Why does everyone doubt the USA?

[uclacarlos]

Then why bring those stats up in every single post?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!!

Link to a post where I bring up any statistics regarding friendlies????

You're obviously using them for the sake of your argument
Link to a post in which I use results in friendlies to make a point? You're digging.

Unless you are going to go back to the point made awhile back about the US dominance over Mexico over the last 7+ years.

In that case, the results in friendlies show no deviation from official matches. For the short yellow bus ppl: that means that Mexico can't explain away all 8 losses to the US as being statistically irrelevant.

And no, friendlies don't mean anything, statistics be damned... there are so many different factors involved in a friendly (number of subs, quality of the teams involved, new tactics being applied) that there's no way to pinpoint useful variables that will determine the real level of a team.
One friendly doesn't mean anything. But then again... neither does one official match.

Is Senegal superior to France b/c they beat them in the WC in '02? No. You need to look at matches over time to be able to ascertain the strength of a team. One match isn't a large of enough sample.

But honestly, the difference in btw friendlies and official matches at the national team level is statistically irrelevant.

Perfect example is US-Mexico. Mexico hasn't scored against the US outside of Mexico since 1999 (San Diego, 2-1 victory for Mexico). Official matches. Friendlies. Doesn't matter. Over time, friendlies show little deviation from official matches.

There's a reason why Spain plays England in a friendly instead of East Timor or the Miami Beach Men's Choir.

And just to reiterate: one result doesn't mean anything. It's simply too small of a sample to bear statistical relevance.

[DCFAN96]

Honestly its just ignorance of not knowing the team or its players so everyone assumes the "gringos" have no style or skill.

Ecuador brings its best players and gets spanked 3-1 by the US, but of course all of you will still say we suck and our game hasn't improved, while none of you would be able to name 6 starters on our team or where they play. :rolleyes:

Please keep doubting us.

[posteador]

My question is.

Will they take the team that beat Ecuador to Copa America or not?

That is the source of doubts for many...

[DCFAN96]

My question is.

Will they take the team that beat Ecuador to Copa America or not?

That is the source of doubts for many...

Well reading this threat thats not really what the source of the doubts are, everything just assumes teh US sucks.

Regardless of who we bring we won't get embarrassed, besides the same question you ask should also be asked of all the other teams in teh group, so why don't you ask and doubt them.

[Sakuragi]

Funny how you conveniently skip over the game vs. the host SK, which went to the semis. Yeah. Trust me. I know about the dubious the SK victories in the knock-out stage -- Spain was ********ed even more than the US was vs. Ghana --, but still: the host is always formidable, and SK was no exception.

This quote actually enforces my argument, Mr. Brown. Leaving aside all of the dubious calls made by the refs in favor of South Korea, they were certainly no pushovers. Certainly a strong group, comparable to the group in 2006.

But let's recap the US' performance in that tournament:

Portugal: great
SK: very good
Poland: bad
Mexico: very good (nice result and all... but it was only Mexico.)
Germany: very good

Let me put it in numbers to you, so you can visualize it a tad better. Maybe you are not grasping it here.

In 2002, these are the stats for the US.

The US played 5 games, won 2, drew 1, and lost 2. Scored a total of 7 goals and was scored 7 goals to a total of 7 points and a 46.7% effectiveness.

Now lets look at 2006.

The US played 3 matches (this should be the very first and most clear indication to you that the US regressed a considerable amount), won 0 matches, tied 1, and lost 2. Scored a total of 2 goals and one was presumably an own goal, and was scored on 6 occasions, to a total of 1 point and a 4.8% effectiveness.

Since you seem to be a stats man yourself, those stats should certainly raise your eyebrows.

It's actually a really big error to state that the fact that Italy eventually became champions the US couldn't perform any better. It's really absurd. While I'll give the Italy part, this particular group was certainly less balanced than what the US faced in 2002. Even if we dismiss Italy, the US performed horrible in their other 2 encounters. In fact, we need to take Italy in consideration because it was the only opponent which the US was able to perform less horribly against. But what does that tells us? Well, if the US was certainly capable of tying Italy they would and SHOULD have done better in their other two games, don't ya think? I certainly do, and THAT my friend is where the INCONSISTENCY takes a part. If Italy was able to defeat Czech Republic 2-0, why couldn't the US do the same, as they were able to hang on with Italy?

Italy '06 >>>>>>>>> Portugal '02, SK '02, US '02, Poland '02.

