Did the loss to Costa Rica make the difference?

[CrewStadium227]

If the U.S. had won the match v Costa Rica on 10/8, they would have finished first in the group. Instead, they lost 0-3. They finished tied on points, but behind Mexico on goal differential.

Did this make a difference in whether or not they recieved a top seed for the Final in June?

Are we paying a price for the line-up that we fielded for that game?

[fidlerre]

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/fifa/06loc/e/98.jpg

[yellowbismark]

If the U.S. had won the match v Costa Rica on 10/8, they would have finished first in the group. Instead, they lost 0-3. They finished tied on points, but behind Mexico on goal differential.

Did this make a difference in whether or not they recieved a top seed for the Final in June?

Are we paying a price for the line-up that we fielded for that game?

that game didn't make the difference, Mexico was going to get the seed anyway (better WC performances and higher rankings over the last 3 tournaments). And technically the US finished ahead of Mexico on head-to-head (3-2 goals), since FIFA is now using that to break ties in the standings.

[Ombak]

If the U.S. had won the match v Costa Rica on 10/8, they would have finished first in the group. Instead, they lost 0-3. They finished tied on points, but behind Mexico on goal differential.

Did this make a difference in whether or not they recieved a top seed for the Final in June?

Are we paying a price for the line-up that we fielded for that game?The US won the CONCACAF qualifying group.

[vmax71]

My guess is no. FIFA has probably spent the last couple of weeks tinkering with different formulas until they got today's result. FIFA knows that giving mexico a seed is much more palatable to europe and south america than the US. USA missing out by 1 point means nothing ... If they made it by one point using this formula, FIFA would have used another formula.

[fidlerre]

My guess is no. FIFA has probably spent the last couple of weeks tinkering with different formulas until they got today's result. FIFA knows that giving mexico a seed is much more palatable to europe and south america than the US. USA missing out by 1 point means nothing ... If they made it by one point using this formula, FIFA would have used another formula.
Flannigan?

[NateP]

If the U.S. had won the match v Costa Rica on 10/8, they would have finished first in the group. Instead, they lost 0-3. They finished tied on points, but behind Mexico on goal differential.

Did this make a difference in whether or not they recieved a top seed for the Final in June?

Are we paying a price for the line-up that we fielded for that game?

The short answer is no.

If you look at the start of el diablito's final seeding thread (or perhaps a previous version) in the WC'06 forum you can see the discussion. We needed to make up more ground than a single win, even over a good CR side in a WCQ, could give us at that point in the FIFA rankings. That was all based on the old formula instead of the one actually used, but the changes were made to the past WC performance side of the seeding equation not the FIFA Rankings side so it shouldn't make a difference.

IIRC our best chance to make up the points needed in the Rankings would've been to win the Gold Cup in 2003 and then put in a good run in last Confed Cup. Without those we couldn't pass enough Euro sides who still had Euro 2004 and WCQ on tap to boost their rankings.

[vmax71]

Flannigan?

you're comparing me with the only guy on my ignore list? ... what did I say which was so outrageous? ...I actually don't disagree with FIFA's actions regarding the seedings ... I think the current seedings are pretty fair.

[fidlerre]

you're comparing me with the only guy on my ignore list? ... what did I say which was so outrageous? ...I actually don't disagree with FIFA's actions regarding the seedings ... I think the current seedings are pretty fair.
:D

It was your conspiricy theory that FIFA would have changed the criteria to not have the US seeded.

[aj2lagop]

No, but Steve Sampson's poor coaching, and Claudio Reyna's poor play (especially against Iran) did...

[TigersFIMA]

Don't know if this has already been posted, but all the numbers that went into the determination are at http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eu.download.yahoo.com/fifa/fu/finaldrawpot1.pdf. Then, if anyone wants, they can geek out on playing with our Nov 05 number to see how different it would have had to have been to make any difference. For my part, Mexico being seeded and us not was entirely expected and, if anything, I'm a little surprised at how close we came to being seeded.

[vmax71]

:D

It was your conspiricy theory that FIFA would have changed the criteria to not have the US seeded.

gotcha, but even you must admit that the above is not out of the realm of possibilty unlike some of the statements made by the dude on my ignore list.

:p

[Ombak]

gotcha, but even you must admit that the above is not out of the realm of possibilty unlike some of the statements made by the dude on my ignore list.

:pIt's not worth contemplating that. It's a nonsensical conspiracy theory and FIFA seeding Mexico is a good indicator that it's nonsense.

So the above, while not out of the realm of possibility is out of the realm of the worth talking about.

It's the typical kind of Flanigan thinking that makes people dislike him. Well, aside from his particular obsessions.

