Why do people say CONCACAF is crap?

This is a point we have to disagree on. We have played a number of CONCACAF teams over the last decade (including Mexico twice in Confed Cup matches) and I've yet to find one that has tested us to any extent at senior level. I fear the South Americans more than the North Americans.

 

There were more strawmen in this post than I think you are capable of counting. Assuming you have all your digits that's probably 10...

If the concacaf sucks so bad, why are their recent world cup results head and shoulders above both the AFC and CAF?

 

Their records are better because of 2 teams, Mexico and USA

and neither have had fantastic WC results, i would say Mexico has been the only team from Concacaf that fared alittle better in WCs above anyone else but has never passed the last 16 away from home and USA did get to the quarters last time but thats because it faced another Concacaf team in the last 16 but before that has never done much at the cup either unless your counting 1930 where you went to the semi finals right after the group stage

The only other decent teams in Concacaf are Honduras and Costa Rica who are as good as your average Bolivia.

 

becuase there are only 2 worthy teams. Mexico and the US

 

i agree. there is no way that the US is the 8th best team in the world. They are good, but they are ahead of England, Italy, Portugal, sWEDEN, COLOMBIA EVEN. they should be in between 15 and 20.

 

That's an awfully selective sampling of games. For instance, if you want to talk about the Confed Cup, you probably ought to acknowledge that Mexico won it in 1999, and that Mexico gave a much better showing than Australia did in 2005. Mexico beat Brazil and drew Argentina, while Australia lost all three of its games.

And if you're judging the USA based on a 0-0 draw in 1998 (the last time we played the Aussies), you're a long, long way out of date.

 

So we should just eliminate Concacaf, AFC, CAF, and OFC altogether from the World Cup, right?

 

And in between 1999 and 2005 Australia defeated Mexico. Not only is the 0-0 with the USA out of date it didn't even reflect current form as both sides played what were basically Olympic squads and called it an A international.
I make my judgements on observations of matches that are more recent. Mexico holds no special fears to me. They would be tough for us to beat (as would the USA), but no tougher than Uruguay was. I don't regard the USA and Mexico as weak, its just that I don't rate them as clearly 3 & 4 teams in the Americas which was the original premise I argued against. They are both in a pack of around 6 nations after Brazil and Argentina IMHO.

 

In the game Austalia won (in 2001), this was Mexico's line-up:

Sanchez, Suarez, Oteo, Davino, M. Ruiz (Osorno 48), Rodriguez, Abundis, Borgetti, Pardo, Coyote (Victorino 48), V. Ruiz (Reyes 64)

Of the 14 players the Mexicans used that day, only Borgetti went on to appear in the 2002 World Cup. It was a weak team.

If you're referring to a home and home series, Mexico would be a far tougher opponent than Uruguay. The physical environment of Mexico City (7300 ft and smoggy) presents enormous difficulties to a visiting team.

Since Mexico began to compete in Copa America in 1993, this is its track record:
1993 -- 2nd place behind Arg.
1995 -- quarterfinals, lost to US on PKs
1997 -- 3rd place (lost to hosts Bolivia)
1999 -- 3rd place (lost to Brazil)
2001 -- 2nd place behind hosts Colombia
2004 -- quarterfinals, lost to Brazil

In that time,
-- The only non-hosts who've won the event are Argentina and Brazil.

-- The non-hosts who've reached the final are Brazil (4 times), Argentina (twice), Mexico (twice), and Uruguay (once).

-- The non-hosts who've finished third are Mexico (twice), Colombia (twice), and Uruguay (once).

-- The only teams to advance beyond every group stage they've played are Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and Colombia.

Looking at those results, I think it's pretty clear that Mexico stands ahead of most South American teams, especially when you also factor in World Cup performance. The USA is harder to judge, though, since it hasn't played many meaningful games against South American teams. (In friendlies, the US has looked very good against them.)

 

Mexico also mostly always brings a full strenght squad to the Copa America while most S.A teams dont. Last Copa America for example only Mexico, Costa Rica, Peru, and Ecuador had full strenght teams.

 

Considering that Costa Rica certainly didn't send a full-strength team, I don't really trust this assertion. Who are you claiming were the key absences from other teams? How do they compare to absences from Mexico such as Blanco and Zinha?

 

Australia plays by far the weakest competition and blows them out, why aren't they rated so highly?

 

Wrong in a huge way, Mexico has lost once at the Azteca EVER.


Once...


Ever...

 

Obviously you don't know much about Australian football.

What seems obvious to you is difficult for me to see. You show me some good (although not exceptional) performances by Mexico in Copa America which puts them in the same class as the second teir of South Americans ie a mixture of good, average and middling performances. This puts them in the same class as the second tier group. To be honest, I think every fan of a non seeded team was hoping to get Mexico's group in the World Cup draw.

