Could the USA qualify to the WC out of Comnebol?

[Various Styles]

The U.S would have to change its playing style in order to Qualify out of CONMEBOL and it would take them a while to adopt to the new competition and like RDL said they would have to reschedule their league format. Many pointed to Chile and said how the USMNT was a better team but can they beat Brazil 3-0 at Home just like the Chileans did. Another point that RDL raised was the Home advantage which i dont see the U.S having. Especially when they suffer as much as they did against the likes of Jamaica (97) and Honduras (01) how could yah expect any better against Uruguay, Chile and Colombia..

The advantage that Mexico has is that they are allready used to playing against CONMEBOL teams. They play against them each year and compete in their top tournaments. Not only that but many South American players are in the MFL. That and el Tri has an excellent home advantage at Azteca stadium..

[Heist]

Originally posted by Various Styles
The U.S would have to change its playing style in order to Qualify out of CONMEBOL and it would take them a while to adopt to the new competition and like RDL said they would have to reschedule their league format. Many pointed to Chile and said how the USMNT was a better team but can they beat Brazil 3-0 at Home just like the Chileans did. Another point that RDL raised was the Home advantage which i dont see the U.S having. Especially when they suffer as much as they did against the likes of Jamaica (97) and Honduras (01) how could yah expect any better against Uruguay, Chile and Colombia..
Huh... I must have forgotten that the US lost to Jamaica at home.
Didn't the USA beat Honduras at home also? Again, maybe I forgot...
I'm not too afraid of any of those teams beating the US at home. We may drop a tie or two to some of the mid-level teams, but that doesn't mean we couldn't come in the top 5 of 11 from CONMEBOL if this hypothetical group took place.

Also, I don't think it takes 95% of home points and 40% of road points to get through... 80% and 30% would probably do the trick... Out of 9 home and 9 road games it seems that 20-22 at home and 6-8 on the road would do it.

The US would beat Chile more than they lose to them. 5 years ago I wouldn't say that, but today I believe it. I don't care if they beat Brazil at home a couple of years ago. There is no recent evidence that would make me think otherwise.

[Rafael Hernandez]

Originally posted by Heist
Its not as if the US can't win or tie in a hostile environment when it is the superior team...

I see them winning at two of these countries: Peru, Chile, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia. I also see them tying two of those games.


Beating Bolivia? They have lost 1 home game in the last 3 WC's qualifiers. And Bolivia has been crap for a long time. That is the home advantage that I think people don't realize. Ecuador is also incredibly tough to beat at home. I really doubt the US can pull it off.

Im not saying that the US can't do it but that they are really underestimating CONMEBOL.

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by Heist
Also, I don't think it takes 95% of home points and 40% of road points to get through... 80% and 30% would probably do the trick...

You have to be automatic (or close to) at home and take 40% of the away points. Thats just the way it is. This might not affect the US so much since the press is not so demanding, but in South America & Mexico winning at home is not an option. And when they do lose... the press are on you day and night. IT gets tot he point where you wish a proctologist is doing the probing because at least he is professional about it. It wont affect the majority of the players... since they usually go back to Europe the next day forget about it.

Out of 9 home and 9 road games it seems that 20-22 at home and 6-8 on the road would do it.

Thats thoeritical. But can the US get those on the road? I expect teams like Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and even Colombia to take points away from the US in the US. You can also expect pro crowds with many of these teams here in the US. If Uruguay came... i am not a US or Uruguayan fan, but I would pay money to see forlan & recoba.

For the US, 25-27 points at home no less. They can not afford to lose any at home. You have to be close to automatic at home OR know how to play on the road.

Road to WC2002. CONEMBOL standings

x-Argentina 18 13 4 1 42:15 43
x-Ecuador 18 9 4 5 23:20 31
x-Brasil 18 9 3 6 31:17 30
x-Paraguay 18 9 3 6 29:23 30
y-Uruguay 18 7 6 5 19:13 27
Colombia 18 7 6 5 20:15 27
Bolivia 18 4 6 8 21:33 18
Perú 18 4 4 10 14:25 16
Venezuela 18 5 1 12 18:44 16
Chile 18 3 3 12 15:27 12

Argentina. 8W 1D 0L @ home
Ecuador. 6W 2D 1L @ home
Brazil. 7W 2D 0L @ home
Paraguay 7W 1D 1L @ home
Uruguay 5W 3D 1L @ home

Also remember that some of these teams lost points at home after they had qualified. Colombia miss out on the playoff because of goal differential. Uruguay did horrible at home but was able to attain points on the road which is the reason they were able to get a play off game with Australia. Ecuador was a revelation. They were able to get 3 wins and 2 draws on the road. Ecuador started off bad but turned it around by able to win some games on the road.

