Why does everyone doubt the USA?

It is inconsistence. I don't buy that "we don't do well in Europe" excuse. It goes deeper than that. I believe because the US really had no meaningful competition in between the 2002-2006 years, that they performed poorly in 2006 more than anything else. Gold Cup? That's hardly a meaningful competition. I believe the US is going in the right direction in accepting Copa America's invitations this time around. Even though I believe the US won't do well in this Copa, there must be a start for everything. The experience is what matters now.

2006?

I guess you still can't assimilate the fact you had a horrible performance, certainly not what was expected from what the US showed in 2002.

Completely agree. A poor 90 WC, a decent '94 WC in home soil, a poor '98 WC, a good showing in '02 WC, and a poor '06 WC. Their 2 Copa presentations - 93 CA, last in the 1st group phase, '95 CA, 4th place finish. Gold Cup - 3 Title wins out of 8, with most being played on only US soil. These are all top level competitions for the US. I'm not including 'friendlies' as it may not be the top teams from either side showing up along with the fact that they are not really playing for anything. So how can you not call all this inconsistent? The US has been taking the sport truly seriously for the last 15 or so years right? I think that's a mazing progress, I don't know why the US fan base gets so upset when they aren't considered 'top dog' or when people 'doubt' their abilities.

We also had a hellovalot tougher group in '06.

But you said that the US is regressing. Analyzing 3 games -- actually, ONE game -- isn't sufficient to declare that a country is regressing.

There are many indicators that show otherwise.

1
A. More USMNT players are playing in top Euro leagues now than they were 4 years ago and especially 8 years ago

B. USMNT players transfer for higher fees than they did 4 years ago.

C. USMNT players earn more today than they did 4 years ago.

The fact that the open market values US players more now than they did 4 years ago is just one proof that should, frankly, shut you up. The soccer industry does not agree w/ your assessment. And this is still after the US' disastrous performance vs. the Czech Republic.

2
The football industry instantly declared the US' group a Group of Death, which goes in line w/ the overall perception of the US as a nation that not only has improved, not regressed.

3.
Just as a point of comparison, Mexico tied Italy in '02 and promptly lost to the US. The US tied an Italy squad that was superior to their '02 side.

This result, I feel, runs in line w/ the results vs. Mexico over the last 5 years.

Mexico no doubt has improved over the last 6+ years. No??

Yet, you are claiming that the US has regressed. And yet... Mexico has been impotent vs. the US except if they're playing in Azteca. Not only that, the US couldn't get successful results vs. Mexico using anything but our A side. Just recently, we beat Mexico w/ a B+ side stacked w/ guys who were out of season.

That seems to fly in the face of your theory that the US is regressing.


Seriously. One game (Czech Republic) does not a trend make. If it did, Mexico-Angola would indicate that Mexico is shit.

See....you just made my point for me.

The only tournament we've done poorly in outside of Europe has been that 1993 Copa America. Every other tournament we've been in outside of Europe we have done well in.

1990 World Cup......in Europe.........3 and out

1991 Gold Cup........Not in Europe...Champion

1993 Copa America..Not in Europe...3 and out

1993 Gold Cup........Not in Europe...2nd place (lost to Mexico in Mexico City in the final)

1994 World Cup......Not in Europe...2nd round (lost to Brazil in 2nd round)

1995 Copa America..Not in Europe..4th place (lost to Brazil in the SF, Colombia in 3rd place match)

1996 Gold Cup........Not in Europe...3rd place (lost to Brazil in the SF, beat Guatemala in 3rd place match)

1998 Gold Cup........Not in Europe...2nd place (lost to Mexico in the final)

1998 World Cup......in Europe.........3 and out

1999 Confed Cup....Not in Europe...3rd place (lost to Mexico in Mexico City in the SF, beat S. Arabia in 3rd place match)

2000 Gold Cup........Not in Europe...5th place (tied Colombia through overtime, but lost on pks to them in the QF....our worst ever showing in the Gold Cup, but still placed ahead of Mexico)

2002 Gold Cup........Not in Europe...Champion

2002 World Cup......Not in Europe...QF (lost to Germany in QF)

2003 Confed Cup....in Europe.........3 and out (we did however earn our first ever point on Euro soil against Cameroon)

2003 Gold Cup........Not in Europe...3rd place (lost to Brazil in the SF, beat Costa Rica in 3rd place match)

2005 Gold Cup........Not in Europe...Champion

2006 World Cup......in Europe.........3 and out (we did however earn our first ever point on Euro soil in a WC against Italy)

