming qualifiers before anointing him the go-to guy in that position (should FIFA indeed grant his national team switch).

Personally, I think he'll excel, but having a guy like Clark behind him is a great luxury (outside of his reckless fouls). That's what depth is all about, and no team can win without it.

John: Jones is definitely a good addition for the same reason I talked about last week — depth. From what I've seen of him on the field (which is an admittedly limited amount ... maybe five matches or so), his best asset is stopping opposing attacks before they become scoring changes. There's always room on a roster for a player who can do that.

But back to the depth issue, tell me Jones wouldn't have been an ideal player to have in the Brazil match. At worst, he's a reliable option off the bench. At best, he's a newfound beast in the lineup. I don't think we can go wrong by bringing him along for the 2010 ride. Let's just hope Bob Bradley doesn't put him in his personal doghouse for some secret reason like he did with Freddy at the Confederations Cup.

Ok we all know that Mexico has some problems right now working as a team but you have to admit that they have good individual players. To me they are very dangerous when they play together and you can see that when they play against teams like Brazil, Argentina, Italy, Germany. Lets say they learn how to work as a team before they play the US, how good can this team be? And also who do you think Edgar Castillo is going to play for? I hope that he stays with Mexico even though he rejected both countries already.
Tony Garcia of Costa Mesa, Calif.

CONCACAF Gold Cup

Photos

• Group A | B | C | QF | SF | Final

Top Stories

• El Tri returns home with a dilemma?
• Mexico routs U.S. to win Gold Cup
• U.S. stung by lopsided final defeat
• El Tri fans celebrate huge final victory
• All-time Gold Cup champions
• Mexico into final after Tico shootout
• CONCACAF GOLD CUP CENTRAL

Video

• Highlights: Gold Cup Final
• Chat: Dos Santos | Holden | Ching

Opinion

• TRECKER: Big-game nerves halt U.S.
• TRECKER: Americans book final spot

Links

Front | Standings | Fixtures | On FSC

John: The most dangerous I've seen Mexico play against the teams you listed was when they drew Italy 1-1 in the group stage of the 2002 World Cup. Other than that, umm ... I'm not seeing much in the way of a team which would be a serious threat to make a deep run in the World Cup. Sorry ... they need to get their coaching sitation sorted out permanently before anything else.

And it sounds like he's all but set to play for the U.S. from what I've read, but I'll only believe it when I see him don the jersey.

Robert: I've always believed that on a personnel level, Mexico has been superior to the U.S. in many ways, but putting it together as a team is what matters. This is something that El Tri has often failed to do, especially against the Americans.

I have great respect for many of their players, including Gerardo Torrado, Nery Castillo and Omar Bravo (and even more for ex-national team star Jared Borgetti), but I can't say the same for all of them (Oswaldo Sanchez comes to mind). But regardless how I feel about their individual players, what they bring to the table as a collective group always seems to come down to the opposition.

You'll never see Mexico lay down and die against Brazil or Argentina — they always play them with great passion and vigor and it's always a close game — and the same goes for all the great European teams as well. Mexico is never an easy match if you're a top side.

But they're guilty of playing down to the level of their competition (and you can say the same for the U.S. in many cases), and that costs them. But in the World Cup, outside of the one minnow they might be lucky enough to catch in their group, they'll be worth the money. It seems like Los Tricolores always find a way to advance at the Big Dance, and (without the groups being drawn yet of course) I don't suspect any different next summer.

However, the team's small stature is a liability against bigger teams that can match their skill and pace (the latter isn't too difficult), especially at the level they'll face in South Africa (should they qualify). Can they win the World Cup? No, I don't think so, but not many teams can. It's not a slam, just the reality.

And if you think I'm just hating on Mexico, I'll say the same thing about the U.S. — although I think either side is capable of making a deep run in South Africa. Tournaments outside of Europe and South America will always be wide-open affairs and there will be upsets aplenty — mark my words.

Edgar Castillo has really left himself no options at this point other than to move to the U.S. His comments about wanting to play for another national team might fly under the radar in the U.S., but they won't in Mexico. This is a nation that lives and breathes futbol, so when you come out and make those types of comments, you've pretty much sealed your fate.