[ty webb]

Quit whining... This thread is terrible... FIFA has nothing against the US. If anything, they would like to see us continue to succeed because of the growth potential from this HUGE market.

We got spanked by Germany, Serbia, and Iran and only had one BMB goal against Iran in France 98. That is why we don't have a top seed.

Also, while we were struggling against Cuba (tied 1 -1, 75 minutes in against a team that would struggle against a college side), Canada (an OG), Panama (with penalty kicks), Hondorus (with two goals in the last ten minutes) - Mexico was making the semis in the Confederation's cup after beating Brazil which was days before Brazil hammered Argentina 4 -1 in the final. Also, they played Germany very close on German soil.

We don't deserve a top seed. It would be nice.

Now I am hoping for a group with Spain, Switzerland, and Togo.

[Craig P]

If the U.S. had won the match v Costa Rica on 10/8, they would have finished first in the group. Instead, they lost 0-3. They finished tied on points, but behind Mexico on goal differential.Not true. FIFA has decreed that head-to-head is now more important than overall results, so we won the group on the tiebreaker of head-to-head goal differential.

Did this make a difference in whether or not they recieved a top seed for the Final in June?

Are we paying a price for the line-up that we fielded for that game?No and no. We are paying a price for failure to do better in 2003, when we lost some high-value games that could have boosted our FIFA ranking in both that year and 2004.

[judodono]

Also, while we were struggling against Cuba (tied 1 -1, 75 minutes in against a team that would struggle against a college side), Canada (an OG), Panama (with penalty kicks), Hondorus (with two goals in the last ten minutes) - Mexico was making the semis in the Confederation's cup after beating Brazil which was days before Brazil hammered Argentina 4 -1 in the final. Also, they played Germany very close on German soil.

We don't deserve a top seed. It would be nice.


yup yup... Mexico has a much better record against world powers than the United States does. I'm a huge fan of the US Nats, but I think giving the US a seed, at this point, would look a bit ridiculous.

Let Mexico withstand the pressure of being a seeded team. I remember the days when the United States was a country everyone would want in their group. At this next draw, we COULD be the 4th element to a group of death! Man... that's a huge compliment! (:

[ZeekLTK]

I'm sure this has already been discussed in other threads but the three main reasons we didn't get a seed and Mexico did:

World Cup '98 (we went 0-3, Mexico advanced out of the group stage)
Copa America '04 (we didn't participate, Mexico did and won their group)
Gold Cup '03 -> Confed Cup '05 (Mexico won that Gold Cup and qualified for Confed Cup where they reached the semifinals... we, obviously, did not get to participate in the Confed Cup).

Also in World Cup '02 even though we beat Mexico, they had a (slightly) better record than us. We went 2-2-1 (W-L-D), they went 2-1-1 (which is just as many wins and draws, but less losses).

[Craig P]

Performing poorly in Confed Cup '03 is a bigger deal IMO than not being in Confed Cup '05 -- we already had a lot of good results in 2005 between qualifiers and the Gold Cup, but 2003 was much thinner -- we had the Gold Cup and Confed Cup for high-value matches and only got one point out of the Confed Cup.

WC'98 is not all that significant in my mind; the biggest issue the masses have with Sampson is that we went 0 - 3 and looked terrible doing it, but realistically, we were a long shot to advance out of that group and the best we could have gotten out of not advancing is an extra point (with whatever weight they assigned to it, I think 1/3 with 2/3 being WC'02).

[Liviu]

The truth is usually always in the middle. I'm not with all the conspiracy theorists who say that FIFA pretty much fixes everything. I'm also not with the people who say that FIFA never does wrong.

I don't think the game against Costa Rica made any difference. Why would FIFA wait until 3 days before the draw to announce the seeded teems? I believe it's because they decide which teams get seeded and then tell the mathematicians "get it done and make it look as close as possible to the same formula as the last cup". That there's a formula is pretty laughable. If they want to send the message that they are objective about the seeding, the latest the formula for the seeding should be announced is before the start of WC qualification games 2 years prior to the WC.

[mschofield]

I'm sure this has already been discussed in other threads but the three main reasons we didn't get a seed and Mexico did:

World Cup '98 (we went 0-3, Mexico advanced out of the group stage)
Copa America '04 (we didn't participate, Mexico did and won their group)
Gold Cup '03 -> Confed Cup '05 (Mexico won that Gold Cup and qualified for Confed Cup where they reached the semifinals... we, obviously, did not get to participate in the Confed Cup).

Also in World Cup '02 even though we beat Mexico, they had a (slightly) better record than us. We went 2-2-1 (W-L-D), they went 2-1-1 (which is just as many wins and draws, but less losses).
no comments to add, but the reasons we aren't a #1 seed aren't that tough to figure out. A single QF appearance doesn't mean everything.