You keep mentioning "Gold Cup - 3 Title wins out of 8," but we have only 4 losses in the entire Gold Cup history....2 times to Mexico (once in Mexico City, our only loss by more than 1 goal in a GC match)....and 2 times against Brazil. Colombia knocked us out in 2000, but only after PKs (the match is recorded as a tie). That's it. (USA's Gold Cup record = 29W-4L-6T)

Most of our other losses (that knocked us out of tournaments) in the latter stages of a tourney not in Europe have also been against Mexico or Brazil....mostly Brazil.

My point about not doing well on Euro soil stands. (We're not inconsistent, we just choke on Euro soil.)

Part of the doubt that people from other countries must have at the US is probably not so much from their talent pool but from the fact that the US is not a futbol nation. The US is the only country that will have more fans cheering for the other nation and not for the US (Mexico) at home and the coverage of the game is insignificant compare to everywhere else. With a population of 300 million and many immigrants the US will and does put together a talented enough team to compete but even then perception (media) limits the amount of respect they will get. Even then, I still think the US will probably come in last in their group specially if they don't make the tournament a priority. US fans should fill up a stadium first, show that they feel the passion for the sport rather than complain about the little respect they get. That will go further towards earning their much wanted respect than playing well against SA competition. At least from my point of view.

Who said anything about a "C" team? Not that deep???? I won't go into detail about our depth but rest assure this isnt WC 90 where we had to put together a mostly college team. They are capable of putting enough players on the squad to complete in this group. This is exactly the type of underestimating I was referring to in my last post. SA teams are looking past the US match based on what? Past results? Well if we play it that way, Boliva just might sneak one past Brazil later on in the torney, like they did in qualifying for WC 2002. Likewise I'm not claiming victory based on a win over Denmark.

THAT'S BEING INCONSISTENT. The FIFA tournaments will always be the same. Some on European soil. Some on American Soil. Some wherever else. You can't change that! If you can't show up at ALL these competitions and place well, REGARDLESS of the soil, then your team is INCONSISTENT. That's the difference between truly top tier teams and 2nd tier teams. The only reason it becomes a point of discussion, is because most US fans get a bit ahead of themselves and already compare themselves with the elite.

Regarding the Gold Cup, I point out the fact that you are Hosting a tournament every 2 years, I repeat HOSTING, so you already have an advantage, and only have 3 wins vs your biggest rival Mexico (who has 4 --2 on US Soil) -, shows that you are less consistent then they are. It's a tournament that a consistent team should win on home soil every time. or at least place 2nd every time.

Then you state the "only bad" result for the US was the Copa America result in '93 (not including Europe). That's then a 50-50 yield. You did poorly one time, and then your second time you did well = inconsistency.

For excuses: see Mexico.

They've given some very creative ones to explain away repeated losses over the years.

The US isn't in that place.

We had 17/18 guys in '06 that were starting 11 capable. We had 2 guys get injured, and it was their replacements plus one or 2 more (coaches' pets) that were below starting 11 quality.

I see what you're saying, but...

How do other nations "know" that we get scant coverage at home?

Also, I don't even remember the last time we've had a WCQ vs. Mexico in a city w/ a decent Mexican population. So no. The US does not play important games in front of hostile fans. You cannot count the Gold Cup b/c we're constantly being told that the Gold Cup is an insignificant tournament that nobody pays attention to.

If you're going to talk about friendlies, then yeah. But then we're NOT the only nation that has more fans cheering for the "visiting" side. France had a friendly match against Algeria in 2001 and it was a packed Stade du France w/ maybe 1000 fans for France.

Respectfully, you know little about soccer in the US. One of the biggest complaints is that our development system fails to take advantage of our immigrants.

The US puts together a competitive team b/c of our ability to develop players, NOT b/c of our size. And sadly, NOT b/c of our immigrants.

Bull-shit.

Australia packs a full-house in important matches. They got (some) respect by advancing out of their group and playing Italy well enough that the Italians had to dive their way to victory. (I don't wanna go down that road, but the point is that play on the field matters most.

Italy plays in front empty stadiums. They're respected. Many average UEFA nations play in front of packed houses and get little respect... b/c the play on the field isn't up to par.