 

Nice try, big boy. 7 out of Australia's starting 11 in that game also started both legs of their 2001 playoff against Uruguay. An 8th starter (Agostino) appeared in both playoff legs as a substitute.

Again,
1. Australia won using a lot of its best players while Mexico wasn't.
2. Mexico has a huge home field advantage.
3. Mexico's recent Copa America and World Cup track record is clearly better than that of any second-tier South American team.

Are these points really so hard to admit?

 

Be advised to not use FIFA Rankings as a basis of analysis...I believe NO ONE really respects those rankings. Hint: You might want to use real results to prove your point

 

I have already said Mexico has a good home record and would be hard to beat there. What you fail to recognise about Australia in 2001 is that it was basically a two man team with a lot of average players rounding out the squad. Any Australian team in 2001 without Viduka and Kewell was second rate. I'm well aware Mexico had a weak squad in 2001. The results proved that. What I wont concede (because it isn't true) is that Mexico is better than the second tier of South American teams when their record clearly shows that they aren't. If Mexico was in CONMEBOL they would be second tier (Brazil and Argentina occupy the first tier). Mexico is no harder to defeat home and Away than Uruguay, Ecuador, Paraguay etc. It doesn't mean they are easy, but if you think they belong in the first tier of American nations then you are very much mistaken.

 

In CONMEBOL Qualifying, Mexico would finish in the top two...no problem:

> Mexico would steal points in the High Altitude Venue
> Mexico would win all points at Home
> Mexico would steal points at several of the weaker low altitude nations like Colombia, Peru, Chile or Venezuela.
> Mexico might even get points at Uruguay (anybody remember Copa America 1995?)

Mexico has the been the most consisent country in Copa American competitions since participation began in 1993:

1993 - 2nd Place in Ecuador
1995 - 7th Place in Uruguay
1997 - 3rd Place in Bolivia
1999 - 3rd Place in Paraguay
2001 - 2nd Place in Colombia
2004 - 6th Place in Peru

 

You can interpret it that way if you like, but then you should also acknowledge what an enormous dropoff Mexico suffered in 2001 when it didn't have Blanco -- even today, they still haven't been able to replace him. Going down the list of all the other players who were missing for the Australia game (Rafa Marquez, Palencia, Torrado, Arellano, and nearly everyone else who played in the 2002 World Cup), it could hardly be more obvious that it wasn't an apples-to-apples comparison. It'd be like rating Australia based on its squad for the 2002 Oceania Nations Cup.

Here's what Mexico's record clearly shows: they have a markedly better Copa America track record than any second-tier South American team, and they ranked ahead of every second-tier South American team in the 2002 World Cup Finals, in the 1998 World Cup Finals, and in the 1994 World Cup Finals.

Mexico isn't as good as Argentina or Brazil, but they clearly rate ahead of the rest of South America.

 

because the only quality side is Mexico.

 

6 tournaments, 4 winners, 1 three time winner, 0 Mexico titles

Now that's consistency!

All this proves is that at BEST, Mexico is a second place team in CONMEBOL. They have consistently shown this.

 

TRUE.

Cmon mexicants giv it up, u guys say ur much better than second-tier south american teams but hav no titles to prove it, juzt those mediocre 3rd places. second-tier teams have been winning CUPS since mejican teams have been participating in our tournaments:
Colombia: 1 Copa America, 1 copa libertadores
Paraguay: 1 Copa libertadores
Peru: 1 Copa sudamericana, 1 recopa
This is since mejicos began participating ,I'm probably forgetting others but these are titles not 3rd place(I'd be embarrased to show that)
and more, mexican soccer leagues count with many southamericans as their stars and they've improved the mexican league., and most south american leagues are filled with corruption yet they still win more than u. In copa americas and ur gold paper cups u play south american c teams and bench while u always hav ur regular mediocre starters from the mexican league and the real south american starters are playing in Europe. Well I know u mejicans will probably discard all these truths because well ur mejicans But u can't deny ur players are all mediocre except for marquez who is a good defender.

Here's what mejico's record clearly shows: They can't win anything ,
The only reason they're league is a lil better is because of S.Americans,
They are only hyped by FIFA and Televisa because they know if they keep lying to you that u guys are goood they will make more and more $ off of u.
Sorry to ruin ur day...

 

Mexico's inability to win a championship is irrelevant. (Since Mexico started competing, the only non-hosts to win one have been Argentina and Brazil.) What matters is Mexico's proven ability to outperform the second-tier Conmebol countries. They would clearly finish in the top four of the region.