However, I don't think it will be an easy task for Castillo to force his way into the U.S. back line, especially after the Confederations Cup. But at the end of the day, like Jermaine Jones, it's all about depth. Castillo has the talent and experience to make the U.S. team, but playing time is a different story altogether.

2009 Summer Transfers

Photos

• 2009 Summer Transfers
• 2009 MLS Transfers

Transfer Pages

• England | Europe | Major League Soccer

Hi to both of you and congrats on a great column. Anyway, I just wanted to ask you guys about the impact Owen will have on Manchester Utd. It's pretty obvious that Owen is no longer on a world-class level, and that the import of Benzema will further diminish his role in the lineup. I can only see him being a substitute. Therefore, my real question to you is: Why did Sir Alex bother getting him if there are already young guns like Macheda ready to fill-in when need be? Why not invest that money into Ribery or even Aguero? Thanks again, and all the best.
Bart Czarnik of New York

Robert: Thanks for the compliments, Bart — much appreciated. First off, Benzema is not coming to Old Trafford, so that's no longer an issue.

The only knock on Owen at this point in his career is fitness. If he can stay healthy, I think we'll see a monumental contribution by the England star. He was in a miserable situation at Newcastle, and if you don't think that has a lot to do with a strker's psyche, you've got a thing or two to learn about the Beautfiul Game.

When Owen has great players around him, he shines. He's not the kind of player anymore who can carry a team on his own, but at United, he won't have that problem. The pressure to deliver at St. James' Park was immense since he was brought in as the club's savior, but none of that will exist in Manchester. He's only got to play a part — much like he did with Real Madrid.

In limited appearances for Real, he killed it. Granted, he was a few years younger, but I still think he's got plenty to offer if he can stay healthy, and that's a huge ask after all his injuries.

Think of Owen as the new Solskjaer ... only better. Frankly, I think it's a brilliant move. United also didn't have to break the bank for him. And on top of that, much of his salary is performance based, so that says a lot about where Owen feels his game is at present time.

The young guys like Macheda and Campbell should get their opportunities as well, but they're unproven on the big stage. Sure, Macheda had some moments of brilliance when called upon last season, but it's not like you saw him starting in the Champions League. Owen has that kind of experience when the lights are shining brightest.

At the end of the day, Sir Alex knows what he's doing. If Owen can stay fit, I see him scoring between 12-14 goals this year.

John: Ferguson bought Owen because of what you said ... he's probably not ready to completely turn over the striking duties to Rooney and any given youngster du jour. Owen may be old, but he's still far more proven than a good number of other options in the lineup.

And let's face it — is it really fair to judge his current form based on what happened with Newcastle last year? The morale of the team was probably about as high as that of your average penitentiary. The losses kept on piling up, and I'm convinced the immense pressure from the supporters played a role in their doom. With the talent surrounding him this year though, I'll be pretty surprised if Owen doesn't at least double his goal tally from last year if Ferguson starts him often enough.

So i'm within a hundred pages or so of finishing Gianluca Vialli's book "The Italian Job" and i don't know if you guys have read it, or know its premise, but in essence it compares and contrasts many aspects of both the Italian and English game. It seems to have been released right around 05-06 and oddly enough, i can't help but feel it is ancient history compared to today. Granted, it addresses much of the history of the 2 institutions, but in many ways it seems as if the football world has changed enormously over the last 4-ish years. Vialli seems to have released this book on the cusp of the WC 2006. Which seems so long ago in the fast paced world of football. It is almost inconceivable how much has changed in football since then. He even refers to Newcastle as one of the "big 5" in England (laughable in modern context). I guess what i am getting at is this: Is there any precedent to what has become of football in the last half decade? Has there been a time when this was the case before the modern era? I mean, modern football is progressing at almost lightspeed, which certainly is a result of constant internet access, and the recent trend of billionaire buyouts, but all of this has made much of football an almost sensationalist saga of massive sums of $$ and almost muckracking style transfer stories. This doesn't seem the case in other major sports (MLB, NFL, etc.), many of whom have changed little from the 90s to today. To me, it is eerily reminscent of the "web bubble" popping of the late 90s, when there seemed a "can do no wrong" attitude towards internet companies, which inevitably crashed and burned. It just doesn't seem healthy, and i am curious how this will backlash in the coming years. but, again, Is there precedent to football's meteoric progression in the last decade or so? and i guess a follow-up, is this any bit healthy, or is it much to the contrary?
Pat Feldmann of St. Louis

John: Read a book? I'm not sure Burnsy and I have read enough combined pages to equal one chapter, let alone a whole book.