I read your initial b/c post but now understand you meant "because". My apologies there. No SA team is looking past the US match or any match for that matter. Maybe the fans trash talk a bit. But this is a serious tourney with serious teams in a tough environment, no team is taking the US lightly, no matter who they send. Teams rarely win by some blowout score. That being said, past results is all we have as a gauge. Comparing a Conmebol WCQ win for Bolivia vs Brazil against a friendly win for the US over Denmark, isn't even apples to apples. But to answer your comment, YES, it is possible for Bolivia to beat Brazil in Copa America. Not likely, but it can happen.

NO IT"S NOT (inconsistent).

We are consistently good outside of Europe...

We are consistently bad in Europe...

You can't get more consistent than we have been.

Yeah, we did poor in our first CA competition....and then we got better for our second. I'd hardly call that inconsistent either. We'll see what we do this summer.

To your point about Mexico being more consistent in the Gold Cup.....We have placed higher than them just as many times as they have placed higher than us...the 3 times we won it (obviously) and in 2000. They placed higher than us the 4 times they won it (again, obviously). We have met head to head 3 times in the Gold Cup. We beat them in the 1991 GC SF in LA, lost to them in 93 in the Final in Mexico City (our only loss by more than 1 goal in the entire 39 games we have played in the Gold Cup), and lost to them in 98 in the final in LA. This year I expect to win it all again, probably defeating Mexico in the final, and seeing the record swing to the US' favor.

Take a look at that Gold Cup record again, only 4 losses in 39 games....2 against Brazil, 2 against Mexico ....I don't see as how it's possible to be more consistent than that. Winning those 4 games wouldn't make us more consistent....it would make us damn near perfect*!



*in the Gold Cup....I'm not suggesting implications for anything else.

You see, there's really not many games by the US were we can actually compare it with. Copa America foolishly was rejected by US's federation, and Mexico represented CONCACAF in the Confederations cup. Friendlies? I never judge any team by friendlies, whether good or bad, it is simply ridiculous. You seem to underestimate the World Cup, this is were you have to show your level, it is the greatest tournament a national team can participate in. It's not just one game, or three. It is the WORLD CUP. From 2002 through 2006 there was a decline, and I don't see how you can deny that. The US reached its maximum level in 2002, in my opinion, but was not CONSISTENT and COMPETENT enough to maintain such a level. And that is a fact, I don't know how you or anyone else can argue that. This all ties to the inexperience the US has internationally. If the US will one day maintain a consistent performance level, it will be because its players have had fair competition and exposure, which can be achieved through Copa America and Confederations, if you get to go.

They were certainly expecting more from the US...the U.S. proved them wrong, though.

No. Mexico regressed, but the regression amount can be considered negligible, as though we managed to do what we have been doing for the past 4 World Cups. Hence, Mexico HAS been consistent.

You seem to lack reading comprehension.

We showed poorly in one game. The 2nd game, we tied the World Cup Champion after 2 questionable red-cards, being forced to play a man down, which thoroughly affected our 3rd game. 4 players had to have liquids IV'ed into their veins after the Italy game, para que sepas.

One crappy game. One impressive game. Kinda like Mexico (Iran, Angola and Portugal were mediocre to piss-poor outputs). But as Mexico showed, it's a LOT easier to look good against inferior opposition (Italy >> Argentina).

B/c there's no tangible method to determine whether your assessment is valid or not. Show me the proof. If you can't, then your opinion is merely opinion, and stop passing it off as fact.

Our group in Korea was of lower quality than our group in Germany. THAT's undeniable. So right there, you're beginning to see the limitations of your assessment.

You need to look at other factors, other methods to make that assessment. That's why I've laid out an argument that shows how US soccer has improved: more players playing in better leagues earning more money and garnering larger transfer fees.

Kinda flies in the face of your "wull, it's regressed b/c, wull... I said so" argument.

It's a tricky line that the fed has to toe: the growth of MLS is critical to the growth of US Soccer. Having 2 tournaments in the same summer would prove disastrous to MLS, so they chose to decline the invite.

It's much more complicated than you think.

First of all, I choose to avoid using results in friendlies b/c any individual friendly can be shaped by extenuating circumstances. But most important, their use is not respected here on BS and other boards. Plus I don't have the science down enough to sit there and shoot down every argument.

But actually, there's a statistician on BS that has done an incredible statistical analysis of friendlies and their value in determining the quality of national sides. Last I heard, he was working on doing the same for clubs as well.

