Who should we schedule for March 5 fixture date?

Agreed.

 

It's dramatic but I feel completely warranted. We play Nigeria, full squad, and can't get a result, we aren't going to get a result against Ghana. There is nothing overly dramatic about that. That's a given.

If the match ends up being Sweden, it's going to be very important to how we play this game. We may lose against Ibrahmovic and co., but Sweden played Portugal very well and ended up losing out. If we play Sweden comfortably, or win, we should play comfortably in the group. It's really not too much to ask that the US not play scared as it did in 2006 or 1998. (And I don't think we will)

Either Sweden or Nigeria, I have high hopes for this match and I think we will be okay. Personally, I like Sweden better than Nigeria for a friendly--But we need to play Cameroon or Nigeria in the send-off if at all possible.

 

You have an odd definition for "a given."

Agreed with a lot of this.

But I'd again point out that the WC being played outside of UEFA (and therefore likely to the disadvantage of UEFA nations in some real or generic sense) is probably "more important" (imo) to the USA's chances of success in their WC group -- regardless of the calendar year March friendly result or performance by the USA at a UEFA top team (or even against some fellow WC-qualified team playing a neutral-site friendly in London or Paris or wherever).

 

Yup. Knowing that European teams tend to underperform in tournaments outside of Europe, going into Sweden and grabbing a good result is a mighty fine sign. If we can get a third big European result (Besides Italy and Bosnia) in front of their home fans, we should by logical extrapolation play just as well if not better at a neutral venue.

Now you've got my psyched and I do hope we play against Sweden. Our defense learning to play against Ibrahimovic will be a big help in dealing with forwards like Gyan, Ronaldo and Gomez.

 

I wouldn't say that at all. I don't think Ghana is that much better than Nigeria, if they are at all. Currently I would give them the slight advantage , though Nigeria has better defence, and forwards. I think this would actually be the best test for US, and a very good test for the Nigerian team even if the US is not like anyone we will play. We are rumoured to play a South American side. Hopefully it's Colombia, but if that falls through I think the US would be a good test.

 

My guess is that we'll get that in the pre-cup scrimmage in Brazil, a la the 1-0 victory over Angola in '06, and the 3-1 win over Australia in '10. I'd be really surprised if we didn't arrange a like for like scrimmage in that case. Maybe Ivory Coast, Nigeria, or Cameroon, otherwise a Euro squad. Cameroon already has a game against Germany scheduled for early June, so maybe that takes them out of contention, and we aren't really a good match for whom they play in A anyway. Who knows.

I don't think the result or lack of one against Nigeria or Sweden means squat though. Sweden and Portugal aren't very similar at all to me, and the results of their home and home weren't predictive of anything either other than what can happen when you give Ronaldo space to run into between your center backs, and don't cut out through balls. At the end of the day Sweden is a workman side with a once in a generation superstar forward they probably won't see the likes again for decades, if ever, beyond him they aren't much. Portugal plays lockdown defense, grinds out results, and has no forward worth mentioning, but has quality midfield play to field the occasional finish to them. They aren't similar at all. A result or not against Sweden means about as much as a result or not against Israel, not much.

Nigeria is an interesting question, but again, not necessarily predictive. I don't think they and Ghana play the same style, I think Ghana plays a smarter, more efficient game, and Nigeria hasn't played with a similar caliber of efficiency in more than a decade. I do think a friendly against Nigeria, or Cameroon, or Ivory Coast would be valuable simply because we just don't play these sides at all. Beyond the occasional youth world cup game, and Ghana matches in back to back cups we haven't really played Sub-Saharan African teams at all. The only senior sides I can think of were against Cameroon in the '03 Confed, and Ghana in '06 and '10. Beyond that we just don't seem to schedule friendlies against them, and have no access to them in tourneys. It would be hugely helpful to play against a legit Sub-Saharan African team in a friendly or the scrimmage, give me Nigeria, Zambia, Burkina Faso, or Ivory Coast and I'd be happy. Zambia and Burkina Faso are rising powers in the region, while Nigeria and Ivory Coast are a tier above. A friendly against any of them would be helpful just to provide the experience.

 

You know far more about these African sides than I do, and I really appreciate the analysis, excellent points about Cameroon, but I don't buy the reason they'd be interested in us. Our similarities with Mexico end after you mention that we are the dual kings of Concacaf. Mexico doesn't play at all like us. They have no aerial game to speak of, they have a radically different approach in how they approach breaking down teams, possessing the ball etc. They just don't play at all like us, and don't really have similar players either. We'd represent value to Cameroon because like Mexico, we're a top 15 side in the world, but after that, the similarities end, and beyond maybe, getting some ideas while pumping us for information during a jersey exchange, I can't see what it would really do for them that would trump say, playing Argentina in a friendly.