The US would beat Chile more than they lose to them. 5 years ago I wouldn't say that, but today I believe it. I don't care if they beat Brazil at home a couple of years ago. There is no recent evidence that would make me think otherwise.

The problem with Chile is that they were in a transitional phase. I personally think they should have gone with some youth. Right now, Chile has some good players. Thier players in Europe are good players..and you can expect the ones who play in Mexico (Chamagol and Navia) t be out there pretty soon as well.

[SankaCofie]

well... yes the U.S. COULD qualify out of Conmebol. but it would take alot of work moving the country down to a location (say even with central brazil) where it would have to play in comebol, and if it was succesfully transplanted in the central atlantic, we could just as easily play in CAF.

[maverick]

Originally posted by rdl674
[B] ... in South America & Mexico losing at home is not an option. And when they do lose, the press is on you day and night. It gets to the point where you wish a proctologist is doing the probing because at least he is professional about it.

Finding statements like that is what makes Big Soccer great... :D

[Mr. Cam]

Originally posted by rdl674

I see your point, but I just think that if USA cant qualify in Conmebo, neither Mexico could.

:eek:

Mexico could and would qualify. They have been getting points down there and have been consistant in doing.

This isnt one of those "if you can beat him, we can beat them" type of tthings. This isnt a p1ssing contest JLG.

USA did great in LA Copa America, world Cup.

A qualifying process is a lot different than a group stage tournament where you take your chances with one powerhouse team and look for some luck. Its continuing process.. it’s a 2 year process.. rather than a month long tournament. I just don’t think the US could. I staed the reasons for it and.. in those 2 years....injuries will occur.

Went to South America and defeat Chile, etc....

basing this on a firendly?

I think that both Mexico and USA could qualify. I see the following teams qualifying assuming that there are 5 spots:

1- Argentina
2- Brazil
3- Paraguay
4- USA
5- Mexico lindo

Do you honestly believe that the US can get every point at home or at least 95% of them at home and get at 40% of road points? I don't. Do you think its always going to be feburary in Columbus? The US doesnt protect its home. Teams like Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico are almost impossible to beat at home. Paraguay and Uruguay are also no push overs when they play in thier backyard. Bolivia and Peru is no walk in the park and forget the altitude...

If there were 8 spots. Then this is my list:

1- Argentina
2- Brazil
3- Paraguay
4- USA
5- Mexico lindo
6- Colombia
7- Uruguay
8- Ecuador

The only way I see the US coming out... is if they have group stages and even then... it still would be an uphill battle.

rdl674, you seem to miss the critical point in this argument. In 1990, if someone, an American or Mexican, would have voiced a prediction to you, your father, your family members, or to the sporting press in Mexico that by the 2002 World Cup the United States would accomplish the following in international fútbol:

1. Build and maintain a First Division Professional fútbol league from scratch that would achieve parity or superiority to Mexico's by 2006 or sooner.

2. Build and maintain a comprehensive youth fútbol development system from scratch that would achieve parity or superiority to Mexico by 2002 or sooner.

3. Build and maintain superior international youth fútbol teams than Mexico at the under 17, 19, and Olympic levels by 2002 or sooner.

4. Achieve a head to head wining record against the MMNT.

5. Reach the Quarterfinals and play a highly competitive match against a World Class team by the 2002 World Cup.

6. Achieve a top ten FIFA ranking by 2003.

You would have jeered, laughed, and ridiculed them for such preposterous statements.

The fact that this thread actually has native born Mexicans and South Americans engaged in a serious debate with American fútbol fans on the possibility of the USMNT qualifying in the very tough fútbol barrio of COMNEBOL speaks volumes on the unparalleled development of fútbol in America.

Name another country in this hemisphere that could equal what the United States has accomplished in international fútbol in a non-traditional Olympic class sport for their country in an equal time frame?

