Why does everyone doubt the USA?

No if it wasent for the defence AND the goalie, our defence was very solid and read the Mexicans well.

Paraguay had alot of good chances also, Santa Cruz came close to scoring a few times, he had a goal in sight which Magallon barely blocked it from going in, not too mention the penalty calls that where ignored and Salvador Cabanas had an open chance which he blew it... and then ofcourse there was the goal that we scored playing a man down after that ridiculous red card.

Mexico played a bit better because they are strong at home and have a better midfield then Paraguay.

True...all true...now tell me dcfan..what else have they done besides beat Mexico..win the gold cup (which Mexico have an abundance of ) and finish first in qualifying (Which Mexico's done about 20 times before...wasnt that the first time for the U.s ?) hmm? Fact of the matter is..Mexico is still the better concacaf team in international tourneys.PERIOD.

I've been trying to make the same point to DSP over and over. He doesn't see that as inconsistency nor does he see the fact that in order to be considered a solid top tier team you have to win everywhere.

The US has a solid team. We all know that. But most of these friendlies eare played in US or Mexican territory. Tough to say just how good the US is until Copa.

PS..

The US SHOULD HAVE WON! It was their home field. Go to Quito. I don't think you'd see Donnovan running all up and down the field.

I absolutley agree here. The U.s has a strong team no doubt, but thier weakness is in their visiting games. I highly doubt we would have seen the same game had they played in Ecuador. Once they start to win convincingly in away matches, many of the doubters opinions will change. I kno mine will.

When have I ever said the US was a top tier team? (What's your definition of top tier? I think the US deserves to be ranked higher than 30, but how much higher I don't know....maybe around 20?)

I agree with you "that in order to be considered a solid top tier team you have to win everywhere."

Not winning everywhere doesn't make us inconsistent though.

Again.....we are consistently good (decent if you don't like the word good) anywhere outside of Europe.....consistently crap when playing in Europe.

What's so hard to understand about that?

We can only be considered "inconsistent" if you don't take into account where the games are played. I think the location of the games is important to the discussion.

I'll readily admit that we're not a great visiting team. But, even when visiting, we do better outside of Europe than in it. We have some big wins down in South America. We have some big wins in Asia. We've never really played in Africa enough to make a determination....2 games, both losses to Morocco. As far as I can tell, we've never played any games anywhere in OCEANA (OFC). I've already listed our poor record in Europe, and I'm sure I don't need to list our CONCACAF record.

My point stands.

Agreed. But I won't blame him much anymore. I have figured that type of thinking is common amongst US fans, who are generally new to the game and are prone to make such ridiculous claims.

Will it be the same Paraguay that will play Copa America?

USA also has an inferiour record in South America,

5 wins 8 losses 2 draws

The only team they actually beat at home was Chile.




And USA has a terrible record in Asia

1 win 5 losses 2 draws

Should be similar, hopefully with a better midfield and a better striker then Cabanas :cough:Tacuara:cough:

We need Pipino and Dos Santos to strenghten the midfield

Really?

I didn't get the memo.

So how do you explain independent assessors (the labor market) showing that US soccer players earn more money on the job market relative to 4 years ago -- when you say we were superior --, net higher transfer fees and their numbers in top leagues on the planet have increased?

I'm sorry. You take one bad game against a great opponent, that's what's known as an outlayer. The Ghana game... thoroughly altered by arguably the worst call in the entire tournament.

Made it to the QF of the WC when not hosting.

Name the one Concacaf team to make it to QF when not hosting.

Argentina, was practically at home when we beat them 3-0 in Paysandu, Uruguay....

We've had some pretty big wins down in S. America.....If you go back a long time I can list our wins in the 1930 WC. I can list our win against England in Brazil in 1950. If you limit it to more recently, I can show our good showing (4th place) at the 1995 Copa America. We've only played 3 games down there since 1995....a loss, a tie, and a win. We play just fine down there.

Right off the top of my head I can list 2 wins in 2002 alone in Asia. (Portugal, Mexico)

The best way to determine which team is better between two teams is look at head to head matchups. The next best way is to compare performances against shared competition (i.e. a qualifying group).

To use Mexico's performance at the last World Cup and compare it to USA'S failure is using flawed logic especially if you conveniently ignore the two sides record against each other and in recent qualifying rounds. It is like comparing apples to oranges because both sides played different competition during the tournament. Using the WC to judge that Mexico is better than USA in some way, is as ludicrous as saying South Korea is better than Brazil because South Korea finished first in Asian qualifying and Brazil only got second in South American qualifying (not sure the facts of who finished where in qualifying).