 

Don't disagree, all I want is something analogous to '02 and '10 when we lined up tough opponents, and played away games. In '02 we played in Italy, Ireland, and Germany, and played Uruguay and Netherlands at home in May. In '10 we played far fewer friendlies but played good squads (@ Netherlands, at home against the Czech's and Turkey). Since Klinsmann has taken over there's been a big emphasis placed on us getting comfortable playing on the road with games @ France, @ Italy, @ Bosnia, @ Slovenia, @ Belgium, @ Russia, @ Scotland, @ Austria. That's not bad for only 2.5 years.

I imagine he'll line up the toughest opponent he can, and not sweat the group analogy angle. I'm very curious on who we might scrimmage. I'm guessing perhaps Cameroon, Ivory Coast or Nigeria if all goes well.

 

Heck with it, call up Brazil and set meet up in Europe.

 

an African team which is bound for the World Cup would be a good opponent. One of the three of Cameroon, Ivory Coast or Nigeria would be great.

 

Why not at a venue that actually resembles our environment in Brazil?

 

Most of the stadiums in Europe are finished.

 

JK is apparently set, probably wisely, on taking the NT to some (or a good number) of his players in Europe during the early March FIFA official match/friendly mid-week date.

And it is probably "more important" to try to replicate "our environment" in Brazil by playing a friendly in a place like Miami in late May as part of the extended camp, and not so much just for a quick mid-week friendly in early March.

 

They do?

Just sayin the circumstances in Brazil will be completely different. A bad result on a smooth European pitch in spring temperatures shouldn't worry us too much.

 

The very top UEFA teams (Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and now Spain) tend to do fairly well outside Europe.

I don't think Portugal fits there, though. A lot depends on that first game. If there's a result against Ghana, then Portugal becomes the direct rival for the #2 spot. It is doable.

Lose against Ghana, and it's very likely all over. Once again, the US fate is decided against Ghana.

 

Yeah, getting 4 points min. over Portugal and Germany isn't very likely... That said Germany could be homefree by the last game, so maybe they might not go for a win?

 

Yes. The total rate of success (i.e. getting out of their group and/or advancing through the knockout matches) for UEFA nations (on the whole) is much higher in WCs played inside of Europe, rather than outside of Europe.

And a lot of non-UEFA nations (of which the USA is a fine modern example) tend to "do better" in WCs played outside of Europe.

Exactly. That's the point I was attempting to make earlier in this thread. (And conversely, a good result/performance in a March friendly should not "over-encourage" the USMNT, and fans as well ideally, too much.)

 

For a Conference that has comprises over 40 to 50% of the teams in the World Cup, it is really no great surprise that UEFA teams can make the finals when the WC is outside of Europe. But that Spain's win in SA is the ONLY time a Euro side has won the WC outside of Europe is pretty telling of a difficulty in playing away from one's comfort zone.
This is an easy bet: No European side will win the 2014 WC.
This would have been nearly as easy a bet: If 2014 was played in Europe, it would be won by a Euro side.

So, yeah, as Wessoman said, european teams tend to underperform in tournaments outside Europe......

Or is it that you think european teams overperform in tournaments inside Europe?

 

I thought we were talking about European teams in general (ie. WC'94: Italy, Sweden, Bulgaria - which to me seems like Sweden and Bulgaria were over-performing, or SKorea/Japan'02 Germany, Turkey. Or Mexico'86 Germany, France, Belgium; and so on).

 

I don't think there's really any reliable and reasonable way to analyze the performance. The Cup's simply don't happen often enough to be anything other than small sample size, and until recently were heavily Europe biased (every other cup on their continent until 2014, usually 55-66% of the teams playing being European), and Europe already held a very strong position when it came to the cream of the soccer world, and the depth of the soccer world (from 1950-1977, every great team in the world was European other than Brazil, and since '78, the only true world power to emerge outside of Europe has been Argentina, meanwhile Holland, Portugal, France, and Spain have all announced their presence as perennial top sides in the world in the intervening 36 years).

I think the telling factor for me is that European dominance in terms of Round of 16 qualifiers has slipped dramatically over the past decade. Europe used to send a ridiculous amount of their qualifiers into the knockout rounds. I did a survey a month ago and noted that Europe basically qualified 60-75% of their teams to the knockout rounds from 1986-1998 (basically the pre-internet era of the modern game), but in the '02 and '10 cups outside of Europe, the depth of Europe collapsed, and began to flail in competitions against Concacaf, the AFC, and even to CAF. Only 6 of 13 UEFA sides made the knockout rounds in '10, and yes the 3/4 participation in the '10 final four was impressive, but what of '02 when only 1 of the 4 sides was a traditional European power?, and what of the overall numbers from the last two 1st time confederation hosts, 13 of 28 UEFA qualifiers failed to sniff the knockout rounds, 6 of the 13 finishing last in their group.

