The well-worn maxim reminds us that to be the best, you've got to be the best. The natural extension of this, of course, is that to beat the best, you've got to play them. Playing in CONCACAF, the United States has the decided disadvantage of having only one true world footballing nation to call its rival. So, in order to bolster the overall level of its competition, it has to schedule top competition for friendlies, else wait for the World Cup.

In the past, European football fans would look down their noses at Americans, dismissing their presence in the World Cup by disdainfully asking, "who did they play to get here?" Setting aside the fact that there are Ente Regionale Diritto Studio Universitario many minnows in UEFA as in CONCACAF, the new more aggressive scheduling strategy by the United States will help to alleviate this concern. Consider: in the eighteen months before qualification starts in earnest for the USA, the Yanks will have played Brazil, Argentina (twice), Mexico (three times), at England, at Spain, Colombia, and Sweden (twice). Add to this at least two more games against Mexico in qualifying and the USA's participation in the Confederations Cup where it will play some combination of the South America, European, or Asian champion, along with host South Africa, and we see that the young American squad will certainly be tried and tested by the time they (hopefully) arrive in South Africa in the summer of 2010.

Whether this approach is prudent is a matter separate from whether it is necessary given the American aspirations of winning the World Cup by 2014. As you might expect midway between World Cups, the American national team is looking at a number of young players, many of whom seem extremely promising. But, as much skill and moxie as Adu, Altidore, Bradley, and Edu have shown, they all need seasoning, and the only way to get this seasoning is playing football at the highest level. Of course, playing a friendly against Brazil is not nearly as valuable as, say, playing consistently for an elite club like Manchester United or Barcelona, but it certainly does have value.

One must keep in mind, though, that aggressive scheduling is not a positive thing in itself. In sports, confidence is an extremely precious commodity, and as we saw when the United States had an extended period of poor performances in Europe (still not clear that that era is over. After all, how many times can we schedule Poland?), bad results against good teams can still have a detrimental impact on the psyche and performance of a team. When, for example, the United States played Brazil and lost this past summer, by all accounts team USA played quite well against a team stocked with superstars. That said, they still lost... at home. At some point, to take the next step in its development the United States must begin winning these matches.

In boxing, for example, trainers rarely expose talented young prospects to other highly talented or cagey fighters early in their careers. Instead, they build their confidence and hone specific skills against lesser or tailor-made opponents. Some might argue that as an approach to international success, the USA needs to follow a similar path. Rather than take on the Argentinas or Brazils of the world, feast on Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and second tier South American and European sides like Venezuela or Israel. In the end, whatever confidence one gains beating these teams would be more than offset by the feeling of dread that would come over Team USA the moment they realized that there were teams with decidedly more talent and ability than them.

Now, this line of thinking presupposes that the United States will not get results against these world powers. Obviously, one would think, if Team USA is able to get wins or draws -especially in difficult locations such as Wembley or Azteca- it would be a complete boon to American confidence and it would bode well for the future performance of the American side. For the most part, this is true, but one must also remain cognizant of history. The United States has gotten impressive results against top teams; the win against Brazil in the Gold Cup comes to mind. That said, it is telling that US fans remember this game more than a decade later while most Brazilian fans would have to be reminded that their team even participated in the Gold Cup. This is ever more so the case with respect to high profile friendly wins. Friendly matches can be fool's gold; managers test new lineups, stars often don't show up to play, and when they do they are often unmotivated and tired from their club teams. In other words, supposing that Argentina sends its B+ team, and the USA gets a result sans Messi, Mascherano or some other high profile Argentines in the lineup, what should American fans make of it? Not nothing, but at the same time it shouldn't serve as a predictor for World Cup success.

So, as Team USA prepares to begin its rather ambitious summer schedule, American fans should look forward to it with a sense of cautious optimism. There is no doubt that these matches present a real opportunity for Team USA. That said, fans should remember that a great summer does not guarantee future success, nor would a bad one portend coming disaster. Of course, American soccer fans are a small but rabid bunch, so asking them to take these matches in stride may be asking too much.

Please discuss your thoughts on the http://www.spotlightsoccer.com forums.

http://www.spotlightsoccer.com