Could the USA qualify to the WC out of Comnebol?

[Heist]

Originally posted by Rafael Hernandez
If you are talking about the Copa Interamericana, both legs were played in the US when DC beat Vasco.
Don't be so literal.
I meant in international competition. The fact that both legs were played in the US just shows how little Vasco cared about it.
Not that DC wasn't a very good team then and not that they didn't play well...

Chile is better than they were before. Sure, the Chilean league is crap. But if they get a healthy Salas they could be a good team. Players like Pizarro, Acuña, Chamagol, Navia,Tello and Mirosevic are very good players. If they realize their league is crap and start sending players out of Chile and they have good coaching, they can be a great team. Im not saying they are as good as the US but that they should be better than last place and better than Venezuela and Bolivia. I think they are going to be on the up IF they fix the problems I've mentioned.
What before are you comparing to? in the mid 90s when they were actually good?
That's a couple of really big "if's" and fixes that need to happen. Saying they should be better than Bolivia and Venezuela isn't all that great. Its like saying the US should be better than Guatemala and El Salvador. The US is far better than Chile and will be for the forseeable future. When was the last time Chile got a good international result? They beat France in a friendly in Chile two years ago. They also tied in Honduras... again, two years ago. If you have to look back that far you are not a world class team.

[dolphinscoach]

Wow! I never realized how hard it was to play an away match in South America. Since it is impossible to win these, I assume that every Conmebol team finished qualifying with a .500 record--all wins at home and all losses away. :)

Seriously, we know it will be tough. And most of us remember WC'98 along with WC'02. Our optimism comes, in part, because we witness our pool of players expanding and improving--and we see our team playing a higher quality of soccer, even when we don't win, than five years ago.

Also, I'll reiterate a point about stadium atmosphere. Even if South American stadia are more hostile than Central American--and I'm not willing to concede that point--once you've reached a certain level of horrible, anything extra doesn't matter that much. Really, really, really, really bad is not noticeably worse than really, really, really bad. To go a step further, many of the US players, not having grown up learning about how hard it is to play in Uruguay, etc., will be less awed by the surroundings (as opposed to South American kids who grew up pretending, while playing with their friends, that they were scoring the winning goal for their nation against Argentina, Brazil, Chile, etc.).

[raza_rebel]

Originally posted by Rafael Hernandez
Chile is better than they were before. Sure, the Chilean league is crap. But if they get a healthy Salas they could be a good team. Players like Pizarro, Acuña, Chamagol, Navia,Tello and Mirosevic are very good players. If they realize their league is crap and start sending players out of Chile and they have good coaching, they can be a great team. Im not saying they are as good as the US but that they should be better than last place and better than Venezuela and Bolivia. I think they are going to be on the up IF they fix the problems I've mentioned.

What he said !!

I have to admit that our league is similar to the Scottish league. A few good teams (La U, Catolica, y Colo Colo) and then a drop down to the rest. Sometimes you get a team that surprises you, but these three are the usual suspects. Not to mention that the Federacion is in shambles and Salas is constantly hurt.

I would not be surprised to see Chile in Germany 2006. I also wouldn't be surprised to see us self destruct and play half our games because of disputes with the Federation.

Claudio Maldonado, Acuña (NewCastle), Aceval, Pardo (Feyernord), Galdames, Chamagol, Contreras (Celta Vigo), Reinaldo Navia, Vargas (Reggina I think), Claudio Pizarro, Rozental (Zurich Grasshoppers), Rodrigo Tello, Hector Tapia (Lille) and Milovon Mirosevic. These are a couple I could think of who play overseas.

We should do respectable and be competing for a spot for Germany 2006.

Now if we can only find a decent keeper...

I don't want to turn this into who is better, but I can say that we can't be overlooked. If you say we are not a world-class team, fine. That is your opinion. But we do produce world class players.


They beat France in a friendly in Chile two years ago. They also tied in Honduras... again, two years ago. If you have to look back that far you are not a world class team.

We also beat Brasil in qualifications.

