Could the USA qualify to the WC out of Comnebol?

[Bruce S]

question for COMNEBOL fans- if the USA sucks so bad, how have they been rated so high by Fifa for the last several years.Think we bribed their computers?LOL. If you rate Mexico, you should know that they USA has a winning record against them from 10990 on- and that includes MOST games with a pro- Mexican crowd-Mexico or( ugh) Los Angeles.

[Thriller]

Originally posted by Bruce S
question for COMNEBOL fans- if the USA sucks so bad, how have they been rated so high by Fifa for the last several years.Think we bribed their computers?LOL. If you rate Mexico, you should know that they USA has a winning record against them from 10990 on- and that includes MOST games with a pro- Mexican crowd-Mexico or( ugh) Los Angeles.

Oh let´s talk about FIFA
...there´s something pretty weird in FIFA many times and many people knows that. FIFA has a dark side, football maffia inside.
FIFA has underrated many things in such an unfair way, only for money,for prestige maybe? and FIFA obviously wants to have good relationship with super-powerful-USA.

[Soccernova78]

Originally posted by Heist
Soccernva78,
I have to cite one game though...
"Where I disagree with you is when you say that the US 'struggled woefully' in these games in Central America."
The US did totally struggle in the game against Costa Rica when Costa Rica clinched its trip to the finals. That's as bad as i've seen them look in years. The US didn't 'struggle woefully' overall, but did get completely outplayed in that game.

Oh I agree completely. They really stunk out the joint in that game. In fact that was the worst away game they played in qualifying. But in the rest of their away games (even in Azteca) and certainly in Central America they were at least competitive. And remember as I said before they had an absolute plethora of injuries that they had deal with in that game and Arena had to come up with a patchwork line-up.

[Thriller]

Originally posted by Fkesoccer
FACT:

Qualifiers have NOTHING,ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with fact. Friendly games do not have any basis in stats, less crowds, worse team, relaxed atmosphere.

In fact? the problem is:

USA IS NEVER GOING TO CONMEBOL

so why bother to make all those stupid charts,stats,tables,predictions, when...

its not gonna happen.

Period.

Fkesoccer

Again, What is the thing in this matter? Why USA involved in CONMEBOL?
USA soccer is still far away to be as the SAmerican football.

[Rafael Hernandez]

Originally posted by Heist
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

Yes it matter because you said competition outside the US. If they had played in Brazil the return leg, no way DC would have won. They were already down 1-0.

[Bruce S]

Originally posted by Thriller
Oh let´s talk about FIFA
...there´s something pretty weird in FIFA many times and many people knows that. FIFA has a dark side, football maffia inside.
FIFA has underrated many things in such an unfair way, only for money,for prestige maybe? and FIFA obviously wants to have good relationship with super-powerful-USA.
thanks but in world soccer, we are third world financially.Wish we weren't. We have about as much clout as Denmark. But I am glad you said that, so we know that your ideas are based on conspiracy theories! Sorry Thriller, but the world rankings are based on computer analyses.In fact if you read the USA pages here, we wonder why Mexico is rated higher than us when we have beaten them 5 times in a row, including 2 "official" competitions. Maybe you are right, it is a conspiracy... but the mastermind is...... Various Styles!!!!

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by Soccernva78

You're also putting the U.S. in a no-win situation with your arguments.

Injuries, qualifying, etc... I didn't make it out to be a no-win situation. I'm just attacking the hypothetical question of could the US qualify out of South America. Who knows? I could be totally wrong and the US would finish first. I could be totally wrong and the US finishes dead last.
Or I could be spot on and the US finishes somewhere between 4-8.

Something else to consider is the US goal scoring abilities. I believe Colombia and Uruguay had the same amount of points for 2002 if memory serves. What separated them was goals forced/allowed and I beleive their head to head record. If it came down to goals, I think the US will be on the losing end.