Wait until the USMNT develops "Shock and Awe" fútbol, then the national teams of Mexico, Central America, and South America will know how Che felt when the American spooks tracked down his silly, slimy, sorry ass in Bolivia in 1967.

In 1990, Spanish speaking fútbol fans used to laugh at "gringo" or "yanqui" efforts in fútbol, by 2003 the laughs have turned to anxiety and concerned looks, by 2006 deep foreboding, by 2010 whimsical reflections upon what used to be.

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by Mr. Cam
rdl674, you seem to miss the critical point in this argument. In 1990, if someone, an American or Mexican, would have voiced a prediction to you, your father, your family members, or to the sporting press in Mexico that by the 2002 World Cup the United States would accomplish the following in international fútbol:

[b]1. Build and maintain a First Division Professional fútbol league from scratch that would achieve parity or superiority to Mexico's by 2006 or sooner.

The MLS is not even with the MFL.

2. Build and maintain a comprehensive youth fútbol development system from scratch that would achieve parity or superiority to Mexico by 2002 or sooner.

Futbol in America did not reach the states in 1990. It has been practiced at the youth levels for many decades now. How many players are naturalized again?

3. Build and maintain superior international youth fútbol teams than Mexico at the under 17, 19, and Olympic levels by 2002 or sooner.

Despite last round of youth competition, Mexico has participated in those events

4. Achieve a head to head wining record against the MMNT.

Mexico is not the only team in the world of soccer. Maybe that is why the USMNT is at a standstill because all they want to do is play Mexico and thier clubs.

5. Reach the Quarterfinals and play a highly competitive match against a World Class team by the 2002 World Cup.

Not to convincingly. with a little help from the Port/Kor game ref... the US advanced

6. Achieve a top ten FIFA ranking by 2003.

I know ranking mean the world to you... They are nice little numbers... but thats all it is

You would have jeered, laughed, and ridiculed them for such preposterous statements.

one thing you fail to realize... consistancy.. something the US has not done in the world of soccer. A blind squirrel can find a nut from time to time. Hell, iran did it to the US. Korea did it to Italy...But al least be honest with yourself... 70 minutes into the Portugal/Korea game... most US fans were already kissing their the WC goodbye.

Name another country in this hemisphere that could equal what the United States has accomplished in international fútbol in a non-traditional Olympic class sport for their country in an equal time frame?

Dont fool yourself. What a great NBC story... soccer arrives in the US in 1990 and 12 years later is a world class team.

Wait until the USMNT develops "Shock and Awe" fútbol, then the national teams of Mexico, Central America, and South America will know how Che felt when the American spooks tracked down his silly, slimy, sorry ass in Bolivia in 1967.

this is almost as good as the people who were saying Mathis was Maradona.

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that playing bunkerball is what is going to take the US to the next level? Luck runs out. Not too many times does the US comeback after being scored upon first.

In 1990, Spanish speaking fútbol fans used to laugh at "gringo" or "yanqui" efforts in fútbol, by 2003 the laughs have turned to anxiety and concerned looks, by 2006 deep foreboding, by 2010 whimsical reflections upon what used to be.

dreaming is nice

[Heist]

Originally posted by rdl674
Also, I don't think it takes 95% of home points and 40% of road points to get through... 80% and 30% would probably do the trick...

You have to be automatic (or close to) at home and take 40% of the away points. Thats just the way it is.
Out of 9 home and 9 road games it seems that 20-22 at home and 6-8 on the road would do it.

Thats thoeritical. But can the US get those on the road? I expect teams like Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and even Colombia to take points away from the US in the US. You can also expect pro crowds with many of these teams here in the US. If Uruguay came... i am not a US or Uruguayan fan, but I would pay money to see forlan & recoba.

For the US, 25-27 points at home no less. They can not afford to lose any at home. You have to be close to automatic at home OR know how to play on the road.

