Yeah, I have to go ahead and specify: if you have a 1-in-8 chance of success at something, (which is a 7-in-8 chance of failure), your chances of failing eight consecutive times are (7/8)^8. Which is still about 35%, meaning you only have about a 2-in-3 chance of success given eight tries at it.
To be fair, we weren't ranked that high by FIFA's present system, they've changed the formula since then (back then, it tended to blatantly reward teams for playing a lot of games, and we played a lot of games). Looking back at the historical Elos: http://www.eloratings.net/USA.htm, I don't think they ever got us much above the mid-teens in 2006 (in fact, by Elo, our highest ever rating was in 2009). There are now three different fairly robust ranking systems out there that use vastly different methodologies from each other, but have a relatively consistent result: Elo: 12(t) (.88) FIFA: 13 (.69) SPI: 15 (.88) (The figures in parenthesis are the ratio of our points, in each system, to the number of points the top team has, since the three systems use different points scales.) I'm not saying we're "really" in the mid-teens among worldwide soccer teams, but I am saying the basis for claiming that we are is definitely stronger than it was in 2006.
You'd be very very hard pressed to convince me the current national team isn't better than the 2006 team.
'06 team. What could have been: ------------------------McBride ----Donovan-------O'brien---Dempsey--Reyna -------------------------Mastroeni --Hejduk-------Gibbs---------Demerit-----------Dolo --------------------------Keller Of course, Hejduk, O'brien, and Gibbs all suffered injuries. Demerit wasn't picked. Dempsey wasn't made a starter until the Ghana match.
As of today we would be ranked higher than everybody in the CONMEBOL/CAF pot except Chile. They are ranked above us by one place. We are not going to be definitive underdogs to anybody in that pot. We will be even to favored. There are a few teams I'd prefer to draw and a few teams I'd prefer to avoid from that pot but that is based on the match-up/style of play and not overall quality (unless Ethiopia sneaks through).
I far prefer the current team to the 2006 squad. The current team is better overall in attack, midfield and defense. Keller gets the nod at GK.
Re-posted from the WC Draw thread in case this thread has a different audience that might be interested: If you use ELO (which rates the US pretty highly right now), and give all the SA teams a bonus of 100 points, then the US has a 57% chance of being drawn with two teams with lower ELO. (I counted France as lower than the US even though they are ELO-tied just to be optomistic). Now this is a little deceiving, perhaps, because all of the CAF teams have a lower ELO, but maybe those rankings are good for some hope! Here's the basic math: .25 chance of getting SUI or BEL; 5/7 chance of no UEFA pot 3 team < US ELO; or 4/8 chance of UEFA < US ELO .25 chance of GER or SPA; 5/7 chance of nonUEFA pot 3 team < US ELO; and 4/8 chance of UEFA < US ELO .5 chance of CONMEBOL; 6/8 chance of pot 3 < US ELO; and 4/8 chance of UEFA < US ELO = 57% If you think CAF ELO is way off and the US needs to also avoid IC, Nigeria and Ghana, then the odds of being in the group with two teams you expect to beat is 32% (just change those 6/8 and 5/7 above to 3/8 and 2/7). Dislaimer: cocktail napkin math.
According to FIFA.com, World Cups held outside Europe (9): 1930 Uruguay: Uruguay (winners), Argentina (runners-up), USA (3rd), Yugoslavia (4th) 1950 Brazil: Uruguay, Brazil, Sweden, Spain 1962 Chile: Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Chile, Yugoslavia 1970 Mexico: Brazil, Italy, W. Germany, Uruguay 1978 Argentina: Argentina, Netherlands, Brazil, Italy 1986 Mexico: Argentina, W. Germany, France, Belgium 1994 USA: Brazil, Italy, Sweden, Bulgaria 2002 Korea/Japan: Brazil, Germany, Turkey, S. Korea 2010 South Africa: Spain, Netherlands, Germany, Uruguay South American finishes: Winners (8), Runners-Up (2), 3rd (2), 4th (2) European finishes: Winners (1), Runners-Up (7), 3rd (6), 4th (6) All Other finishes: Winners (0), Runners-Up (0), 3rd (1), 4th (1) World Cups held in Europe (9): 1934 Italy: Italy, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Austria 1954 Switzerland: W. Germany, Hungary, Austria, Uruguay 1958 Sweden: Brazil, Sweden, France, W. Germany 1966 England: England, W. Germany, Portugal, USSR 1974 W. Germany: W. Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Brazil 1982 Spain: Italy, W. Germany, Poland, France 1990 Italy: W. Germany, Argentina, Italy, England 1998 France: France, Brazil, Croatia, Netherlands 2006 Germany: Italy, France, Germany, Portugal South American finishes: Winners (1), Runners-Up (3), 3rd (0), 4th (2) European finishes: Winners (8), Runners-Up (6), 3rd (9), 4th (6) All Other finishes: Winners (0), Runners-Up (0), 3rd (0), 4th (0) This is by no means exhaustive, but it does show a couple of trends: European teams, outside of winning, do only slightly worse off-continent than on. Non-Eurpoean and -South American teams have only placed at off-continent tournaments, and only once away from their home country (USA!!!).