Once we get our act together, we will be competing for a spot.

[Soccernova78]

Originally posted by Alex_1
I agree with what you stated about WC 98. So many US fans refuse to look at that and insist on looking solely at 2002 for proof. It doesn't work that way.

And I agree with the above comment too. I think many people just don't follow South America like they do Europe or domestic leagues in the US. Hence, there's quite a bit of ignorance when it comes to making a fair assessment of the pros and cons of why a team could or could not qualify from the South American region. I don't think it's far fetched to believe that if the US loses at home to Honduras citing "Many missing players like Reyna and Mathis", and woefully struggle in Central America to Costa Rica and Guatemala (and Barbados until the second half), how will they perform so much more dominantly when they go further away in what could be far more hostile environments? See how easy it is for the foreign based players to snap into gear with the sides after that flight - same with the domestics.

Well actually in the first round of qualifying we dominated Guatemala away in the first half, got a little too defensive in the second and lost the three points on a goal by a guy who should have been red carded a few minutes earlier. We had to settle for a tie there in the jungle in Guatemala. In Costa Rica we would have had a tie but for the phantom handball call on Berhalter in the waning minutes. Thats four points we in all liklihood should have had which would have made our passage to the next round much easier. I would hardly call that struggling woefully.

In the next round despite some injuries we started out with a 4-0-1 record winning in Honduras and tying in Jamaica. We then had, not a few, but an absolute epidemic of injuries to some of our best players. By the time we played Honduras at home and Costa Rica away we had lost McBride, Mathis, Wolff, Reyna, JOB, and Razov which sort of explains our poor performances in those games. Despite these setbacks we still qualified with a game to spare.

I'm not saying we would perform dominantly in SA but we would certainly hold our own. And again those who think playing in Central America is some sort of walk in the park compared to SA should watch a tape of the '96 US-Costa Rica game in Costa Rica.

[Thriller]

I don´t understand
Why are you involving USA in South America´s WC qualification?
Is USA trying to challenge South America reputation in football looking for to bash then in this also? Am I out of the discussion of this treath?
Anyway USA have nothing to do in South American competiton. Keep in your side, nobody wants USA in SAmericans competitons.

[BudWiser]

I think the US would have a hard time qualifying. Less than 50%. Reason? Climate, crowd, ... but also something that for whatever reason hasn't been brought up yet. Population.

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE

CONMEBOL
Argentina-38
Brazil-176
Uruguay-3.5
Paraguay-6
Ecuador-13.5
Peru-28
Venezuela-24
Bolivia-8.5
Chile-15.5
Columbia-41

CONCACAF
USA-280.5
El Salvador-6.5
Guatemala-13.5
Costa Rica-4
Honduras-6.5
Jamaica-2.5
T&T-1
Mexico-103


The great CONCACAF soccer powerhouses Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica. Striking fear in all the teams around the world. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by Bruce S
duh.

I feel the same way. But at least you can re-read my posts, Captain Obvious.

[Heist]

Originally posted by raza_rebel
Not to mention that the Federacion is in shambles and Salas is constantly hurt.

I would not be surprised to see Chile in Germany 2006. I also wouldn't be surprised to see us self destruct and play half our games because of disputes with the Federation.

Claudio Maldonado, Acuña (NewCastle), Aceval, Pardo (Feyernord), Galdames, Chamagol, Contreras (Celta Vigo), Reinaldo Navia, Vargas (Reggina I think), Claudio Pizarro, Rozental (Zurich Grasshoppers), Rodrigo Tello, Hector Tapia (Lille) and Milovon Mirosevic. These are a couple I could think of who play overseas.

We should do respectable and be competing for a spot for Germany 2006.

Now if we can only find a decent keeper...

I don't want to turn this into who is better, but I can say that we can't be overlooked. If you say we are not a world-class team, fine. That is your opinion. But we do produce world class players.

We also beat Brasil in qualifications.

Once we get our act together, we will be competing for a spot.