This being said, I believe many USA fans find it strange that many people would pick Mexico to get out of their group but those same people are picking USA to finish last in their group.

I don't really get how people are using USA performances from the 90's to decide how well or poorly we will do this time around. We have a different squad now than we did then and so do the South American teams. In fact there is little recent competition between USA and these South American teams we can use to judge how these teams will perform against each other.

I have noticed that many of the people posting on this site about how USA are going to fail are either Colombian or Paraguayan. Of course these guys are picking USA to fall apart because if that doesn't happen then their beloved National team will most likely miss out on the 2nd round. I have seen such a fog fall over the minds of American soccer announcers as well. In the recent Cup many of them picked USA to win their group and also thought USA had a legitimate chance to win the whole thing. Lets be honest, everyone wants their National team to do well and they also want to be right about their predictions. As result it is common for people to pick games with their heart and not their minds.

There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion. But it will always lead to debates that we are seeing here. There really is no formula to tell how these groups will pan out until they play each other, but it sure is fun trying.

I was talking about their record in South America vs South American opponents and their record in Asia vs Asian opponents

Huh? I'm the only (half) Paraguayan thats posting here and I didnt even say the US would fail, I just said that the US has a terrible record away from home, which is true.

Ted, to expand on Latinpride's point, it isnt that SA feel the US is going to fail, as it is about the fact that they need a solid A team to really have a go at the competition. If US places their best squad, which from what I hear is not happening, then it's a pretty darn fair split for all. You can't say you're bringing in a team that's never really played together, a "B" team and think you're going to win against the top teams from Arg, Par and Col. All 3 rival teams are using their big guns. Be a bit humble for a minute and realize the US should lose. Not because they wont try but because a guy like Donovan is that important for a US team. To say a "b" team from the US can beat an A team any day from Para, Col, Arg., is really being naive and not giving enough merit at the high level of competition these teams bring.

[To say a "b" team from the US can beat an A team any day from Para, Col, Arg., is really being naive and not giving enough merit at the high level of competition these teams bring.[/quote]

I didn't say that. You just did.

Until the official rosters are released, you dont who is bringing what team. You are assuming what the tournament will look like so it pans out in your favr

USA's B+ beat Mexico's A team recently. I think with such a team USA still has a good chance of making the knockout stage

Sorry Latin Pride if you felt I was assuming as to your ethnicity. I was commenting more on the fact that your posts portrayed you as a fan of Paraguayan soccer and your favorite team was Olimpia so it made sense to me that you were Paraguayan (I guess I was only half right...sorry).

The main point of my post was that there is very little recent history between USA and the sides in their group so sitting here and arguing with opposing fans is purely academic and based on bias from both sides.

But I guess I just got baited into what I was commenting on.

I wasn't.

I've been talking about where our games are located.....no matter who they are against.

I'm not trying to be a troll here, but wouldn't that mean that Mexico is a better team because it doesn't suffer from that mental block during big tournaments, no matter where it's held?

we will know better how the tournie is going to go tommorrow colombia plays paraguay tommorrow. Who ever wins will prob win in copa america and get threw. The US with a A team would be very good and intersting to put in the mix... and no, no one is goin to do anything because Chavez doesnt like the US... heard some people tlak about that in other forums and I think its retarded... its soccer not politics, besides don't think the US would even face Venezulea till like the final which is pretty impossible because Venezulea is awful haha, but anything is possible and .... Mexico is better than the US but when they play each other US is Mexicos dad and always always wins making them better. Its like brasil arg, arg can beat everyone 10-0, and Brasil can lose the game but when they meet up BRASIL ALWAYS WINS !!!

That depends....I think we are better because we always beat Mexico now (except in Mexico), but I'll concede that they are generally better against other teams than we are most of the time.

Another question re World Cups and who is better.....

Is it better to consistently do poorly in Europe but also consistently progress outside Europe? (arguable, but the pattern suggests it.....1994 2nd round, 2002 QF, ...2010 SF? <shrugs>)
Or, is it better to be consistently the same both in Europe and outside Europe and always go out in the second round (when not hosting)?

Well..if you want to measure the worth of a national team just by how far they made it in a tourney....then Mexico is still on top. 2 time Copa America Finalist...Confederations cup winners in 1999 against Brasil(we hosted that one) in the final....Semis in the Germany confederations cup...you see, we always go back to the start, the only thing the U.s can do is beat Mexico.

darn, I forgot the Mexies made it 2 to CA finals! Gotta keep the throphy with Conmebol!

Lol...I dunno.....
A mexican team finally won a SA club tourney...perhaps its our time this yr for Copa America.