How far will the US advance in WC2006?

[Andy Bennett]

There is... but essentially results in lesser confeds like CONCACAF are only discounted 6 or 7%. But come to think of it, if you have a valid ranking, you shouldn't need to weight the confeds (i.e. because you're already receiving fewer points for lower ranked teams). You should get the same points, after all, for beating the 73rd ranked team whether that team is North American or European.

Perhaps a larger problem is how types of competition are weighted. I'm not sure that the Copa America should be weighted the same as the Euros anymore because no one takes it seriously. Ditto the Gold Cup.

Hmm. I didn't think there was but I'll take your word for it. Anyway, as you say, the 6-7% figure looks a bit mystifying. I mean, where did THAT figure come from?

Haven't you heard the rumors? There is, apparently, a chance they will do this. I don't know how stock to put into it, but obviously, it's a horrible idea that will meet with considerable resistance.

I'm kinda assuming you meant that sarcastically. If that's the case I, for one, would have no problem with it AS LONG as the figures are weighted realistically. Now, what would be a realistic weighting? AH... now THAT'S the question.

I suppose the only other thing you could do would be to have qualification groups go across regions. It means we would miss out some of the, shall we say, exotic teams, taking part but having had England miss out in '94 only to reach the semi-finals of Euro '96, (albeit in England), I wouldn't mind that. Most European countries can quote similar examples including France who weren't, apparently, good enough to GET to the WC in '94 but were good enough to do well in euro '96 and had improved so much that they won both WC '98 EC 2000.

That kind of thing frankly makes a bit of a nonsense of the WC.

[Andy Bennett]

different animal. you can't really compare the two and identify any type of trend, IMHO. In the Euro one team (Greece) upset everybody and in the World Cup there were a number of surprises (both negative and positive). From France and Portugal not getting out of the group stage, to South Korea making the semis, Turkey making the semis, Senegal making the quarters...

WHY can't we compare the two? exactly?

The fact that South Korea made it to the semis might be because this was the first time that the WC was local to them and they were familiar with the environment and people. If we'd played the WC there before they might have done better before.

I believe that the situation now is that, as coaching standards have improved and soccer is played at a professional level in more countries, we will see more and more 'surprises' to the extent that they're not surprises any more.

All we'll be talking about is a propensity for a team to win something.

maybe, but how do you explain teams like South Korea, Japan, and Paraguay, all of whom did well but very few of whose players played for European clubs. Or even Senegal. Those guys were only known in France.
Er, well, I thought I already had. Coaching standards rising due to coaches from large soccer nations going to others and 'spreading the word'.

The problem with teams from Africa, for example, wasn't that they couldn't play the game. It was that they were tactically inept. That's largely changed now.

[kpaulson]

Hmm. I didn't think there was but I'll take your word for it. Anyway, as you say, the 6-7% figure looks a bit mystifying. I mean, where did THAT figure come from?
But again, you shouldn't need to worry about discounting results except where teams are sending less than full strength teams. But I'm not sure how you'd do that uniformly (I mean, you could have a formula where you discount a win over Brazil based on how many of their players had played 50% of matches with the full team over the last 2 years, but it would get complicated quickly). This is not a confederation-specific problem.


I'm kinda assuming you meant that sarcastically. If that's the case I, for one, would have no problem with it AS LONG as the figures are weighted realistically. Now, what would be a realistic weighting? AH... now THAT'S the question.
I wasn't being sarcastic-- with the rankings as they stand right now, it would not be fair and it's tough to imagine FIFA fixing it soon.

I suppose the only other thing you could do would be to have qualification groups go across regions. It means we would miss out some of the, shall we say, exotic teams, taking part but having had England miss out in '94 only to reach the semi-finals of Euro '96, (albeit in England), I wouldn't mind that.
Well, I look at those situations as showing why UEFA qualifying needs improvement. Obviously, Saudi was a far worse team than the Netherlands in '02, but then, so was Slovenia, you know?

[Liviu]

I don't like the fact that most of the world dismisses our performance in '02 as an accident, but what really ticks me off is how WE, American citizens put ourselves down.

The U.S barely misses out on a semifinal appearance, being knocked out by the runners-up, while beating Portugal, tying a semi-finalist, beating Mexico (highly respected in '02), and we're "lucky", it's an "anomaly", the competition was week, etc...

Cameroon make a quorter final appearance in 1990 and they're dubbed the "indomitable lions".

Greece wins the Euro cup and they are honored all over the world as conquerors.

