Why do people say CONCACAF is crap?

Get your facts straight. No Mexican team entered the Sudamericana until this past year, when Pumas reached the final and lost to Boca on penalties. And I have no idea what the Recopa even is.

In any case, the critical point about club competitions is that they usually pit mid-table Mexican League teams against South America's best. Even though Pumas were good enough to finish 2nd in the Sudamericana, they were only one point out of last place in the most recent Mexican season. Last summer, Chivas was struggling in the Mexican League but still humiliated Boca 4-0 in Libertadores.

Frankly, these half-assed putdowns directed towards Mexico show how weak the case against them really is.

 

So you've gone from clearly ahead of everyone except Brazil and Argentina to top 4. Keep going and you may get it right. Mexico is equivalent to a second tier CONMEBOL nation. They would hope to do well in tournaments (and may win the odd one) but would generally be competing with Equador, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia etc to see who is the best of the rest. That makes them 2nd tier CONMEBOL.

 

In the 2002 World Cup Finals, Mexico outperformed every second-tier Conmebol nation; in the 1998 World Cup Finals, Mexico outperformed every second-tier Conmebol nation; in the 1994 World Cup Finals, Mexico outperformed every second-tier Conmebol nation; over the course of its Copa America participation, Mexico outperformed every second-tier Conmebol nation.

The record could hardly be any clearer. Mexico is behind Brazil and Argentina but clearly ahead of the rest of South America. The facts are against you; either be an adult and admit that, or just go away.

 

The facts have always been in my favour as you admitted in your previous post when you rated Mexico top 4. If Mexico were in Conmebol they would be in a group of countries competing for a World Cup spot. They are no better than the second tier, as their record clearly shows. If they were above the others then they would have some CONMEBOL trophies to show for it. Instead they have some minor placings, along with some average performances. Their record shows them somewhere in the 3-8 bracket depending on how good the team is at any given time.

 

that is irrelevant. just because a team is doing bad domestically doesn't mean that they'll do the same in other competitions.

it's kind of like saying team a beat team b, and team b beat team c, so team a will beat team c.

it doens't work like that.

osasuna was out in the first part of the uefa cup. yet, right now they are on pace to qualify for the champions league.

liverpool won the champions league, yet failed to qualify directly for the next one.

domestic performance is not equivalent to international performance, and vice versa. (especially in mexico, where teams have a lot of ups and downs.)

 

I said Mexico was the third-best team and would finish in the top four. Teams don't always finish in the order of their strength. I can't believe you're really being so anal about that point. But then again, when it comes to Mexico's track record vs. that of any second-tier South American team, you simply don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Equivalent? No.
Related? Yes.

Liverpool didn't win the Premiership, but they did finish in the top quarter, and their last three Champions League opponents were the Premiership champions and the Serie A champions and runners-up. Clearly, most of the teams that did well in the CL were also doing very well at home.

But the reason teams in Mexico have ups and downs is because there are a large number of teams that are similar in quality. So even though Mexico's Libertadores entrants usually end up as quarterfinalists or semifinalists rather than champions, it's important to remember that Mexico has 10-15 other teams that weren't in Libertadores but were equally strong. The only S.American league with comparable depth is Brazil.

 

related?

depends. of course it is in europe, because the big leagues tend to have the same teams at the top year after year. how would you relate that to mexico, where 7 out of the 8 that make one liguilla fail to make it to the next?

equally strong is hard to say.

the teams that did well last year had a lot of depth.... chivas, pachuca, and tigres have a lot more players to pick from than say tecos, atlas, chiapas or dorados. that also has to with it.

i think it's not really parity that affects the mexican league. it's the short tournaments. there are many teams that are strong yet don't perform (as you stated with chivas and pumas. many seem to forget they were the first team to win two tournaments in a row. even though they were doing bad in the mexican league, it doesn't [and didn't] guarantee failure in the copa sudamerica.)

 

Live in delusion if you like, but Mexico are not better than second tier CONMEBOL. They reach 3rd at thier best, and 8th at their worst. This is second tier, however you look at it. Most second teir teams have a CONMEBOL title to their name. Mexico don't, despite having played in relatively weak CONMEBOL tournaments for some time.

 

WC94 Mexico 3rd behind #1 Brazil and #2 Argentina
WC98 Mexico 3rd behind #1 Brazil and #2 Argentina
WC02 Mexico 2nd behind #1 Brazil

That looks to me like 2nd at their best and 3rd at their worst.

 

... but if you look at performance over longer time periods, there is still a lot of balance between the different Mexican League teams. And while I don't watch a lot of Mexican League soccer, my impression is that by late 2005, Pumas really weren't very strong. Losing players like Lozano and Fonseca really took its toll.

 

I think some may have taken my earlier post a little differently than I intended. I was directing it towards those that GUARANTEE that Mexico would finish first or second if they were in CONMEBOL.

Mexico has proven they can play with the big two in the region, consistently doing well against Argentina and Brazil. However, they have never won the Copa America...while other "second tier" teams have. This shows that the region is stronger than they are given credit for, and that Mexico overachieves against the big boys.

Could Mexico do well in CONMEBOL? Absolutely. Are they better than the top two? Only if you are Mexican will you say yes.

