In post 43 above I addressed the teams that I fear and those that I don't. In the post you quoted above I was addressing your separate issue about rankings. Two completely different discussions, so I'm unclear why you've quoted me here.
after 80 years of trying, a European team wins outside of Europe. A key factor is travel distance. Any european WC will have strong fan contingents from any european team, since travel is vastly easier. Similarly, I'll wager that Ecuador is going to have a ton more fans than Russia in Brazil for the same reasons. Only Japan/Korea and South Africa were neutral venues, and lo and behold, SA and Europe continue tradition and split them 1/1. Overall, if the US gets Switzerland in Belem, Cuiaba (srsly?), Fortaleza, Natal or Recife, they'll be like deer in the headlights. We'll just close our eyes and pretend its Panama City or Tegucigalpa and feel right at home. (well, it won't be THAT big a factor, but you get the idea. The US is going to be a lot more comfortable in S.Am.
in fact it is likely to be France, since France is significantly undervalued in the FIFA rankings. THe others are not likely to survive the playoffs. Thus, Brazil, Netherlands, France, US is entirely possible (albeit highly unlikely)
Or DC on the 4th or Dallas in midsummer, for that matter. Which brings up the question: how good will we be with Chandler/Brooks/fabian/Jermaine back there ? I think JK will actually tweak his 23 based on venues. He may be thinking about it anyway.
I will since you have provided no facts to back it up. I am at least acknowledging that my opinion is my opinion only and nothing else. You are trying to pass your opinion off as a fact.
The post that I quoted was about teams that you think are above or about the same level as the USMNT. I am just baffled how everyone continues to overrate certain teams because of certain players that they have. For example, its plenty reasonable to think that the USMNT is better than Portugal or Spain. My opinion is that you can make an argument that only seven or eight teams in the world are definitely above the USMNT.
That post was about the disconnect between rankings and team quality and quality of players and not whether the USMNT can and should beat some of those teams.
Hey, personal attacks aren't allowed on this board, if you aren't aware. Pretty funny that you are attacking me for having an opinion.
Can someone please start an "Irrational Aspirations for the 2014 World Cup" thread so we can keep this one as a place to discuss rational expectations? In the meantime, I'm adding suckers to my ignore list.
I'm attacking your flawed " 'merica is the awesomest" mindset. There are six to eight teams who can rationally be expected to clear the group stage. twelve to sixteen 50-50s. The rest it would be a surprise to see in R16. You never answered my question re:2006.
What is your question? I'll answer it, I must have missed it. And you didn't attack my mindset, you attacked my posting in general. I said that we should expect to beat Portugal and Spain. I had meant France instead of Spain, but just had a total mental lapse and said Spain. Your response was an attack towards me.
Putting Italy in the same boat as England, France, Portugal (not all are doing that) is a little naive to me. I'd even put them above the Dutch as the non-seed we most want to avoid. They've done really well in recent competitions, have a fantastic defense and midfield, plus Balotelli. Then, it's Buffon, Pirlo, and possibly Totti's last WC - they scare me. I'm actually really hoping we get put with Brazil if we don't get Switz/Uruguay. Sure, we'd probably lose, but so would everyone else. It just makes it a 3 team group for 1 spot, and they probably would do something to make sure Brazil aren't with a top Euro non-seed. So Brazil, USA, Ukraine, Burkina Faso would be chill. Pair that with Switz' group for Round of 16 and I'd be excited. But overall, to answer the main question, the group just matters too much to expect anything. I think 2nd in any group is reasonable, but not expected. Maybe FIFA will be kind and want the American market well into the tournament so they give us an easy draw
I've said this before. The fear of being in a group with Belgium or Switzerland baffles me when you consider the alternatives. There is the host, Brazil. Three South American teams who'll get a virtual home game, Uruguay, Columbia, Argentina. And then there are the powerhouses, Germany, Spain (As well as the aforementioned Brazil and Argentina). If we get a draw with Switzerland or Belgium, I for one will celebrate that.
Sorry you took it that way. Bottom line-It's a mistake to look at a FIFA seed and think it has any relevance to the quality of any team-not just the Nats. Your entire line of argument is based on this mistake,which is iullustarted by the disaster of a 5th ranked US side's performance in 2006.
I agree 100% about Switzerland. But Belguim. That is a LEGIT team. Their only knock is that they've never been there before as a team. Although that could also end up being a positive for them... a team without expectations. I'd want to avoid Argentina and Brazil for sure, but I'd rather have Uruguay or Colombia than Belgium.
Switzerland and Belgium are both legit; but very beatable. And Belgium's best win was against the US when they were ranked about 25ish and playing w/o Bradley and Donovan. And they only tied France when they were 21ish and that 0-0 tie was in the midst of France going six straight games w/o scoring. All Belgium's other victories have been vs. nobodies. It seems that losses needlessly get stuck in Americans heads. People fear Belgium because we had a bad loss to them. People fear Ghana because we've went out against them in the last two WC's. But, I wouldn't be worried about any of them relative to a great many of the possibilities. As for Columbia, I only know them on paper; but assume they're pretty tough in Brazil. Uruguay is probably the team of all the SA teams that least scares me because they tend to play at the level of whomever they play.
Switzerland was in a very very easy group. They don't scare me (compared to all the other seeds). Belgium, however, is a very very good team. They have a stacked team on paper that is currently coming into its own as a group. My feeling about Belgium has very very little to do with the friendly against the US this year. I had actually forgotten about it when I posted. They did thoroughly dominate us though, so that's not helping me feel any better about our chances against them (whether or not Bradley or Donovan was with us for that game doesn't really matter to me). I don't fear Ghana, although, compared to other African teams, they're the one I'd least like to face.
Given the likely geographic pairings in the draw procedure, the US has what amounts to a 4th seed. So right now I'd say the US has a less than an even chance to get out of the group. Or look at the draw this way: The US's opponents will come from three pots. Against teams in the first pot (the seeds) the US will be clear underdogs against everyone but Switzerland. Against the unseeded European teams, the US most likely would be underdogs against 4-5 of these, (England, France, Portugal, Italy, Netherlands) and no better than even against most of the others. In the last pot, the US would be underdogs against the South American teams, even against Ghana, Ivory Coast, and the last Euro team (Sweden maybe). That leaves 2-3 African teams that you would consider as those that would be in the "should beat" category. Meaning we, more likely than not, will not be clear favorites in any of our group games. And there's a pretty good chance we'll be drawn into a group with two teams clearly better than we are. You could quibble with our chances against some of these teams, or we might get lucky if weaker teams win the playoffs in Europe. Outside that, the draw is stacked against us.
Our opponents on paper are one thing; in the flesh on a pitch in Brazil, after a long season of league play and all the problems that life offers, is a whole different thing. Of course, that 2nd example could be us.