He has proven that, indeed, friendlies are extremely accurate in assessing the strength of national sides.

But... like I said, I refuse to use them for the reasons cited above.

Put a cap on it charlie, you're killing yourself.

And no, it's not ********ing strawman so STFU.

The FACT is the US hasn't been consistent no matter what kind of group they get. There's no excuse you can make up to make it seem as if the USMNT has experienced any improvement. And yes, the WC is where teams should show just how much they have grown.
Mexico has been consistent for the past 4 WC with different types of groups in different parts of the world.

Sure tell that to the numerous US fans that have wet dreams about the US-Mexico friendly in which the US was outplayed 85% of the time.

You see.

THAT's the proof as to the validity of friendlies in assessing the prowess of a team: over the last 7 years, the US has the overwhelming upper-hand over Mexico. Friendlies. Legit competition. Extremely important competition.

The fact that Mexico went aggressively for a win by putting out their A+ side, and the US used MLS, out of season players + a sprinkling of our Euro stars...

... just consistent w/ the findings that friendlies over the long-term are incredibly reliable in determining the strength of a team.

Again. One match means little. Lots o' matches mean a lot.

Eso dicho, I'm perfectly fine stating that the US is merely o.k. in international friendlies vs. elite of the elite teams.

OK good points but let me just say that using Mexico as a measuring stick (like many USMNT fans like to do) will not do US sawker any good.

Why?
Because the Mexican NT is not with the elites and has a lot of work to do if it ever wants to be.

Ok so you've learned how to beat Mexico consistently...what has that done for you internationally and in competitions where it really matters (unless you're gonna play Mexico in that competition)?

If Mexico had a winning record against a world-class team such as England, Brazil, or Germany would people consider the Mexican national team world-class?...******** no because we haven't done nearly as much as they have done in international competitions.

I know you're not trying to say that the US is world-class but you're trying to give examples as to why the US has improved; but using ONE team as a measuring stick is not the right way to do it because you will not always face that same team in every competition (and I think the WC proves that).

Agreed.

But outside a small Neanderthal minority -- which everybody has--, USMNT fans don't use it as the exclusive measuring stick. It may appear that way b/c any discussion involve the US and Mexico degenerates into something below even World Rivalries standards. There's seriously very little difference in the level of discussion in almost any forum. So there's the half-analysis, half-smack element.

It may appear that way b/c, well... Mexican nats have been slutted out to the US b/c it's so profitable to play here, which means that the US plays Mexico a LOT.

Which means that the same issues get brought up over and over and over again.

If we just faced each other in WCQs and the Gold Cup, it wouldn't come up as much. You just need to dig through the morass and you'd see that we don't do that.

Um.

Eduardo.

I laid out an entire argument based on the worth of USMNT players in the global soccer market. I laid out 5 points in 3 separate categories, and only one had anything to do w/ Mexico; and it as much to do w/ Italy as it did w/ Mexico. I mainly did it b/c the intended audience (mc20500) was familiar w/ the case.

If it were somebody else, say a German, I would've sought a different example.

Ok Charlie I accept your apology and the fact that you are wrong.

You seem to be a confused little fella. You had a horrible tournament, which only lasted 3 games for you guys, since, well, you guys didn't have what it takes to play more games. You seem to forget you also lost to Ghana, Adu's (Pele's reincarnation) birth nation. Very convenient of you to dismiss the game against Ghana.

Lets recap here:

Lost 3-0 to Czech Republic...embarrassing, really.

Tied Italy. I really don't know how anybody can be proud for tying an opponent, even more so how this particular game turned out. Italy completely dominated the US, and took a mistake by Italy (own goal) for it to end up 1-1. While it is true that playing with less men is a disadvantage, the ref's calls were actually good, and it not only affected one team, it affected both teams.

Then lost to Ghana. I would imagine that after tying Italy, would somehow raise the spirits to confront their last game...but then they fall in the same inconsistency.

Yes, only one game.

I'll give you this though. The US is fairly CONSISTENT. Consistent at being INCONSISTENT, that is. This can too be seen in the 2002 World Cup. After a good win against Portugal everybody would have thought the US would have dominated that group but ended up losing to an already disqualified Poland. Can't get anymore inconsistent than that, Salvie. The US certainly made history that World Cup. The very first nation in World Cups history to advance to the next phase with a negative goal differential. That's certainly something we are all proud of.

