My general thoughts on qualifying are that it has always been difficult and takes intestinal fortitude and heroics that people outside the region do not understand because of the peculiar dynamics like crappy stadiums, terrible refs, hostile environments, etc. So newbies taking it for granted is annoying. Having said all that, our region is crap. Absolutely craptastic, no denying it. We SHOULD dominate this region, along with Mexico and breeze through qualifying. I have absolutely no problem holding the USSF, our coaches and our players to that standard. We need to step up our game, not compare ourselves to our semi pros of the past imo. I was frustrated with and called out Bradley and Arena when we played down to crappy concacaf opposition and I will hold JK to that same arbitrary standard.
You know...FIFA ranks our region third best in the world. They use regional rankings (based on World Cup results) in the FIFA rankings. UEFA = 1 CONMEBOL = 1 CONCACAF = .88 CAF = .86 AFC = .86 OFC = .85
I guess my point is, everyone on these forums overestimates the US National Team and underestimates CONCACAF. Then, when we don't dominate our regional opponents, everyone panics. This happens over and over and it gets kind of annoying after a while.
This is an interesting issue. That region coefficient is used in the world rankings to determine the points earned in a match. To me this is a system of loaded dice designed to keep the top 20 packed with European and South American teams. The Coke Ranking formula includes a coefficient for the strength of the opponent, which is 150 - the team's world ranking. Why then is it necessary to handicap teams further based on geography? What has mighty Malta or San Marino done to deserve a boost in the Fifa formula? I wonder if it possible to see what the rankings would be if this coefficient were dumped. I expect Ivory Coast and Mexico would be a few spots higher.
Well Panama won at Honduras, I think they will make the Hex. Wow, the difference between Concacaf and the top 2 is 0.12 points, the difference to OFC is only 0.03; That is crazy. Is Tahiti even a FIFA member? Or are they like Guadalup in Concacaf that play in the Gold Cup but is not a FIFA member. Can Tahiti even go to the Confederations? I really do not know.
Tahiti is a full fifa member I believe. If not they would not have been able to advance to the Confed Cup in 2013, no?
Yeah Tahiti is a FIFA member and will be at the confederations cup. They have already competed in the 2009 U20 World cup
Sort of. The effect of the confederation weightings in FIFA's ranking formula, which are based on the results of the previous three World Cups, is twofold. The confederation weightings keep a team from fattening up its ranking too much solely within its weaker confederation, and the confederation weightings limit the transfer of ranking points between confederations outside of World Cups. If your confederation wants to have a lot of ranking points, it has to go earn them in the World Cup. Now, there's a lot of FIFA meddling behind the scenes; FIFA quietly tweaked the formula after the 2010 World Cup to count draws as half-wins rather than non-wins, ensuring that UEFA would maintain its 1.0 weighting. This tweak ended up helping CONCACAF as well, raising its weighting from the minimum 0.85 to 0.88. Also, the confederation weighting is averaged between both teams in a match-up, which really limits the transfer of ranking points between confederations. I can see some justification for doing this in events other than the World Cup, but in fact that limitation is in place during the World Cup itself, which is unjustifiable. Why was it worth less for the USA to defeat Algeria in the World Cup than it was for Slovenia to defeat Algeria in the World Cup, for example? Hat-tip to Edgar: http://www.football-rankings.info/2011/08/confederation-weightings-one-answer.html Edgar also points out that the confederation who suffers the greatest negative effect from confederation weightings is CAF, though Mexico and the USA also show up: http://www.football-rankings.info/2011/03/fifa-ranking-why-need-for-confederation.html
Yeah, I addressed that in the first part of my original post, which is I guess talking out of both sides of my mouth. My point was that I agree that qualifying is much harder than people who have not really watched it understand, but at the same time I don't think we should lower our expectations of our team. We should handle qualifying in convincing fashion imo.
To be fair, despite Suriname and Guyana being in South America, they're part of the Caribbean Football Union. So grouping them with the "island nations" isn't completely irrational considering they qualify out of the same sub-region.
I don't think that there is such a thing as breezing through anything in soccer anymore. However, I believe we'll have less problems than before. It's basically, two giants against various regular countries. I'm just not feeling any pressure from Costa Rica and Honduras which would be the candidates that might threaten Mexico and the US. If anything the pressure is for those nations from lower ranking teams. Right now I feel that whenever the US or Mexico feel the need to set some distance they just walk up to the other countries and get the result they need even if they are visitors.
Third best is a deceptive way to look at this issue. The difference between third and last on this list is .03 points--hardly a massive difference, and likely within whatever margin of error applies so it's largely meaningless. Also, in looking at this list I'm pretty skeptical that anyone in their right mind could think that OFC is basically on par with the other three confederations. Something's very wrong there.
I dont get the hand wringing. we played better than guatamala. they scored on a set piece. they shoot better than we do. doesnt surprise me. but they only had two other shots on target that was really dangerous. mostly due to cameron brainfarting on the corner.
Actually, drawing hostile away qualifiers & winning all of our home qualifiers..............is handling qualification in convincing fashion. We need to re-calibrate things. That gets you thru easily every time. Yes, yes, we'd all like to run thru a semi group undefeated.........but that just doesn't happen. We're not Holland. We're not good enough to do that. We tend to think of draws like this one against Guate as points dropped for the US. They're really big-time points dropped for Guate. We tend to see the negative side of these things, and think about "man if we'd won that match we'd be making it out of the group in a breeze." We never look to see what this draw has done to Guate. The pressure is now squarely on them. They've played their two biggest rivals for advancement, and have failed to win. They now must feel they HAVE to win home and away to A&B in their next two games. (not the cakewalk some thought). Because they do see a looming qualifier in the US on the horizon, and they have an abysmal recent record in the US. For them they probably feel that in order to qualify they HAVE to get 7 points in their next 3 games.................so the pressure's on.
The handwringing is a permanent feature. Nothing will ever eliminate it. And yes, we're just fine. In other Concacaf qualifying news, my sleeper to qualify, Panama, is looking solid to make the hex.
panama is very very good. they have quality players. they have replaced costa rica as the third best side.
I don't think a lot of people know that. I remember watching them play us a few years ago in Foxboro and they looked very dangerous. Young, but dangerous. Well they aren't young anymore, just dangerous. With both Honduras and Costa Rica on the downswing this cycle, Panama has to be the prohibitive world favorite for most likely first time World Cup qualifier.