That to me is telling information, the question is in regards to what it actually means. For me, I believe, it isn't so much the foreign location of cups that causing such a change in as much as the quality of international sides outside of Europe has dramatically improved. Up until 2002, the AFC was a graveyard of cellar dwelling hacks when it came to the international game. Other than a N. Korean shock run in England in '66, and Saudi Arabia's short lived run in '94 (largely hyped around that wonder goal from Saeed Al Owairen), Asia was basically a collection of 3-4 W's for any quality team out of Europe (or South America for that matter). Now the AFC has advanced 5 of 12 World Cup qualifiers in their past 3 cups, with Japan and S. Korea developing into legit top 15-25 sides in the world. CAF was largely a joke for decades as well until Cameroon sliced and diced its way through Italia '90, coming two unfortunate PK's away from making the semifinals (they did Outplay England in the quarters, and defeated finalist Argentina, Romania, and Colombia along the way), Nigeria joined the party as a power from '94-'02, Ghana and Ivory Coast joined in the past decade. Africa today can boast at least 4-6 legit sides that can play with anyone in the world, and be an even odds bet to beat anyone that isn't a member of the current Big 5 (Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Italy, Spain) and in some cases, actually beat them. Concacaf was irrelevant until 1986, and since '86 first Mexico, and now the US have become World Cup main stays and legit threats to European powers (wins over Ireland, Croatia, France, Portugal, Belgium, and Bulgaria, ties against Switzerland, Belgium, Netherlands, England, and Slovenia, as well as 1-1 draws against Italy in all 3 match ups ('94, '02 and '06 World Cups).

So essentially, the class of the world cup was largely Europe+Brazil from 1950-1977, then you could add Argentina in '78, and Mexico in '86, and now in the past two decade the world has added S. Korea, and Japan from Asia (we'll have to wait to see if Australia is in decline, or relevant), Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Cameroon from Africa (I think there are more sides, like perhaps Egypt, but nobody has had the level of staying power that the 4 have had), and the US from Concacaf. In addition Colombia, then Paraguay announced their presence out of South America in the 1990's, Uruguay came back after decades of slumber in the aughts, and Chile has arrived in style since 2007.

The fundamental fact of the matter is that the continents of Asia, Africa, and the America's have added at least 8 legit soccer playing nations that can compete with virtually anyone in the world over the past twenty years between the beginning of the relatively modern era ('86), and Germany '06, and South America has grown from a nation that could send two legit contenders and mostly rabble cup to cup, to a continent that sends 2 contenders, and 4 teams capable of beating virtually anyone in the world other than the big 5 in Colombia ('90-'98, '14), Uruguay ('02, '10-'14), Paraguay ('94-'10), and Chile ('10-'14).

I am sure that playing outside of Europe, or the US for that matter (I don't think you can equate Europeans playing in a world cup in the US, to them playing in a cup in Africa, Asia, or South America, especially considering many Euro's vacation in the US every year, the US simply isn't "foreign" to them) is more difficult than in Germany, France, or Italy, but I imagine the foreign cup issue isn't nearly the issue some make it out to be, especially considering the friendly schedules club teams began using to expand their marketing to Asia and the ME in recent years. At this point the issue for European squads is almost certainly more about the quality of international sides, rather than the discomfort of playing in South Africa, Japan, or South Korea. Germany '06 suggests an exception, but I'm not so sure considering that two of the best 4 international squads outside of Europe and South America ended up being eliminated in groups of death (US, and Ivory Coast), and CAF sent a bunch of garbage squads to the cup to get annihilated due to their moronic qualification process (there's no way in hell Angola, Togo, or Tunisia were, or are better than Nigeria, or Cameroon on any level, and their performance in the Nations cups and qualification campaigns sandwiched around those fluke '05 results proved it). Japan and S. Korea didn't show as well, but both showed that the improvements of '02 were no fluke (Japan and S. Korea had largely never had any results to speak of preceeding '02) by combining for 3 quality results in 6 games, and then having excellent performances in South Africa to boot.

After the draw, my bet is that the knockout rounds will be composed of:

UEFA: 7/13
Conmebol: 5/6
CAF: 2/5
Concacaf: 1/4
AFC: 1/4

The hardbit sides are clearly Ghana, and the US, and possibly Chile (who I have advancing in this scenario), all 3 clear top 8-14 sides in the world, but handed groups that have 3 of the top 9 sides in the world in D's case, and 4 of the top 14 sides in the world in G's case. Kind of ridiculous, 7 of the top 14 teams in the World are in 2 groups, the other 7 are spread out amongst 6 groups. Gotta love FIFA.

 

My vote would be for Angola or Cape Verde. Prep for two teams in one match.