I agree that Chile has many world-class players and even that it has as many playing overseas as the US, but World Class players doesn't make a team good. Consider George Weah and Liberia.
Beating Brazil almost 3 years ago does not make the team any good currently. If it had continued similar wins, or even cosistently winning against teams in the top 30 in the world that is one thing, but Chile is not doing that so I don't put too much stock in a result that long ago. The fact that the federation is in shambles and Salas is always hurt doesn't help your case. I don't expect them to make the top 10 in the next CONMEBOL qualification. Considering recent form of the national team and of Chilean club teams I would be very surprised to see it.

[Hecho en Mexico]

Originally posted by Rafael Hernandez
Chile is better than they were before. Sure, the Chilean league is crap. But if they get a healthy Salas they could be a good team. Players like Pizarro, Acuña, Chamagol, Navia,Tello and Mirosevic are very good players. If they realize their league is crap and start sending players out of Chile and they have good coaching, they can be a great team.

Add to the list Pinilla(wanted by Inter Milan and others). http://www.soccerage.com/es/13/l8931.html Alejandro Osorio (Estudiantes de La Plata), Jorge Vargas (Reggina), Claudio Maldonado (Sao Paulo),Marcelo Salas (Juventus),Nelson Tapia (Vélez Sarsfield) and Pedro Reyes.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by Soccernova

Well actually in the first round of qualifying we dominated Guatemala away in the first half, got a little too defensive in the second and lost the three points on a goal by a guy who should have been red carded a few minutes earlier. We had to settle for a tie there in the jungle in Guatemala. In Costa Rica we would have had a tie but for the phantom handball call on Berhalter in the waning minutes. Thats four points we in all liklihood should have had which would have made our passage to the next round much easier. I would hardly call that struggling woefully.

That takes me back. I did see both matches. I also saw the return legs - and the US far from dominated IMO. They held their own. But they didn't dominate. In fact, I'd say they were very lucky in the Guatemala match in the USA. But the result is all that matters.

You cannot undo the match. A shame things didn't go the way they would have wanted it do in Central America. The Costa Rica match was unfortunate for them. But that happens in football. Ask Spain or Italy after the world cup. Also - those were in a four nation group stage which, **shouldn't** be more difficult than the final qualifying round. Now... some fans think it is exactly the same in South America...

Originally posted by Soccernova

In the next round despite some injuries we started out with a 4-0-1 record winning in Honduras and tying in Jamaica. We then had, not a few, but an absolute epidemic of injuries to some of our best players. By the time we played Honduras at home and Costa Rica away we had lost McBride, Mathis, Wolff, Reyna, JOB, and Razov which sort of explains our poor performances in those games. Despite these setbacks we still qualified with a game to spare.

Give us a bit of credit. :p I follow and am a fan of the US - just because I don't post here doesn't mean I don't know a lot about them. I know that the US is alwaysdealing with a "major" injury or injuries. Could it be training? Fitness? Bad luck? It doesn't matter. It's an excuse that's outworn it's worth. You start crawling down the depth and what's this? Lack there-of perhaps?

When the situation is reversed, US fans always get pissed at the other team for saying: "We didn't have our best players" :rolleyes: Isn't it funny how losses are tarnished and wins are justified? If you put that same situation into South America, where the qualifying is considered by some to be the most grueling in the world, I don't see the injury factor being any easier for the US. In fact, it might be greater. I always hear of complaining about the pitch in Barbados and the Carribean...

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by Heist
I agree that Chile has many world-class players and even that it has as many playing overseas as the US, but World Class players doesn't make a team good. Consider George Weah and Liberia.
Beating Brazil almost 3 years ago does not make the team any good currently.

I said that about the US when they beat Argentina! :D

Joking aside, I agree. But I don't think Chile is loaded with World Class players. Argentina and Brazil are. Some other teams have some - but not loaded with them IMO.