 

results-wise, it is veyr even. here is the relegation table

Equipo Puntos Juegos Cociente
1 América 148 89 1.6629
2 Toluca 142 89 1.5955
3 Pachuca 142 89 1.5955
4 Guadalajara 134 89 1.5056
5 U.N.A.M. 132 89 1.4831
6 Necaxa 131 89 1.4719
7 Tigres 130 89 1.4607
8 Monterrey 129 89 1.4494
9 Cruz Azul 127 89 1.4270
10 M. Morelia 124 89 1.3933
11 Jaguares 123 89 1.3820
12 Santos 118 89 1.3258
13 U.A. de G. 118 89 1.3258
14 Atlante 117 89 1.3146
15 Atlas 109 89 1.2247
16 Veracruz 108 89 1.2135
17 Dorados 60 51 1.1765
18 San Luis 16 17 0.9412

that is from the past five seasons. the difference between the teams that played all 89 games is only 40 points. league- wise, it's pretty unpredictable.

but on paper, the league isn't as even. and the teams that did well in libertadores were also good on paper. it's difficult to say 10 or 15 teams would do just as well. the comparison can't be made until we see the teams with less depth make it - like an atlas, a veracruz (who almost did), or a dorados make it, and see how they perform.

 

Thanks for posting that ... in order to see things more clearly, I've color-coded every team based on its results in Libertadores, 2000 on. Over that time frame, every Mexican qualifier has advanced beyond the group stage. The one time a low-table team (Atlas) participated, it did quite well, but that was long enough ago that Atlas might have been a stronger team back then.

Equipo Puntos Juegos Cociente
1 América 148 89 1.6629 octavos 04, semis 02, semis 00
2 Toluca 142 89 1.5955
3 Pachuca 142 89 1.5955 octavos 05
4 Guadalajara 134 89 1.5056 semis 05
5 U.N.A.M. 132 89 1.4831 octavos 03
6 Necaxa 131 89 1.4719
7 Tigres 130 89 1.4607 quarters 05
8 Monterrey 129 89 1.4494
9 Cruz Azul 127 89 1.4270 quarters 03, final 01
10 M. Morelia 124 89 1.3933 quarters 02
11 Jaguares 123 89 1.3820
12 Santos 118 89 1.3258 octavos 04
13 U.A. de G. 118 89 1.3258
14 Atlante 117 89 1.3146
15 Atlas 109 89 1.2247 quarters 00
16 Veracruz 108 89 1.2135
17 Dorados 60 51 1.1765
18 San Luis 16 17 0.9412

Note that Mexico's participation began in 1998, and it didn't do very well in '98 or '99. Since Mexican teams have done consistently better since then, I think it's fair to view that as a learning stage.

 

that atlas team was nothing like the current atlas team. the atlas team in 1999 was a semi finalist and a finalist, and in 2000 made it to quarters and semi's again. that atlas team was a spectacular youth side with the likes of chato rodriguez, zepeda, and osorno. those three and the team haven't been the same since then.

 

Ah, that's right. They were coached by some guy named Lavolpe back then ... wonder what ever happened to him?

 

In a combined Conmebol/Concacaf, this would be the pecking order:

Brazil
Argentina
---
Mexico
US
---
Paraguay
Costa Rica
Ecuador

More substantial dropoffs noted.

 

Agreed

 

except...... there was a guy named marcelo bielsa who laid the foundation. without bielsa's work lavolpe would've had nothing.

 

Uruguay and Colombia (perhaps even Chile) should be there as well on at least equal terms with Costa Rica. Going back to the original question, the position of T&T in that group shows why Concacaf is considerred crap.

 

Have you watched much T&T football?

You might want to watch them before you speak so harshly of them. They are a decent squad, anchored by a certain former ManUtd striker named Yorke. Yes, the same Yorke that led them to a UEFA Champions League win several years back. The Soca warriors could surprise a team like Paraguay if they overlook them.

 

T&T getting 4th in the hex is sad and indicitive of the state of many of the Central and Carribean FAs right now. There are 3 or 4 teams that are consistently better than T&T.

That said, Concacaf earned that extra .5 spot with results. You can't argue with that. If 2-3 teams out of Concacaf do well this tournement, you'll have a hard arguement to take that .5 spot away.

To your other point, Uruguay were -5 GD in qualifying and are a clear distance behind Paraguay and Ecuador right now, in my opinion. Columbia is just down at the moment. Hopefully they'll pick themselves up and be back in that tier soon enough. I'm just a big fan of Chile, but they need to qualify in '10 to convince anyone they're a lasting power in Conmebol. One WC since '82 doesn't cut it.

 

Before you speak about CONCACAF I think your number two team should be better than getting spanked 9-1 in the playoff.

Jealous of CONCAF's 3.5 spots?

 

Top ten in combined North/ South America would have at most 3 Concacaf teams. Costa Rica are good enough to compete with, but would be no guarentee to qualify in top 8. Next Concacaf team is behind Cost Rica and would be 3rd tier

So if Australia was still in Oceania and did well at this WC should Oceania get extra spots for the Solomans.

Actually I agree, if they stay as their own confed, that Concacaf should get 3.5 spots - but the playoff should have been Nth v Sth America - not v Asia. Australia or Uruguay wouldn't have had much trouble against T&T or Bahrain 9 times out of 10

Uruguay started badly in qualifying and were the best of the rest (after Bra and Arg) in the second half of qualifying after they changed coaches. The main point is that Uruguay and Colombia, especially,but also Chile and even othe Conmebol teams are at least in the same ballpark as Paraguay and Ecuador (and Costa Rica) whereas the next Concacaf would not.