Originally posted by Bruce S



question for COMNEBOL fans- if the USA sucks so bad, how have they been rated so high by Fifa for the last several years.Think we bribed their computers?LOL. If you rate Mexico, you should know that they USA has a winning record against them from 10990 on- and that includes MOST games with a pro- Mexican crowd-Mexico or( ugh) Los Angeles.

Are you a troll? I dont' remember you being this poor of a poster. But maybe I was wrong and confused you with someone else. That is probably one of the worst quotes here. No coincidence considering you are the person that says: "Duh" :D

I never said the US sucks. I don't think anyone has said the US sucks in the debate. But I do think you are just pissed off because when the hypothetical question was raised, not everyone jumped on the "we'll rock!" bandwagon like you did and provided actual factors to consider - which you haven't. :rolleyes:

As for the FIFA comment - how you rate FIFA's rankings is totally your judgement. I for one don't follow it for anything more than seeing all the teams in FIFA. Some things are relatively accurate, but for the most part the system is seriously flawed. Anyway, I know how good Holland is, Cameroon is, Brazil is, France is and the US is - I don't need a ridiculous equation to spit out an "irrelevant" number.

[Heist]

Originally posted by Thriller
Oh let´s talk about FIFA
...there´s something pretty weird in FIFA many times and many people knows that. FIFA has a dark side, football maffia inside.
FIFA has underrated many things in such an unfair way, only for money,for prestige maybe? and FIFA obviously wants to have good relationship with super-powerful-USA.

Of course FIFA has a lot going on and people with agendas and whatnot, but the ratings we are talking about are done by a simple (well, maybe not so simple but basically understandable) mathmatical formula. You can take issue with the forumla, but it is completely mathematical.

[Heist]

Originally posted by Rafael Hernandez
Yes it matter because you said competition outside the US. If they had played in Brazil the return leg, no way DC would have won. They were already down 1-0.
Rafael, I don't know if I agree that DC was sure to lose. Vasco didn't seem to care much about the cup. And you forget that my point to bring it up is that it was the only MLS team to win an international competition and that it was a "fluke". I wasn't trying to say it made the MLS a good league, although I think it is a good league.

[Rafael Hernandez]

Originally posted by Heist
Rafael, I don't know if I agree that DC was sure to lose. Vasco didn't seem to care much about the cup. And you forget that my point to bring it up is that it was the only MLS team to win an international competition and that it was a "fluke". I wasn't trying to say it made the MLS a good league, although I think it is a good league.


MLS teams never win outside of the US and DC would have had to travel to Vasco with 1-0 down in agregate. No way they would have won. The whole point of my argument is that people here think that its too easy to go to SA and beat those teams because of what they did in Honduras and Guatemala. And I think that is seriously underrating of the situation in home.


Also some guy said about the US tyng Bolivia 0-0 in Bolivia. That game was played in Santa Cruz which is way lower than La Paz.

[Soccernova78]

Originally posted by Alex_1

Something else to consider is the US goal scoring abilities. I believe Colombia and Uruguay had the same amount of points for 2002 if memory serves. What separated them was goals forced/allowed and I beleive their head to head record. If it came down to goals, I think the US will be on the losing end.

Now here's one issue I agree with you to a point.
While the U.S. would be ok on goals allowed (they gave up very few goals during qualifying because of their solid defense and goalkeeping and gave up more than 1 goal only twice in 16 games) they weren't exactly an offensive juggenaut especially if you leave out the 4-0 and 7-0 spankings of Barbados in the first round. They would be ok on overall goal differential because of their stingy defense but if it came down to goals scored they might be in a little trouble. Maybe this will change in the future as younger offensive players (Buddle, Quaranta, Johnson, Casey) hopefully mature and add a little flair and depth to their attack. But in the last cycle of qualifying the U.S. definitely lacked a prolific strike force. The key however is to make sure it doesn't come down to goals scored! lol
And if it didn't the U.S. would IMO have a chance to qualify.

Like you said before I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for a spirited, good natured debate anyway.