Anyway, I wanted to point out a comparison. Say the US did have to qualify out of CONMEBOl. Now ask - Would Bruce Arena have the luxury of telling his star Europe based players "hey, you can stay with your clubs" when he's going to Asuncion? How far in advance would he be able to gather his team together? And if they are together, do the players fly over from abroad to the US, and then fly all the way down to the Southern regions of South America? This is not an "out there" question. Brazil struggled with this. I think the US team, of all other countries, would want to play in Mexico before a South American country just for teh sake of a logistical advantage.

Another thing to think about. People somehow got into a pissing match about what region is "worse", South AMerica or Central. That is irrelevant. Home field is home field. But I don't think the US always has the best home field, which is unfortunate. What I am suggesting is if I am Colombia, I would rather play in the US than to go to Buenos Aires. I would be more optimistic of optaining the needed point away.

Could the US qualify? In the context of North and South America being one group with perhaps 7.5 spots, then yes, I think they could. But to be one of the current 4? Anything is possible but I am not so optimistic. It is no offense to the US team. I think they are good in CONCACAF and would be competitive in CONMEBOL. Also remember - the US would have to rely on results from other teams to swing in their favor. Hmm... say Argentina wins in Buenos Aries and in the US. The US is out six points. Yes, it is Argentina but the mentallity of the US would have to be different - it is for the points. Not a friendly. If people thought it was tough in the recent match, "reserve players" vs. "reserve players".... I am not a fan of Argentina and know that they are a team to be reckoned with.

[diablodelsol]

Originally posted by Alex_1

Anyway, I wanted to point out a comparison. Say the US did have to qualify out of CONMEBOl. Now ask - Would Bruce Arena have the luxury of telling his star Europe based players "hey, you can stay with your clubs" when he's going to Asuncion?

When has Arena ever had this luxury?

[speedcake]

Again, partisan match atmosphere, weather, and field quality or lack thereof, do not make up for crap teams. Pure and simple.

Many Posters just KEEP pointing to the cities we would play in rather than the teams we would play against as reason to be afraid! WTF?! And country population?! heh heh, what the heck was the point of THAT post? There are many small population countries that produce superior, or at least competitive sides, in comparison to most S. American nations.

We can argue all day about the comparisons of away venues in Concacaf vs. away venues in S. America. but its pointless. Neither side is going to give.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by speedcake
Again, partisan match atmosphere, weather, and field quality or lack thereof, do not make up for crap teams. Pure and simple.

Many Posters just KEEP pointing to the cities we would play in rather than the teams we would play against as reason to be afraid! WTF?! And country population?! heh heh, what the heck was the point of THAT post? There are many small population countries that produce superior, or at least competitive sides, in comparison to most S. American nations.

We can argue all day about the comparisons of away venues in Concacaf vs. away venues in S. America. but its pointless. Neither side is going to give.

Are you suggesting that the venue would have very little in the outcome? Are you suggesting that Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Ecuador are crap teams?

I for one have certainly pointed out more than one reason why it would be far from a cakewalk for the US.

[Martin Fischer]

Originally posted by BudWiser
I think the US would have a hard time qualifying. Less than 50%. Reason? Climate, crowd, ... but also something that for whatever reason hasn't been brought up yet. Population.

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE

CONMEBOL
Argentina-38
Brazil-176
Uruguay-3.5
Paraguay-6
Ecuador-13.5
Peru-28
Venezuela-24
Bolivia-8.5
Chile-15.5
Columbia-41

CONCACAF
USA-280.5
El Salvador-6.5
Guatemala-13.5
Costa Rica-4
Honduras-6.5
Jamaica-2.5
T&T-1
Mexico-103


The great CONCACAF soccer powerhouses Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica. Striking fear in all the teams around the world. YEAH RIGHT!!!!!!!

Is this guy a troll and everybody but me knows it?

Anyway, taking him seriously, there are several minor flaws in this argument.

First, Costa Rica with it 4 million in population, drew with third place side Turkey, lost to the champ and beat China. Compare that performance with the population powerhouse Ecuador, and it should be pretty clear that population just does not matter.

Second, the average population of the CONCACAF countries is 52 million, while that for COMEBOL is 35 million. Take out the two largest countries, the US and Brazil, and both lists average about 20 million. Population is simply not a discriminator.

