How far will the US advance in WC2006?

[BigSoccer]

How far will the US advance in WC2006?

[Anteaters FC]

Ahem...no options for final or winners?

[Huss]

I'm not jynxing it if they get to the semis.

[Sinter]

highly doubt they make it past round of 16 in europe. But hey you never know.

[SABuffalo786]

Second round if we're lucky.

[Shaneo]

winners.

[SantosLaguna]

haha...^^^^^^^^typycal americans :)

[Shaneo]

winners.

[st ryma 7]

i know its wishful thinking, but i say semis, they are good enough to, after all, they are 6th in the world, sha

[Liviu]

I can't stand polls that are rigged. Why no option for finals and winners?

I refuse to vote.

p.s Anticipating a possible reply, whether I would vote finals or winners is irrelevant. Why vote in a poll that's rigged?

[Ed-D]

The FIFA rankings are really not taken seriously by anybody other than (perhaps) FIFA themselves (although frankly I'd be surprised even there). We all know the U.S. has made great strides, but SIXTH in the world? Ahead of France, England, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Italy? Come on.

I think the last world cup was an anomaly and "order" will be restored. The U.S. is still good enough to make the second round, possibly even the quarters but I just don't see the semifinals as a possibility...yet. Then again, I've been proven wrong before...

[damone1]

Most likely, we'll put up a good fight, but won't make it out of the group stages. I don't think we can be favored to beat 2 european teams in europe, or even get 4 points from them, even though we're likely to be much improved over 2002. expectations are a little high here.

[PSsoccer123]

We all know the U.S. has made great strides, but SIXTH in the world? Ahead of France, England, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Italy? Come on.

This can't be repeated enough. Who on our team could start for England? Nobody. Yet we are ranked higher. It's absurd. Plus, we never do well in Europe, so we'll be lucky to get to the second round.

[Andy Bennett]

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.

[Ed-D]

This can't be repeated enough. Who on our team could start for England? Nobody. Yet we are ranked higher. It's absurd. Plus, we never do well in Europe, so we'll be lucky to get to the second round.

I do think we'll do better than in '98. The second round SHOULD be within grasp, provided what kind of draw we eventually get. Remember the African and Asian teams don't do well in Europe either. But we've had several guys play in the Bundesliga these last couple of years, which might be an advantage.

[Andy Bennett]

The FIFA rankings are really not taken seriously by anybody other than (perhaps) FIFA themselves (although frankly I'd be surprised even there). We all know the U.S. has made great strides, but SIXTH in the world? Ahead of France, England, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Italy? Come on.

I thought everyone knew that the FIFA rankings are a statistical analysis of the previous 8 years, (or whatever it is), results. They don't sit around and decide what the rankings are so they are taken as seriously, or not, as you take the results which include friendlies which some countries, (i.e. England), don't take that seriously

There are two REAL problems, however.

1. Why is there no weighting in the FIFA rankings of the results of the relative strengths of the various area conferences?
2. If the FIFA rankings are so accurate why don't they use THEM as the basis for WC groups?

I think the last world cup was an anomaly and "order" will be restored. The U.S. is still good enough to make the second round, possibly even the quarters but I just don't see the semifinals as a possibility...yet.
If the last WC was an anomaly what was the EC then?

The truth is that there has been an enermous compression, for want of a better word, of the qualities of soccer between the best and the worst. This is largely because most soccer players tend to ply their trade in a relatively small number of countries, usually in Europe, where they share the same coaching, food, lifestyle and soccer development as all of their main competitors in WC's. In the 2002 WC the EPL supplied something like 170, (IIRC), of the 750 odd players and that's just one league.

However, the other thing that's altered is that many of the coaches in countries like the US have come from Europe and South America. Guys like Steve Nichol and Paul Mariner know how to win soccer games... even though you wouldn't believe it when you watched them play sometimes ;) as I did.

[Mosco]

I will say this Mexico will make it farther than the usa now i'm not trying to be biased in any way it's just that usa has never bothered to play any real international experience other than Mexico, look how much Mexicos experience have taken them pretty far use the confederations cup as an example!

[kpaulson]

1. Why is there no weighting in the FIFA rankings of the results of the relative strengths of the various area conferences?

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.

2. If the FIFA rankings are so accurate why don't they use THEM as the basis for WC groups?
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.

However, if you did want teams outside Europe to start taking their regional championships more seriously, having WC seeding depend on it might be a step forward.

[huskyinnyc]

I will say this Mexico will make it farther than the usa now i'm not trying to be biased in any way it's just that usa has never bothered to play any real international experience other than Mexico, look how much Mexicos experience have taken them pretty far use the confederations cup as an example!

you use the confed cup as an example, and i'll use the last world cup.

[Ed-D]

If the last WC was an anomaly what was the EC then?

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...

The truth is that there has been an enermous compression, for want of a better word, of the qualities of soccer between the best and the worst. This is largely because most soccer players tend to ply their trade in a relatively small number of countries, usually in Europe, where they share the same coaching, food, lifestyle and soccer development as all of their main competitors in WC's. In the 2002 WC the EPL supplied something like 170, (IIRC), of the 750 odd players and that's just one league.


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.