No, I haven't had a chance to read it, but it's on my list of things to do before the, ahem, book closes on the summer (no pun intended). As far as what you're getting at though, we've covered this in previous columns a bit — what goes up must eventually come down. There's no way the average fan will be able to keep up with the rapidly increasing cost to attend a Premier League match. The FA may learn a lesson about price elasticity of demand the hard way.

Robert: Pat, you need to get out more. No ... seriously. I'm starting to worry about you.

I have not read the book but would be interested in doing so (if I could first finally finish Ken Follett's The Pillars of the Earth). As they say, timing is everything.

The English club revolution comes down to four people — Cristiano Ronaldo, Steven Gerrard, Jose Mourinho and Roman Abramovich. When Vialli completed his book, these four entities were really just coming into their own.

When was the last time a Premiership-based player won FIFA's World Player of the Year award? Well, that was never. Say what you will about Ronaldo, but he's a phenom, and his unbelievable displays in England made it cool to play on the island.

Gerrard was the main catalyst in bringing European success back to England. Liverpool's remarkable European Cup final victory in 2005 really marked the start of the Premier League's relative 'dominance' on the continent ever since.

Abramovich's billions opened the door for another English club to compete for the world's best players, and Jose Mourinho's enigmatic personality and demeanor (fresh off a Champions League title of his own with Porto) swayed all of Europe's attention to what was going on in West London.

At the same time, Barcelona has also made its case since winning the competition in 2006 and 2009, but all of this has left Italy more or less out in the cold, outside of Milan's win in 2007.

Okay, I've drifted off topic here I'm sure (as I'm wont to do), but ultimately it's just a phase. No club (or nation) stays on top forever. That's just the way it is. There are cycles of domination and even the occasional dynasty (perhaps Milan in the late 80's and early 90's, or Liverpool in the 70's and Real in the 50's), but invariably the tides will turn.

English football is peaking. It will be difficult to sustain the current rate of success for much longer, especially with the apparent shift of power swinging over to Spain. I think it will be difficult for the Italian clubs to compete for the next few years, but that too will change at some point.

Either way you slice it, the biggest stars appear to be hell-bent on either Spanish or English clubs right now, but Serie A clubs will still retain their own identities and make things interesting in Europe.

Is it good or bad? Who's to say? I don't enjoy football any more or less than before — you just have to get used to the new uniforms every season and the new players wearing them. It does seem that salaries and transfer fees are reaching the 'are-you-kidding-me?' stage, but like I said last week, it's all relative to the current economic climate.

Honestly, I don't think you can compare soccer with the established American sports, though — it's apples to oranges. Transfer fees don't exist in the NFL, just like drafts and multi-player trades don't in soccer. The structures are completely different and therefore difficult to compare. You also don't have the huge influx of worldwide players pushing their way into the American sports landscape (although it's growing), while soccer can span the entire globe to harvest talent, and in some cases, exploit it.

Will the bubble burst? Probably not for the Real Madrids or Manchester Uniteds of the world, but as I've said before, it's the mid-table and below clubs that will struggle to compete down the road — both on the field, and financially.

Robert Burns is the senior editor of FoxSoccer.com and John Juhasz is a fantasy writer for FoxSports.com.

	Side Kicks Archives:
	11/06/2009 | 10/30/2009 | 10/23/2009 | 10/16/2009 | 10/9/2009 | 9/25/2009 | 9/18/2009 | 9/11/2009 | 9/4/2009 | 8/28/2009 | 8/21/2009 | 8/14/2009 | 8/7/2009 | 7/31/2009 | 7/17/2009 | 7/10/2009 | 7/3/2009 | 6/26/2009 | 6/19/2009 | 6/12/2009 | 6/5/2009