My realistic expectation is to get between 3-5 points. I don't think we will be shut out like '98 or fail to win like 2006. But I am not sure if we can expect to get out of the group stage looking at the potential draws. On to the other issues. First the FIFA rankings are generally crap because it is so hard to compare teams across continents particularly if you include friendlies. But I know they have improved them since 2006 and they do seem to be slightly better than they were. And I actually think the US is about 15th, 16th in the world. Belgium is a brute and it has nothing to do with the fact that they kicked our ass, has more to do with the players on the team and their results. But they will go into the world cup with pressure and very little big tournament experience. So considering the other teams in pot 1 I guess there could be worse draws.
This team is not a top 10-12 team in the world, as such automatically advancing out of any group no matter the scale of difficulty is an unreasonable expectation. There are several non-seeded UEFA pot teams that will be better than us (virtually all), at least 5-6 seeds are better than us, and a few conmebol/caf seeds are better than us (conmebol based on the locale of cup, CAF based on talent) by any reasonable expectation. In my view your expectations are beyond unreasonable. My expectations are that we play excellent soccer, that we don't have "the pratfall" game as we did in '98 (Germany), '02 (Poland), '06 (Czech Republic), and '10 (first half against Slovenia), and that we play the caliber of soccer that showcases a side that is genuinely top 12-18 in the world. Against a group of life that will give us a knockout round game minimum. Against a solid draw that will give us a knockout round game minimum. Against a G.O.D. or near G.O.D. draw that will likely send us home in 3rd to 4th place.
Point 1: Fifa rankings are bogus. Point 2: you assume that not only are we a 13th ranked team, but also that the groups will be seeded to the very last team, they are not. It is possible, very possible, a group could have 3 different teams ranked in the SPI top 8 and us (Spain, Netherlands, Chile/Colombia etc). Point 3: people aren't afraid of the big name teams, we are simply rational and understand where we stand in comparison to the big ranked teams. Below them. Portugal has one bad loss since it got rolled by us 11 years ago. ONE. One bad tournament loss in 5 tournaments, they've made the knockout rounds of each, and advanced far beyond the initial knockout round stage at the '04 Euro's, the '06 World Cup, and the '08 and '12 Euro's. Point 4: France, England, Ghana and Portugal have all repeatedly outperformed us in every single major tourament going back just this past decade alone with the only blemish being France's '10 flameout. Point 5: There is no reason other than incompetence as to why we'd be ranked ahead of any of those teams save possibly Ivory Coast due to its Cup of Nations performances, and World Cup G.O.D. knockouts.
If almost all UEFA are better, and almost all seeds are better, and most CONMEBOL (for one reason or another) are better, and several CAF are better and we are in the same pot as everyone else, then I don't see how you can conclude that the US should advance from a solid draw. Looks like based on your assessment of the relative strength of the US, the US should only rationally be expected to advance out a miracle group of life. You may very well be correct, but I just didn't see how your view of the team was consistent with your expectations in the end.
Exceptions don't prove the rule. I could point to 2002, 1994, 1986, 1978, 1970, 1962 etc ad infinitum, 1 out of all of them in a very down period for Brazil and confused period for Argentina, while Spain was at its zenith is a rare exception. I do think Europe could win this because Europe houses 4 of the best 5 or 6 teams in the world, but its in Brazil so Brazil would be favorites and if Argentina could finally figure out how to utilize its assets it could potentially make a run as well.
I view the unseeded Euro pot (Netherlands, Italy, England, Bosnia and Herzogovina+Portugal, France, Croatia, Greece) as demonstrably better than us in most cases with only Croatia and Bosnia as teams I think we'd get even up odds on. France, England, and Italy habitually have a "say what?" game or two every tournament, but are we gonna be lucky enough to catch France, England or Italy on a bad day for them? We've done it three tournaments in a row so maybe for some it's an expectation (Portugal '02, Italy '06, England '10), but I would still rank us behind all three and would expect it to be less likely and 50%. In terms of the Conmebol+CAF+ Russia: I think we have even up or better odds against Ecuador, Cameroon, Algeria, Russia, while I'd rank USA =<Nigeria, Chile. I think it would be fair to say that I view the final pot as 50/50, the second pot as 25/75, and the first pot as either 25/75 or 37.5/62.5 in terms of landing a seed we can earn a result against. If the playoffs were to play out as expected, UEFA will be sending its strongest collection of sides ever since the era of 32 teams began, the same is true of Conmebol, of Concacaf and AFC, and likely most of CAF. This is the most difficult world cup top to bottom ever in terms of the overall strength of the teams likley to be there.