You weren't able to advance because the US is simply inconsistent and inexperienced squad. Simple as that, if you cannot see it, and if that's the majority consensus between the US media, Federation, and fans, I simply do not see the US prospering any time soon.

Not statistically speaking.

If you search around back to April/May last year, there was a stats guy going around tearing apart ppl who would say this. Quite convincing.

But like I said, I just don't use them for arguments sake. One result doesn't mean anything (too small of a sample), but several results are extremely useful as far as the science goes.

'Course, you don't care 'bout those things.

Bring out your guy. I'll tear him apart senseless. There are just too many (as someone already mentioned) factors stats cannot take into consideration in this case, that it will render them useless.

Mexico: very good (nice result and all... but it was only Mexico.)

Spare me your bullshit. This result alone has been the greatest result in the entire history of United States sawker. Cherish it, don't minimize it. By minimizing such result you are also minimizing your own history, have a little more self-respect and dignity towards your own people (I'm assuming your people are the USains, but I've always thought you were a Salvadorian). Thank you.

[Caturro]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!!

Link to a post where I bring up any statistics regarding friendlies????

Let me rephrase what I said: you are not using these "statistics" themselves but you keep bringing up the fact that some guy came up with them and they are somehow relevant. If you don't think it's relevant, then stop bringing it up. You are implying they're part of the argument you're attempting to create.

One friendly doesn't mean anything. But then again... neither does one official match.

Is Senegal superior to France b/c they beat them in the WC in '02? No. You need to look at matches over time to be able to ascertain the strength of a team. One match isn't a large of enough sample.

But honestly, the difference in btw friendlies and official matches at the national team level is statistically irrelevant.

Perfect example is US-Mexico. Mexico hasn't scored against the US outside of Mexico since 1999 (San Diego, 2-1 victory for Mexico). Official matches. Friendlies. Doesn't matter. Over time, friendlies show little deviation from official matches.

There's a reason why Spain plays England in a friendly instead of East Timor or the Miami Beach Men's Choir.

And just to reiterate: one result doesn't mean anything. It's simply too small of a sample to bear statistical relevance.

I agree that one match (be it official or friendly) doesn't mean much. Like you said, a team shows its true level over time. However, I disagree that official matches and friendlies should be held on the same level. The resons are:

- In an official match you are much more likely to get all your starters.

- In an official match you are much more likely not to experiment with new tactics.

- In an official match you are much more likely to play more competitive teams.

Attempting to equal a friendly match with an official match is ridiculous. An official match is much more relevant and a much more important factor when deciding the true level of a team. Friendlies are not.

[crzdcolombian]

i dont care what any one says colombias group is the group of death

US > mexico
Colombia > ecuador
Paraguay > chile
Arg < Brasil

US only plays games at home which makes them a little shaky but I think they can qualify 3rd... from what I saw today they are a very good team but remember ECuador is only good in Ecuador as were Paraguay,Colombia, Argentian can win any were. From what I saw of Mexico vs Paraguay , Paraguay has nothing they were attacked for 90 mins and Mexico schooled them the whole game, but then again tehy play Colombia on wensday and based on that we can think how the groups will go.

so far I think
Arg/colo 1st/2nd its up to who wins their game
US
Para

[Sakuragi]

i dont care what any one says colombias group is the group of death

US > mexico

You base this on what?

[Latin Pride]

i dont care what any one says colombias group is the group of death

US > mexico
Colombia > ecuador
Paraguay > chile
Arg < Brasil

US only plays games at home which makes them a little shaky but I think they can qualify 3rd... from what I saw today they are a very good team but remember ECuador is only good in Ecuador as were Paraguay,Colombia, Argentian can win any were. From what I saw of Mexico vs Paraguay , Paraguay has nothing they were attacked for 90 mins and Mexico schooled them the whole game, but then again tehy play Colombia on wensday and based on that we can think how the groups will go.

so far I think
Arg/colo 1st/2nd its up to who wins their game
US
Para

You sure you saw the game?

[crzdcolombian]

You base this on what?

based on teh fact every time they play US wins !!

and yes I saw the para vs mexico game.... if it wasnt for paraguays goalie it would have been like 10-1

but then again playin in Mexico is tough... but the game seemed really one sided

[calyx redded]

based on teh fact every time they play US wins !!

and yes I saw the para vs mexico game.... if it wasnt for paraguays goalie it would have been like 10-1

but then again playin in Mexico is tough... but the game seemed really one sided

:rolleyes: what a retard, only if you werent that mentally retarded. mexico owns usa duh .