Third, subjectively, COMEBOL sides are clearly better on average than CONCACAF sides, which is why they get more places in the World Cup. Thus, while the competition may be harder, qualifying maynot be because of the additional availability of spots.

Overall, I would prefer to be in CONCACAF, but COMEBOL is certainly not impossible.

[Bruce S]

that joke of a CONCACAF team, Costa Rica, knocked Sweden and Scotland out of the 1990 World Cup.

[Heist]

How about lets just put the teams in tiers based on recent performances:

Tier - 1
Argentina
Brazil

Tier - 2
Uruguay (maybe 3)
Paraguay (maybe 3)
USA
Costa Rica (maybe 3)
Mexico

Tier - 3
Ecuador
Colombia (maybe 2)
Honduras

Tier - 4
Bolivia
Chile
T&T
Jamaica

Tier - 5
Peru
Venezuela
El Salvador
Guatemala
Canada

[sch2383]

Originally posted by Thriller
I don´t understand
Why are you involving USA in South America´s WC qualification?
Is USA trying to challenge South America reputation in football looking for to bash then in this also? Am I out of the discussion of this treath?
Anyway USA have nothing to do in South American competiton. Keep in your side, nobody wants USA in SAmericans competitons.

Because as we all know, everything discussed here has grand implications. We could start a thread about Landon and Mia having a kid, IT DOESN'T MATTER! This place deals mostly within the relam of the "what if..." and nothing more.

[BudWiser]

Originally posted by Martin Fischer
Is this guy a troll and everybody but me knows it?

Anyway, taking him seriously, there are several minor flaws in this argument.

Naaa...not a troll....figure most people assume that yes, of course population makes a difference

First, Costa Rica with it 4 million in population, drew with third place side Turkey, lost to the champ and beat China.

Nobody's doubting that there can be exceptional players born over a certain time span that leads to unusually good teams in a certain time period. Costa Rica had an exceptional team.

Knocking SWEDEN and SCOTLAND out way back in 1990...yeah way back then...but then again SWEDEN and SCOTLAND????

Second, the average population of the CONCACAF countries is 52 million, while that for COMEBOL is 35 million.
Huh??? Canada and the US-ok but I mean come on. You saw my population figures of the main teams-clearly CONMEBOL has much greater population. Are you including Cuba, Aruba, etc???

Third, subjectively, COMEBOL sides are clearly better on average than CONCACAF sides, which is why they get more places in the World Cup. Thus, while the competition may be harder, qualifying maynot be because of the additional availability of spots.

True. I just don't see the "cream puffs" in CONMEBOL like I do in CONCACAF.

Point is population of course makes a difference. It's only one factor but it is a factor. Brazil could easily field 3 different teams that would qualify, and they are by far the most populous CONMEBOL country.

[Various Styles]

Interesting that the Chilean National team is beign used as a measuring stick of sorts. btw their newest prodigy the 19 yr old Mauricio Pinilla has just signed a three year deal with Internazionale http://eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/noticia.html?id_nota=131721&tabla=notas I would like to add that a major diffrence between CONMEBOL and CONCACAF Qualifying is when playing Home games. This is also one of the reasons why i dont think the U.S would qualify out of CONMEBOL (at least not at this point) because they havent shown to be a dominant home team and they also lack a home field advantage which can be very important. Similiar to the C-bus victory over Mexico, except most CONMEBOL sides can play in cold temperatures. If the U.S can get manhandeled by Honduras i dont think they would have a much easier time against the likes of Brazil and Argentina and whichever team is hot at the moment, and if they play not to lose those games then this will force them into must win situations which can further complicate things. And do yah really think a visiting Colombia or Uruguay will come to the U.S playing attacking futbol allowing the U.S to unleash their counterattacking prowess ? They will bunkerdown with ten men in the box and Recoba up top. And i have never seen the U.S play all out attacjking football or even make a comeback against a strong opponent.. So if the US is really that much better than Chile can we expect to see them beat the Brazilians by 3-0 ?