Why? Why?? WHY?! Why do you always have to mention Mexico, this is the US we are talking about. The US' success or failure is independent of what Mexico does. I know it's a difficult concept for you to understand, but it's a reality, get on it.

I do not agree. I'd venture to say both of those groups were fairly equal, maybe with a bit of advantage to the group in '06 only due to the fact that Italy eventually became champions, but I was not very impressed with Ghana, or with Czech Republic.

Perhaps, and perhaps not, but that will only limit the US in getting meaningful competition.

You can play around with stats all you want, but the fact is that friendlies are nothing more than a preparation for something more important. Many nations use these preparation matches to test new players, new strategies, or simply for the money, as Mexico does with all those friendlies in the US. And this is generally understood by the footballing nations....so, yes, friendlies are meaningless any way you slice it.

im getting that mexicans are still salty over that lost to USA still?

Why is this even worth arguing? There's no way to spin the USA's World Cup performance into something remotely positive. It only shows how the supposedly positive evolution of the USNT is hard to evaluate when the team is so damn inconsistent.

Hopefully Copa America will clear this up once and for all.

Uh huh.

And Mexico is sooooo ecstatic after having lost to Argentina, who got bumped the next game.

We tied Italy, the eventual champ.

Not a bad result.

Bull-shit.

What game were YOU watching??!!

After the 2nd red card, then yes, Italy had the man advantage but still couldn't convert. We played really well. Read what the international press said about that game as opposed to what they say on the Mexican't boards.

So you agree w/ the call that Ghanian player dove to create the pk right b4 halftime?

Funny how you compliment the ref in Italy but conveniently forget how Ghana was handed the game at a point when the US was mounting attack after attack and had all the momentum going in our favor.

Funny how you conveniently skip over the game vs. the host SK, which went to the semis. Yeah. Trust me. I know about the dubious the SK victories in the knock-out stage -- Spain was fucked even more than the US was vs. Ghana --, but still: the host is always formidable, and SK was no exception.

But let's recap the US' performance in that tournament:

Portugal: great
SK: very good
Poland: bad
Mexico: very good (nice result and all... but it was only Mexico.)
Germany: very good

Your selective memory is pathetic.

Fwiw: SK realized that Jeff Agoos sucked, and took it to him. Poland realized the same thing and scored 2 goals off him, iirc. Of the 6 first round goals given up, 4 were attributed to Jeff Agoos mistakes.

But Agoos was one of the top 5 central D's in the US at the time; unfortunately, he was Arena's pet so he couldn't see his deficiencies. SK did after watching Poland mince him apart, and Poland followed suit.

W/ Agoos gone, the US allowed one goal in over 250 minutes. (He came out after 20 minutes in the Poland game due to a suspicious "injury").

Why bring up Agoos?

B/c Agoos wouldn't be in the top 10 in the US anymore. B/c the US player pool is that much deeper now than it was 5 years ago.

"A bit of advantage"????

Are you stoned?

Italy '06 >>>>>>>>> Portugal '02, SK '02, US '02, Poland '02.

That's not a "bit" of an advantage, nena.

Ghana was the only CAF country to advance. Certainly better than freaking Angola. They also have one of the top midfields in the game: Essien and Appiah... how can you not be impressed by that? 'Course, their strikers are almost as bad as Mexican "strikers"...

And the CR was 2 years removed from 3rd at EC, losing in the semis to the eventual champ Greece. They played fairly well against Italy until they got a somewhat harsh red card and Italy was able to score their 2nd goal after controlling the run of play.

Nobody but a revisionist historian like yourself would call Portugal's group in '02 a "Group of Death", but most still concur that Italy's in '06 truly was a "Group of Death".

Not statistically speaking.

If you search around back to April/May last year, there was a stats guy going around tearing apart ppl who would say this. Quite convincing.

But like I said, I just don't use them for arguments sake. One result doesn't mean anything (too small of a sample), but several results are extremely useful as far as the science goes.

'Course, you don't care 'bout those things.

usa is not weak , i am sure they will make a good copa america
n i think van a ser la sorpresa de la copa for sure

Then why bring those stats up in every single post? You're obviously using them for the sake of your argument even though you say you don't... I'm sure there's a reason as to why you don't do it.

And no, friendlies don't mean anything, statistics be damned... there are so many different factors involved in a friendly (number of subs, quality of the teams involved, new tactics being applied) that there's no way to pinpoint useful variables that will determine the real level of a team.