View Full Version : Gold Cup guest teams
FIFARay007
26 Jul 2005, 11:23 AM
How do you guys feel the next Gold Cup should be set up? Do we need the guest teams or not?
efernandez9
26 Jul 2005, 11:42 AM
How do you guys feel the next Gold Cup should be set up? Do we need the guest teams or not? what will you do with the agreement that conmebol has with concacaf?
No teams from central america to COPA america?
MoRado
26 Jul 2005, 01:26 PM
I like it like this, 2 so-so-non-concacaf teams is fine for me.
Without guest teams, the tournament becomes a real snoozer for the top Concacaf sides. (USA is now something like 18-0-1 in the first round, for instance.) The top teams need some kind of competition. I say put one non-Conc team in each group.
ChcgoStingInMyBlood
28 Jul 2005, 02:13 PM
Confederation championship - no outsiders. I believe we can invite 16 CONCACAF teams and if seeded properly, we can get 4 groups of 4 that while containing some minnow/power team matchups, will still be competitive. But that will only happen if we take steps to make it a legitimate championship - no domestic play, no conflicts with WCQ, etc...
efernandez9
28 Jul 2005, 06:35 PM
Confederation championship - no outsiders. I believe we can invite 16 CONCACAF teams and if seeded properly, we can get 4 groups of 4 that while containing some minnow/power team matchups, will still be competitive. But that will only happen if we take steps to make it a legitimate championship - no domestic play, no conflicts with WCQ, etc...
like nicaragua, bahamas and granada! :o
I believe we can invite 16 CONCACAF teams and if seeded properly, we can get 4 groups of 4 that while containing some minnow/power team matchups, will still be competitive.
No, CSIMB. This will be the worst tournament to watch. If you look at the rankings for the Concacaf teams, the difference between #11 and #12 in Concacaf (Haiti, El Salvador) is full 85 ranking points and 29 ranking places. (Panama moving up in the rankings thanks to their GC showing may make this a bit more exaggerated then in the June rankings.) But the point is that the teams really drop after #11 or #12.
Or are you expecting "another Panama" (underdog making a run) in each tournament? It's like us still waiting for the "next Camaroon" after 3 or 4 WC's. It's probably a one-time thing.
Adding more bad teams to a tournament just makes it a "more bad" tournament.
MoRado
30 Jul 2005, 11:18 AM
Adding more bad teams to a tournament just makes it a "more bad" tournament.
totally agree...
Valdo_8
01 Aug 2005, 02:52 AM
We need guest teams. I guess it is what you may call bad geographical zoning? Concacaf is in an area made up of islands, and Central American countries where the populations can't even begin to compare to the U.S population. This all accounts for the talent U.S can potentially produce over them, structure of a competitive league-which in turn produces competent players, finances, etc.etc.etc. all this comes into play in soccer. Inviting average national teams from Africa, or maybe S.America is cool. (New Zealand and others of that sort also)
Footer Phooter
01 Aug 2005, 09:36 AM
I'm for the guest teams, especially if they add attention and atmosphere to the tournament, like Colombia did.
B Rock
01 Aug 2005, 09:41 AM
I'm for the guest teams, especially if they add attention and atmosphere to the tournament, like Colombia did.
I'd be more positive if the South American sides would stop sending their U-23 teams to the tournament. As it is their participation is farsical and only intended to raise attendance and gate reciepts.
IASocFan
01 Aug 2005, 09:55 AM
I'd be more positive if the South American sides would stop sending their U-23 teams to the tournament. As it is their participation is farsical and only intended to raise attendance and gate reciepts.
I have no problems with the teams Colombia and South Africa sent this last time. Colombia lost two games by one goal, then beat Mexico in the quarters, before losing to Panama for the second time by one goal. South Africa went undefeated with two wins and three ties - losing in PKs. Good competition - much better than Barbados or Grenada could have provided.
The competition also satisfied the needs of the guest countries which could try out new players and combinations.
Hank Rearden
02 Aug 2005, 01:32 PM
I would rather see a CONCACAF-only tournament. It is the confederation's championship after all. However, I also understand that most of the CONCACAF teams do not draw attention or crowds outside of their home country. The USA (and to a lesser degree Canada) have immigrant populations that will pay attention to matches involving their nations of origin, but that is the exception and not the rule.
In order to assure attendance (and not to have a financial disaster), fairly big name nations need to be invited (such as Colombia). I think that Colombia certainly helped attendance, but I'm not so sure with South Africa. IMO, any guest teams should be there only to help the tournament be profitable. They should try to get good teams, but attendance is the key. South Korea or Peru would have been a better choice than South Africa.
Davids26
05 Aug 2005, 01:02 AM
I'd be more positive if the South American sides would stop sending their U-23 teams to the tournament. As it is their participation is farsical and only intended to raise attendance and gate reciepts.
Even so, in 2003, Brazil's U-23 came very close to winning the Gold Cup... What does that say about the confederation?