Results. I have us ranked 30th right now, and in the past I've had us ranked as high as 16th. ELO shows the same though they had us (incorrectly IMO peaking a little higher than that). It's hard to know exactly how it all works out because the system has been updated (and considerably improved) over the years, but somewhere I have match results going back as far as at least 1996. So maybe one day I'll re-apply the current system retroactively. Now you could argue that results don't tell the whole story and that's true, but from a National Team perspective they tell the biggest chunk of the story that matters: how we're performing specifically as a National Team.
For grins I quickly did the ratings on January 1, 2004. We were 20th (Mexico was 18th). I'm not going to do month to month right now as that takes up a lot more time than I'm willing to commit. My old posts on this from back then may still be around somewhere. Anyway, to head off another question: on July 10, 2006 (the day after Italy won the World Cup) we were 27th. On July 28, 2011 we were 30th, same as now.
And I think there are others who are licking their lips, hoping that it happens sooner rather than later ... because they understand the money to be made if the US seriously gets behind soccer.
i think the improvements we are seeing the US make on developing youth players, as well as increasing popularity potentially leading to more kids sticking with the sport and trying to go pro, is a very hard aspect of improvement to quantify. i also think its the source of our most dynamic improvement, recent results aside, which are especially irrelevant at the youth level as an indicator of individual talent at full maturity.
That's true, and being a top 5-10 country and truly having a shot at winning the WC might not be as far off as some may think. If I had to guess, the second half of the 2018 cycle, and the 2022 cycle will produce collective talent which the US has not seen before, and given many of those guys wil have trained for years in foreign academy systems, their tactical understanding should be considerably ahead of our current generation with improved tech ability to match. But I'd say that 2022 cycle, we'll be a solidified top 10 country which no one will want to face.
I see more depth in technical skills but the ability to get results has not improved and has likely regressed. Failing in one or two youth tournaments is not that bad but the sum total of failures is telling. We peaked with the U-20s in Canada. I'm fine with sacrificing youth results for long-term development but the higher the age group the more relevant they become. I suspect that until the late 90's MLS and Euro pros are the coaching norm throughout the system, for an entire generation of player development, we will hover between 20th and 30th, barring a golden generation or a reliable German pipeline.
Sweden has more overall international level talent than the US. It has more evenly distributed talent than the US. It has far more attacking talent than the US. And it has fewer players who don't belong on the international pitch than the US. And all from a rather small country. That said, with the German kids and no injuries, the US should be around Top 15-20 teams globally. But it needs top coaching to get there.
I don't know if I agree with this. Other than Ibrahimovic, I am not that impressed with Sweden. Well, I am impressed with Josefine Oqvist but for different reasons.
And yet they're sitting as pretty as Ireland at the moment in games that count. And (judging by your post history) by "top coaching" you mean you, right?
Well, they weren't playing against the chumps today. Johan Elmander scored 10 goals for Bolton in 2010-11, while splitting his time between a striker and a wing spots. Markus Rosenberg scored 10 goals for Werder this season and 9 for Racing Santander the season before. And these are numbers 2 and 3 on the forward depth chart. Their midfield is likewise solid, even without giving PT to Altidore's ex-teammate Pontus Wernbloom, who went for €4M to CSKA last winter. Their defense is mediocre but still much better than the US's especially going forward and with distribution. They don't run that deep in quality but have a spot per position to spare without dipping into the Mexican or the Danish leagues. (OK, Wilhelmsson is playing in Qatar but he can play in a better league, albeit for less money). And they have Zlatan.
Nobody in soccer land cares about rankings like ELO or FIFA's. It's all about the results in the big tournaments.
FIFA I agree, but ELO is quite a respectable system with a few weaknesses. My ratings generally are in line with ELO when it comes to the top teams, but can diverge greatly at times with sides from Asia and Africa. If you look strictly at competitions, you might miss that the US faced an extremely difficult group in 2006 (Italy, Czech and Ghana) and an extremely easy one by World Cup standards in 2010 (England, Slovenia and Algeria). You would have to also ignore all qualifying results.
But at the end of the day all we (should) care about is whether we reach the third round of the WC or not.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that a sober assessment of our team strength afterward shouldn't take into account the strength of teams we played. Mexico made it no farther than we did, but had a much better tournament as they faced more difficult competition at every step. Team ratings should reflect that.
The problem with the present Swedish NT is not really the quality of players (on paper that is), but as a team they have all the wrong kind of players... 1) They have absolutely no speed in defense and midfield, which shows when they are up against a good quick counter attacking team (like Ukraine), or if their opponent is able to keep up the pace, the Swedish defense and midfield is not able to keep up, in the long run. 2) On paper, they got great attacking players, but a World class striker like Zlatan is absolutely terrible at helping out his team-mates defensively, when they are under pressure... and the team suffer because of this. .
You thought Sweden played poorly? Apart from the England goals, I thought Sweden looked a class above England. Won virtually every 50-50, won virtually ever tackle, passed better, moved better, and looked more technically skilled at the individual level. England just finished exceptionally well on the rare occasions they didn't give the ball away.
The professional attainment of the National Team pool has never been better. Player quality and coaching quality are important components of any analysis of progress. The team made the knockout rounds in three out of the past 5 World Cups highlighted by a quarterfinal appearance in '02 and lowlighted by the off-the field shenanigans of '98. During that period the team has a achieved a 2nd and 3rd place at the Confederations. Pretty good, really.