Road to WC2002. CONEMBOL standings

x-Argentina 18 13 4 1 42:15 43
x-Ecuador 18 9 4 5 23:20 31
x-Brasil 18 9 3 6 31:17 30
x-Paraguay 18 9 3 6 29:23 30
y-Uruguay 18 7 6 5 19:13 27
Colombia 18 7 6 5 20:15 27
Bolivia 18 4 6 8 21:33 18
Perú 18 4 4 10 14:25 16
Venezuela 18 5 1 12 18:44 16
Chile 18 3 3 12 15:27 12

You made my point yourself... Look at the results.
27 points was enough to get through. 26-30 should be enough theoretically and would have been enough it 2002.
If I remember correctly the '98 qualifying was similiar although fewer points were needed because of fewer games (Brazil qualified automatically), but it was in the same kind of range of about 1.5 points per match.
That's very different from 95% at home and 40% on the road. Your math implies needing 36.45 points out of 18 games. That kind of score would have placed a team second in CONMEBOL.
Although whoever said it would take the US some time to get used to the new kind of qualifying... and the length of the process is correct. The first time through the process we probably wouldn't make it because of all stupid mistakes, pressure, not understanding the mentality necessary, but by the second time through the US would have a better handle on how to deal with those intangibles. Also, don't forget that the US has steadily been getting better at soccer for about 15-20 years. I don't see that stopping as we continue to have better youth teams and a better domestic league AND more players playing in Europe.

[LMvCP]

Originally posted by Heist
You made my point yourself...

You are just looking at the surface. Those figures are decieiving. Its like Mexico placing 2nd and the US placing 3rd. The US was already qualified and didnt care about the points,

DO you honestly think the US qould qualify with 2-4 games left to play where they can just blow off the last 2-4 games and lose points?

Your figures wouldnt be so much for the US because they dont know how to play on the road. They would have to be obligated to win them all at home.

Look at the results.
27 points was enough to get through. 26-30 should be enough theoretically and would have been enough it 2002.

but could the US blow off the last 2-4 games? I guarantee you that if some teams didnt blow off the last couple matchups... those points would have been a lot higher...

That's very different from 95% at home and 40% on the road. Your math implies needing 36.45 points out of 18 games. That kind of score would have placed a team second in CONMEBOL.

that is just a rule of thumb. If you do lose points at home, you are obligated get 3 points on the road, period. Ecuador lost 3 games at home and was abligated to get those 3 back on the road. Look closely at the wins. the teams that qualified directly... have 9 wins. those 9 wins should be autmatic at home.

Although whoever said it would take the US some time to get used to the new kind of qualifying...and the length of the process is correct.

I am the one who said it. Playing everybody in roundrobin format is tougher. Alot more things can go wrong.

The first time through the process we probably wouldn't make it because of all stupid mistakes, pressure, not understanding the mentality necessary, but by the second time through the US would have a better handle on how to deal with those intangibles. Also, don't forget that the US has steadily been getting better at soccer for about 15-20 years. I don't see that stopping as we continue to have better youth teams and a better domestic league AND more players playing in Europe.

The MLS will have to change its format. play year long

[Heist]

Originally posted by rdl674
Your figures wouldnt be so much for the US because they dont know how to play on the road. They would have to be obligated to win them all at home.
Actually the US won 1 and drew 2 on the road out of 5 in the most recent CONCACAF qualifying. The loss to Honduras was balanced by the win AT Honduras.
They took 80% of the points at home and 33% of the points on the road. That got them through. 1.7 points per game 17 in 10 games.
in '98 qualifying the USA won in Canada (admitedly not too tough, but still an away win) and tied El Salvador, Jamaica and Mexico away. That's 6 points in 5 games.
17 total points again in 10 games... 1.7 points per game did it again.

In most large round-robin formats you need to win your games at home and take a few ties on the road. If you tie or lose at home you need to make up for it with a win on the road.

[Machetazo]

As long as their mls teams keep getting b!tchslapped by what they call "lowly Mexican Clubs" i dont think they would fare too good of a chance if they'd face South American National Teams.;)

[Bruce S]

Originally posted by Machetazo
As long as their mls teams keep getting b!tchslapped by what they call "lowly Mexican Clubs" i dont think they would fare too good of a chance if they'd face South American National Teams.;)
was it last year LA won it all? If they took it even a little seriously, it would be different. The Revs VOLUNTEERED to play both legs in Costa Rica. MLS teams treat this tournament as a training scrimmage. Wish they didn't.

[Bruce S]

Originally posted by rdl674
[B]


Do you really believe that playing bunkerball is what is going to take the US to the next level? Luck runs out. Not too many times does the US comeback after being scored upon first.


not may teams come back from down a goal in a big game, period. AS for bunkerball, you are living in the past.The US scored 7 goals in 5 WC Cup games. Not Brazil, but certainly not bunkerball either.