Why can't we just be proud of our performance in WC '02 and stop putting ourselves down? Then, maybe the world will respect us as a soccer nation too.

[dominate]

I think you may make it into the second round depending on who you get in your group. It's something of an advantage having your season at the same time as everyone else's is finished.

Truth is, though, that there's really no way of knowing because there are too few games involved. Most cup competitions are a bit of a lottery in that sense.

You know what, I never thought of it, but that's a good point. Having the World Cup right in the middle of the MLS season, with players match fit and not fatigued from long months of play before like pretty much the rest of the world, is kind of a nice advantage. People over here always complain that MLS is played at a different time than the rest of the world, and who's going to watch MLS during the World Cup? But it probably does benefit our MLS national teamers giving them match fitness without wear and tear. Especially since the US team relies on their fitness more than more skillful national squads. It's probably not a huge difference, as all teams are sophisticated enough to train properly for the World Cup, but every little bit helps.

[almango]

Remember the African and Asian teams don't do well in Europe either.

African teams do as well in Europe as they do every where else.

[Soccerwarrior71]

I think with the team the U.S. has right now, this team can make some noise. I think that either this time out or next, the U.S. National team is really going to scare(and surprise) some of the better soccer countries around the globe. The U.S. has such a deep pool of talent, and it rivals some of the better teams in Europe, and possibly South America. I am just going to say the U.S. is better known as 'The Phoenix'.

[AwayKit]

maybe, but how do you explain teams like South Korea, Japan, and Paraguay, all of whom did well but very few of whose players played for European clubs. Or even Senegal. Those guys were only known in France.

Simple. There is a difference between "Teams" and "Players".

[Andy Bennett]

But again, you shouldn't need to worry about discounting results except where teams are sending less than full strength teams. But I'm not sure how you'd do that uniformly (I mean, you could have a formula where you discount a win over Brazil based on how many of their players had played 50% of matches with the full team over the last 2 years, but it would get complicated quickly). This is not a confederation-specific problem.

Agreed. The problem is, of course, that once you implement a system of scoring that makes a difference people will use the system you've set up to their advantage. Playing or not playing people as needed.

Personally I've always believed that only competitive matches should be used for calculations.

I wasn't being sarcastic-- with the rankings as they stand right now, it would not be fair and it's tough to imagine FIFA fixing it soon.

Difficult to tell with you sometimes ;)

Well, I look at those situations as showing why UEFA qualifying needs improvement. Obviously, Saudi was a far worse team than the Netherlands in '02, but then, so was Slovenia, you know?
Actually Slovenia did quite well in euro 2000 and I think they beat out the Ukraine to get to the WC. I take your point though.

[royalstilton]

African teams do as well in Europe as they do every where else.
---
does this statement actually mean something?

are you referring to World Cup matches that African teams have played in in Europe, versus matches played in South America, Mexico, the US and Asia?

Senegal is the only African side that has made the QF in the last 1000 years.

[Andy Bennett]

Cameroon make a quorter final appearance in 1990 and they're dubbed the "indomitable lions".

I think you'll find they called themselves that BEFORE the 1990 WC as well. The same as the Nigerians are the 'flying eagles' or whatever it is.

Greece wins the Euro cup and they are honored all over the world as conquerors.

Er, I wouldn't quite say that.

No, the same sort of people who don't give teams like the US any credit for doing well in WC 2002 also don't give any credit to teams like Greece for winning euro 2004.

Why can't we just be proud of our performance in WC '02 and stop putting ourselves down? Then, maybe the world will respect us as a soccer nation too.
That's another matter isn't it.

Tell you what, have a look at the likely teams from, say, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, and then have a look at the likely team from the US for the next WC. Then compare how much they would cost bought on the open market. Not a perfect comparison, I'll give you that, but a reasonable one bearing in mind that they are bought and sold, usually, by people not from home countries. In England that would be Mourinho, Wenger, etc.

Off the top of my head this may be England's team.

GK: Robinson (Tottenham) £10m
Defenders: G Neville (Man Utd), £10m A Cole (Arsenal) £15m Ferdinand (Man Utd) £28m Terry (Chelsea) £25-30m
Midfielders: Beckham (Real Madrid) £20m Gerrard (Liverpool) £32m Lampard (Chelsea) £32m, Wright-Phillips (Chelsea) £21m
Strikers: Owen (Real Madrid) £10-15m, Rooney (Man Utd) £27m

Leaving aside my estimates of how much these guys may be worth on the open market the thing you notice abut them is that they are all starters for their sides with the exception of Owen, who is something of a special case at the moment, (which is about to be resolved I imagine), and arguably Wright-Phillips, both of whom are sort of 'between' clubs.

