u/LesJawns610

I know this is tired but the bullshit red card suspension for the US must make everyone hate them, right? Also, the US always gets home advantage in the Gold Cup with a garbage team that's afraid to play on the road and incapable of winning or getting good results so Concacaf have to fuckin' coddle them by hosting our region's tourney there all the fuckin' time. We've seen this WC that Canada and Mexico were better hosts so, let's have them host the GC for a change? Or even combined Central American countries? Then we can see how many titles the US will still win if they're playing outside their pampered abode.

Personally I think MLS is a pathetic joke of a league and most teams are below League 2 in quality and talent, minus the few retired stars signed from Europe. But some people think it's better, so I can't say they're wrong or completely clueless. So I won't say more, but I'll ask what do you think?

Since implying that Canada is way better than the US gets me labelled a troll, I won't say much here. So I'll open it up to anyone who has opinions or facts on which country's men's program is better.

Who agrees?

To start off I'd like to congratulate Canada and Mexico for winning a KO round match and carrying the region as hosts. So based on recent results and this WC do you think Canada and Mexico are likely to be the top teams of Concacaf for the lets say next 5-10 years? They're already the best performing Concacaf teams in the WC so far and should've hosted it themselves.

I've seen Canadian players to be better at tactical understanding of the game and make smarter moves off the ball compared to American ones. Also, when Canada's team plays tough opponents they've shown to be more creative at getting out of tight spaces and difficult situations where the US team often melts down and give up. So do you think it's because Canadian players are more skilled and that came from better youth training?

OK, I'm not headed for conspiracy-land but the USA vs. Paraguay WC match results are not believable if you track the 2 teams' progress the past few years. Paraguay had to pass a tough WCQ from South America while the US didn't have to qualify and looked mediocre the last 3-4 years. So how did that result happen under normal expectations if there isn't anything suspicious to explain it? Did Paraguay simply have a bad day or did they throw that game on purpose?

I firmly believe the independence move was a mistake as our Anglo siblings stayed British and are now much better than the US. If you're watching the World Cup you HAVE to be impressed with England. I'm confident they will win this WC, but instead of making them go through the process should we just give them the trophy as an apology to lessen the ill-feeling about our 250th anniversary?

Just for fun, I wonder which teams do you fear (or love to see) could put up horrible performances and results and become lowlights for this WC. I'm thinking the US is definitely stinking it up, as they're at best mediocre and below average compared to the world and would've not qualified on their own. But I'm suspecting Panama or Haiti might also end up near the bottom. Panama might be better than 2018, who knows. So who do you think might end up as weak links for this region?

I'll all for Concacaf hosting or doing well in the WC as a region, but this WC feels off since the worst of the 3 host teams is having the lion's share of the tournament. Does anyone wishes Mexico or Canada had gotten more matches?

I've listened to Samuel Barber's School for Scandal overture several times and thought that he might be wanting to write some incidental music for either stage or film adaptation of Sheridan's play using the overture as an intro. Does anyone wonder what would such hypothetical music sound like if Barber had gone further and written either a film score or theatrical music to go along w/ his overture?

To not offend anyone, I specified US as some might see "American" and think 2 continents. I agree there are many great composers and masterpieces coming from Latin America (Villa Lobos is one of my favorite 20th c. composers) but I feel like classical music attempts from the US sound amateurish, low quality, or just tacky and cheesy and completely devoid of emotions, complexity, or sophisticated texture and counterpoint you find in European composers and also non-Euro ones occasionally. I've heard about the US not being as old as European countries and classical music activities and started much later but Britain and Russia also started comparatively late. Also, the US being the richest country in the world and spending so much money on music schools, professional orchestras, and concert halls still can't produce a single notable composer or any work that could be called a masterpiece among the greats. Does anyone else think so?

p.s. I'm American and I think this country is a cultural wasteland for classical music aficionados.