[Bruce S]

rdl, surely ,even as a Tri fan, you can't think the rise of the USA was luck.
I quote a Tri player-either Ramirez or another one-Garci Aspe I think from 2 years ago:" we knew the USA was getting better but we were suprised at how fast they got better".

[Various Styles]

Originally posted by Bruce S

was it last year LA won it all?

It was Pachuca :)

If they took it even a little seriously, it would be different.

Truth be Told MLS teams have not done good in Home and Away Tournys, MercoNorte anyone. The only time they won the TFC Cups was when they were played in one venue, in one week in the U.S and In the MFL off season, which is diffrent from MLS off season where teams have been practicing for Three months and playing Cups in Spain.

[pololo]

Originally posted by Bruce S
not may teams come back from down a goal in a big game, period. AS for bunkerball, you are living in the past.The US scored 7 goals in 5 WC Cup games. Not Brazil, but certainly not bunkerball either.

England scored 6 in 5 World Cup games and they played bunkerball,they just knew how to win against Denmark with 3-0.

[Heist]

why are we talking about bunkerball? The US doesn't play that way too often anymore. They might be forced to do it if playing in Argentina or Brazil... but I don't see how its relevant to the discussion.

[The Wanderer]

Why is this thread turning into an 'MLS teams can't win outside the U.S.' thread? Anyone who tries to turn it into such is just ignorant of the fact that not ALL of the U.S. players play in MLS.

Latinos from Latin America are used to inefficiency, hence their belief that the U.S.'s meteoric rise has NOT happened in the past 13 years. Speaking from a national team standpoint, it HAS happened in the last 13 years. Of course the game here goes back to many, many years ago.

Mexico's inferiority complex is just awakened due to the fact that the popularity of the game here is infinitely smaller than it is in Mexico, hence there's no way in hell that the game can be progressing.

The standard fare argument is that 'we have naturalized' players. When it reaches that point, just know that you've gotten them rattled.

And completely ignore arguments that try to put Argentina and Brazil on the same level as Uruguay and Peru.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by rdl674
I see your point, but I just think that if USA cant qualify in Conmebo, neither Mexico could.
:eek:
Mexico could and would qualify. They have been getting points down there and have been consistant in doing.

This isnt one of those "if you can beat him, we can beat them" type of tthings.


I agree. But if Mexico played the way that they did between the end of 2000-2001 (before they obtained a new manager), they may be in a hole that they couldn't get out of in CONMEBOL qualifying. Remember - in CONMEBOL qualifying for 2002, Paraguay peaked and had started to go on a downward spiral - as did Ecuador. The only selection that was getting stronger was... Brazil!

Otherwise I do pretty much agree with you and Riotom's perspective. I've seen this debate and said my piece before in the thread. I'd be very pessimistic about their qualifying - and it would be a huge surprise to me if they did it the first time around should they have had to qualify out of CONMEBOL. It goes so much beyond the statistics - and it isn't a knock on the US. A European team would also struggle!

Maybe here is another way to look at things when comparing the two confederations. Clearly, Mexico and the US are #1 and #2 in the region. Next you have Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, Trinidad, Canada, Guatemala. In South America, clearly Brazil and Argentina are the top two. But then you have Colombia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile, Ecuador - all solid sides. Some fans say the US is better than some of those. Okay. But are those sides better than CONCACAF teams? My money would be on the CONMEBOL sides - although I do acknowledge that Costa Rica may be a tough selection.

Now take into consideration what RDL said about consistency. That is very important - a good way to look at it. Would the US be able to consistently get the needed result on those **new** opponents when the level of competition is obviously higher? Fair enough - the US won in Honduras. Honduras won in the US. "The US was decimated with injuries". Okay. But they will probably be hit with injuries again. That is the most consistent thing about the US team. ;) What then? A powerful Colombia or another team comes in, and takes three from home. Or they go to South America and lose - or worse yet, lose badly where they end up being in a hole with the goal differential.

All of this is hypothetical, of course. Maybe they would pull it off! I'm not trying to spell gloom and doom for the US team. But I don't see them finishing over 5th. And even that might be generous.

Argentina
Brazil
Paraguay
Mexico
Colombia
United States
Uruguay
Costa Rica
Chile....

Tough call....