There's nothing special about England either. You could go through most of the larger european nations and the figures wouldn't look that much different.

[Andy Bennett]

A smaller forum where the members know each other...

Well, we all know YOU now, don't we. Dipshit.

[Andy Bennett]

Senegal is the only African side that has made the QF in the last 1000 years.
Not sure you're right Stilton, old mate. I believe there was an African country that that made it to the semis back in the 1300's but the pope declared their win invalid as it was against the interests of the holy roman empire.

He said that the team from the caucuses had had a player tripped whilst going into the box and gave a retrospective penalty which he declared as having been scored on a rebound after John Motson, (who had only just started his career at that point), first used the phrase 'My goodness'.

[kpaulson]

Agreed. The problem is, of course, that once you implement a system of scoring that makes a difference people will use the system you've set up to their advantage. Playing or not playing people as needed.
Yes, but if the end result is getting a certain number of first-teamers out in every tournament, would you really call that playing the system? In the end, such teams would still have to get results to get points.

I'm just talking off the top of my head, really, because given points based on the number of first teamers in the team would discourage bring along new players, but it's a thought at least.

Personally I've always believed that only competitive matches should be used for calculations.
Yeah, I agree. Friendlies really shouldn't enter into it at all.

Actually Slovenia did quite well in euro 2000 and I think they beat out the Ukraine to get to the WC. I take your point though.
Oh, true, I did remember Slovenia in 2000. I also remember France from 2000-- that argument cuts both ways!

[blind_clown]

How far will the US advance in WC2006?

I refuse to participate until the proper answer, win, is added.

[Ed-D]

WHY can't we compare the two? exactly?

The fact that South Korea made it to the semis might be because this was the first time that the WC was local to them and they were familiar with the environment and people. If we'd played the WC there before they might have done better before.

I believe that the situation now is that, as coaching standards have improved and soccer is played at a professional level in more countries, we will see more and more 'surprises' to the extent that they're not surprises any more.

All we'll be talking about is a propensity for a team to win something.

Er, well, I thought I already had. Coaching standards rising due to coaches from large soccer nations going to others and 'spreading the word'.

well I don't think that explains it, not least of all because the US, for one, had an American coach. I can't remember who the other teams had as coaches (and in Paraguay's case, I never knew in the first place) but I do know that China had a high profile coach (Bora Milutinwhateverhisnameis), as did other African sides and didn't do well. Also, who was Turkey's coach in '02? I don't think he was some big-name guy.

The problem with teams from Africa, for example, wasn't that they couldn't play the game. It was that they were tactically inept. That's largely changed now.

and yet, judging purely by results, they haven't really come that far now have they? No African team has ever made the semis. And the "gold standard" is still very much the '90 Cameroon side, who IMHO are still probably the best African world cup team.

[almango]

---
does this statement actually mean something?

are you referring to World Cup matches that African teams have played in in Europe, versus matches played in South America, Mexico, the US and Asia?

Senegal is the only African side that has made the QF in the last 1000 years.

Cameroon might argue with the last statement. My statement refered to performance in World Cups in recent times. Africa generally gets one team through to the second round everywhere in recent tournaments, and has had one team go through to the quarters twice, one of those in Europe. I don't think they perform poorly in Europe compared to elsewhere in World Cups which was the statement I was originally replying to.

[Andy Bennett]

well I don't think that explains it, not least of all because the US, for one, had an American coach. I can't remember who the other teams had as coaches (and in Paraguay's case, I never knew in the first place) but I do know that China had a high profile coach (Bora Milutinwhateverhisnameis), as did other African sides and didn't do well. Also, who was Turkey's coach in '02? I don't think he was some big-name guy.

I probably haven't explained myself properly, (although I think I did, but there we are). I'm not talking about the coaches of the national sides. I'm talking about coaching standards per se.

[Andy Bennett]

- that argument cuts both ways!
Arguing??? Moi? :D

[thezone]

[QUOTE=Ed-D]Also, who was Turkey's coach in '02? I don't think he was some big-name guy.

I believe his name was Senol Gomes. I'm pretty sure he was just some Turkish coach.

As for the FIFA rankings, I remember hearing that they determine what pot each team goes into for the world cup draw. I don't know if this is true.

The main problem with the FIFA rankings is that they are completely mathematical and lack a human element. Once the 32 team field for the world cup is set, FIFA should take a coaches poll of all the participating teams. This poll could then be incorporated into the world cup draw/seeding/etc.