The hidden benefit of making the semis...

[Nermalthecat]

It's very likely the U.S. will have played, over a two-week span, four of the eight seeded teams for next year's World Cup in the host country.

While we generally thrive when teams take us lightly, I still think that familiarity will help us next summer, assuming we get there, etc. We'll actually have played Spain, Italy, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil twice since (and including) the last World Cup, plus we also played England and Germany in the 12 months leading up to that Cup.

Thanks to a mixture of clutchness (thanks Gold Cup Benny and the semifinal ref) and scheduling (last season's goal-less death march), we will have recently played every likely seeded team except Holland.

I'm well-established as anti-Bob, but one thing he deserves ample credit for is ramping up the schedule the last couple of years. There should be no excuse for awe in the 2010 World Cup. We'll have seen everything we need to.

[Pass-n-Go]

Doesn't this also helps the US in the future concerning the WC seeding?

[Revolt]

We aren't going to be seeded - highly doubtful.

Though I am curious what a 0-3 spanking does to our ranking.

[eainterplay]

We aren't going to be seeded - highly doubtful.

Though I am curious what a 0-3 spanking does to our ranking.

The one we took or gave? ;)

[Pass-n-Go]

We aren't going to be seeded - highly doubtful.

Though I am curious what a 0-3 spanking does to our ranking.
I don't mean this WC. I meant the following WCs.

[CrewDust]

Two more meaningful matches is always good.

[Old Man!]

Two more meaningful matches is always good.

It's good from a preparation standpoint as well as an entertainment one, but for the FIFA rankings (which I realize means nothing) standpoint, then it's bad because losses are losses even when every other team doesn't even play a game.

[ugaaccountant]

It's good from a preparation standpoint as well as an entertainment one, but for the FIFA rankings (which I realize means nothing) standpoint, then it's bad because losses are losses even when every other team doesn't even play a game.

That doesn't sound right. Isn't there a fifa rankings benefit to playing real teams in real competition?

[flyerhawk]

I said some similar points earlier today. Blooding a lot of these kids in this tournament should help them prepare for next year. Obviously there is no replacement for the WC but I think it's great that they got not only the positive experience of advancing but the negative experience of getting their arse's handed to them and the resulting media criticism.

[Caulfield]

Nothing "hidden" about it. I get watch more soccer.

[Bluecat82]

How in the world did the Dutch manage to stay off our schedule??? ;)

[kokoplus10]

And people wanted the Copa as priority...sigh...

[oscar_in_fw]

We should always treat the Gold Cup seriously as long as the Gold Cup champion gets the Confederation Cup berth and as long as Confederations Cup is an important "rehearsal" tournament. Unfortunately, it would force the USA to treat "Copa" tournament less seriously because of player club committments. A possible solution would be to merge GOld and Copa tournaments with the last CONCACAF and CONMEBOL (or two best teams) participants left standing get the Confederations Cup berth. Not sure why CONMEBOL would go along with this though.

[joehill]

in all likelihood we're going to face South Africa in the third place game, and based on our game against them last year we've got a pretty good shot at going out on a high note. Probably doesn't help us at all in terms of getting a seed, but would give us a boost of confidence going into Azteca. Better than going in feeling sorry about our recent performances in CONCACAF.

[Craig P]

That doesn't sound right. Isn't there a fifa rankings benefit to playing real teams in real competition?
There's never been a rankings benefit to losing games, and the rankings don't take any account of who you lose to.

[Soccerprep]

We should always treat the Gold Cup seriously as long as the Gold Cup champion gets the Confederation Cup berth and as long as Confederations Cup is an important "rehearsal" tournament. Unfortunately, it would force the USA to treat "Copa" tournament less seriously because of player club committments. A possible solution would be to merge GOld and Copa tournaments with the last CONCACAF and CONMEBOL (or two best teams) participants left standing get the Confederations Cup berth. Not sure why CONMEBOL would go along with this though.

just a fair warning while many agree on this site, it has been discussed, so do not really try to keep putting this idea forward as thier are some who may "flame" you

[aceterp]

just a fair warning while many agree on this site, it has been discussed, so do not really try to keep putting this idea forward as thier are some who may "flame" you
what?! ppl get flamed on these boards?! that never happens....

[eric515]

It's very likely the U.S. will have played, over a two-week span, four of the eight seeded teams for next year's World Cup in the host country.


Who is the 4th seeded team? Egypt? Mexico? Honduras? South Africa?

[KennyWoo]

Who is the 4th seeded team? Egypt? Mexico? Honduras? South Africa?

Yes, South Africa.

[Elninho]

There's never been a rankings benefit to losing games, and the rankings don't take any account of who you lose to.

Since the FIFA ranking system still awards points for wins and draws and ignores losses (in the sense that points are never lost as the result of a match), the losses to Brazil and Italy don't actually hurt our rank at all. The only way losing can possibly lower our rank (relative to not playing at all) is if the points earned by our opponents cause them to overtake us, and since Brazil and Italy were ahead of us anyway, losing to them is no worse for us than not participating in the Confederations Cup in the first place.