[Bruce S]

Originally posted by Alex_1
Injuries, qualifying, etc... I didn't make it out to be a no-win situation. I'm just attacking the hypothetical question of could the US qualify out of South America. Who knows? I could be totally wrong and the US would finish first. I could be totally wrong and the US finishes dead last.
Or I could be spot on and the US finishes somewhere between 4-8.

Something else to consider is the US goal scoring abilities. I believe Colombia and Uruguay had the same amount of points for 2002 if memory serves. What separated them was goals forced/allowed and I beleive their head to head record. If it came down to goals, I think the US will be on the losing end.




Are you a troll? I dont' remember you being this poor of a poster. But maybe I was wrong and confused you with someone else. That is probably one of the worst quotes here. No coincidence considering you are the person that says: "Duh" :D

I never said the US sucks. I don't think anyone has said the US sucks in the debate. But I do think you are just pissed off because when the hypothetical question was raised, not everyone jumped on the "we'll rock!" bandwagon like you did and provided actual factors to consider - which you haven't. :rolleyes:

As for the FIFA comment - how you rate FIFA's rankings is totally your judgement. I for one don't follow it for anything more than seeing all the teams in FIFA. Some things are relatively accurate, but for the most part the system is seriously flawed. Anyway, I know how good Holland is, Cameroon is, Brazil is, France is and the US is - I don't need a ridiculous equation to spit out an "irrelevant" number.
well, thanks for the compliment about my earlier postings!
Ok, you never said the USA sucks- but I never said we will rock. I believe the general , overall thrust of my postings here is: it would not be easy, but I believe we would do it.That is not insane jingoism. I believe it is a realsitic, non-jingoistic view.I also am struck by the general lack of respect and lack of knowledge that my S.American friends have about CONCACAF.
Seriously, we can all have different opinions about how this would turn out but to suggest that we( USA) have no idea what it is like to play before a crazy, frenzied, out of control crowd- well, welcome to the jungles of Central America, where batteries are considered presents and bags of urine are considered a form of performance art!

[vico]

Originally posted by Bruce S
By the way, Jamaica just played Peru yesterday. It was 2-0 Jamaica.

wtf are you talking about???? we played jamaica???? where? when? how?

[Bruce S]

Originally posted by vico
wtf are you talking about???? we played jamaica???? where? when? how?
sorry, as someone corrected me way above, it was Costa Rica against, I think, Chile. I must have had too much too drink, watching my FoxSoprtsWorld.

[vico]

Originally posted by Bruce S
sorry, as someone corrected me way above, it was Costa Rica against, I think, Chile. I must have had too much too drink, watching my FoxSoprtsWorld.

i guess you are talking about costa rica vs paraguay 2-1?

peru has only played one concacaf team this year and we won 5-1 and we played with a local team but it was against haiti so there was really no big deal...

[speedcake]

Originally posted by vico
i guess you are talking about costa rica vs paraguay 2-1?

peru has only played one concacaf team this year and we won 5-1 and we played with a local team but it was against haiti so there was really no big deal...

yeah, 5-1 over Haiti is certainly a reason to celebrate. About as much so as our 7-0 nothing drubbing of Barbados. I wouldn't consider results in friendlies against the likes of either of these teams in any argument I made for or against the possibility that the U.S. could qualify out of S. America!

[condor11]

Originally posted by speedcake
yeah, 5-1 over Haiti is certainly a reason to celebrate. About as much so as our 7-0 nothing drubbing of Barbados. I wouldn't consider results in friendlies against the likes of either of these teams in any argument I made for or against the possibility that the U.S. could qualify out of S. America!

thats why vico said it was not a big deal

[Poachin_Goalz]

We would be in the middle of the pack duking it out for third place.

[speedcake]

Originally posted by condor11
thats why vico said it was not a big deal

I fully support his position. :)

[Bruce S]

what I have learned from this thread: COMNEBOL fans have no respect for CONCACAF. Nor do they know anything about it!