Nobody fears Switzerland out of that pot. But Belgium has earned the rep, it's possibly the best Belgian team ever, and in Europe, probably one of the four to five best teams overall, as such they'd fit right in as a seed at any cup based on their overall strength right now (typically the seeds are 6 euro's and 2 conmebol sides except when a tourney is held outside both regions). No way am I celebrating Belgium, I'd slot Belgium in right behind Brazil, Germany, Spain, and Argentina in that order, and I might even rate them ahead of Argentina due to Argentina's cup to cup inconsistency of play and that quality w/belgium being a total unknown w/these kids (and as such, only the relatively recent play of them to go on). Belgium is currently, in my view, the sixth to eighth toughest team to play period. I'm not celebrating grabbing them, I'd much prefer Uruguay, Colombia, or Switzerland, while the S. America hosting factor is in play, the US has played well with it's A side in Conmebol, and I think would do so again, particularly in Brazil and against a world cup relative neophyte in Colombia (as impressive as they are lately) or Uruguay who aren't quite as fearsome once you get past their attack, I think we'd cause their defense plenty of issues.
3-0 win at Serbia when Serbia was still very much alive in group play. 2-1 win vs Serbia (for a 5-1 aggregate spread in their two qualifiers.) 2-1 win at Croatia when Croatia was trying to steal first place in the group late in qualifying Collected full points from Wales, Scotland, and Macedonia in the rear of the group save for rested final qualifier which was a draw. The same cannot be said of virtually any other qualifier other than Germany and Netherlands in 6 team groups in UEFA. Not sure where you ge this "gotten results against nobody" argument. Croatia and Serbia are most definitely not nobodies, and both sides are monsters to handle in their house. One of the reasons both look so bad to observers now is the fact that Belgium won 3, lost none, and drew 1 against them combined while outscoring them 8-3. In their other six qualifiers against the 4th, 5th and 6th place finishers they went undefeated and outscored them by a combined 10-1, and none of those 3 were the weakest, let alone weaker sides in their respective pots (no San Marino's, Luxembourgs etc)
Not meaning to nit-pick, and I haven't seen Greece play in a while, but I'm pretty shocked to hear someone describe them as "demonstrably better" than us. Their only forward who plays outside the Greek league is Samaras, who I don't rate. Midfield looks pretty good and their defense looks very good. They finished second in a relatively weak UEFA qualifying group, tying Bosnia at home and losing 1-3 to them in Bosnia. How do you give us even odds against Bosnia and not Greece?
Having more players on top club teams doesn't equate to a better international team. Thats my opinion though. I don't think France, Portugal, Croatia, Ivory Coast, Ghana and even England are any better than the USMNT. My expectation is rational for my opinion. If we are talking about a team that is only definitely worse than 7 or 8 teams around the world, then my expectations are reasonable. If we are talking about a team that is definitely worse than 10-15 countries around the world, then your expectations would be more reasonable. Its all about how you interpret where the USMNT is. Thats why I have no problem saying that I respectfully disagree with your opinion.
i posted this earlier in the thread thats a very even grouping of teams in each category 7 teams in Even, 5 teams in Yes, might not even make it to the WC 11 teams that we need to avoid, 4 of them will b ranked. looking at all the teams, it will be a very difficult WC it will be hard to even get past the 1st round 1W, 1D, 1L with enough goals scored, and some other matches/results going our way will b needed
Top 16 or below top 16? I say below. The Italian team we beat was very young. Brazil U-23's creamed us at our place - Mexico beat the same Brazil team days later. We only managed to score on Bosnia when they pulled their 1st string defenders in the 2nd half. I dont take the Germany game seriously. We couldnt beat Mexico away - the same Mexico that couldnt win a game in Azteca in the hex against Jamaica and Honduras. Costa Rica and Honduras beat us in their stadiums. Belgium creamed us in Cleveland. The draw with Russia was encouraging, otherwise what I see is a respectable w-l record that masks a dearth of significant, solid achievements under the kind of adverse circumstances we are likely to face in away games in Brazil. Hopefully, our opponents will be suffering from worse problems than we.