[Sakuragi]

based on teh fact every time they play US wins !!

In the US in recent times, yes. Roughly equal I'd say. However, considering Mexico has more experience against South American opponents I would say Mexico has the upper hand. With that in mind, Mexico's group is tougher. No doubt!

[uclacarlos]

However, I disagree that official matches and friendlies should be held on the same level.
You're not disagreeing w/ me.

I never said that official matches and friendlies are on the same level.

Just that there's actually not a significant deviation in the results. I do not recall if in that guy's calculation he weighted official comps or not.

[uclacarlos]

Spare me your bullshit. This result alone has been the greatest result in the entire history of United States sawker.
It was the greatest result not b/c it was Mexico, but b/c it got us into the quarterfinals of the WC.

Geez. Our world doesn't revolve around you.

In the US in recent times, yes.
Inside the US in 'Merica. Inside Mejico Norte. Korea.

The US owns Mexico anywhere outside Azteca.

Are you forgetting that Mexico hasn't even scored against the US outside of Mexico since 1999?!

Nena. That's not "recent".

[Sakuragi]

Now you're just getting desperate there Charlie. Run along.

[EduarDitto]

It was the greatest result not b/c it was Mexico, but b/c it got us into the quarterfinals of the WC.
Geez. Our world doesn't revolve around you.


Inside the US in 'Merica. Inside Mejico Norte. Korea.

The US owns Mexico anywhere outside Azteca.

Are you forgetting that Mexico hasn't even scored against the US outside of Mexico since 1999?!.

Unless you are going to go back to the point made awhile back about the US dominance over Mexico over the last 7+ years.

In that case, the results in friendlies show no deviation from official matches. For the short yellow bus ppl: that means that Mexico can't explain away all 8 losses to the US as being statistically irrelevant.


One friendly doesn't mean anything. But then again... neither does one official match.

Is Senegal superior to France b/c they beat them in the WC in '02? No. You need to look at matches over time to be able to ascertain the strength of a team. One match isn't a large of enough sample.

But honestly, the difference in btw friendlies and official matches at the national team level is statistically irrelevant.

Perfect example is US-Mexico. Mexico hasn't scored against the US outside of Mexico since 1999 (San Diego, 2-1 victory for Mexico). Official matches. Friendlies. Doesn't matter. Over time, friendlies show little deviation from official matches.

There's a reason why Spain plays England in a friendly instead of East Timor or the Miami Beach Men's Choir.

And just to reiterate: one result doesn't mean anything. It's simply too small of a sample to bear statistical relevance.

We also had a hellovalot tougher group in '06.

But you said that the US is regressing. Analyzing 3 games -- actually, ONE game -- isn't sufficient to declare that a country is regressing.

There are many indicators that show otherwise.

1
A. More USMNT players are playing in top Euro leagues now than they were 4 years ago and especially 8 years ago

B. USMNT players transfer for higher fees than they did 4 years ago.

C. USMNT players earn more today than they did 4 years ago.

The fact that the open market values US players more now than they did 4 years ago is just one proof that should, frankly, shut you up. The soccer industry does not agree w/ your assessment. And this is still after the US' disastrous performance vs. the Czech Republic.

2
The football industry instantly declared the US' group a Group of Death, which goes in line w/ the overall perception of the US as a nation that not only has improved, not regressed.

3.
Just as a point of comparison, Mexico tied Italy in '02 and promptly lost to the US. The US tied an Italy squad that was superior to their '02 side.

This result, I feel, runs in line w/ the results vs. Mexico over the last 5 years.

Mexico no doubt has improved over the last 6+ years. No??

Yet, you are claiming that the US has regressed. And yet... Mexico has been impotent vs. the US except if they're playing in Azteca. Not only that, the US couldn't get successful results vs. Mexico using anything but our A side. Just recently, we beat Mexico w/ a B+ side stacked w/ guys who were out of season.

That seems to fly in the face of your theory that the US is regressing.


Seriously. One game (Czech Republic) does not a trend make. If it did, Mexico-Angola would indicate that Mexico is shit.

You seem to lack reading comprehension.

We showed poorly in one game. The 2nd game, we tied the World Cup Champion after 2 questionable red-cards, being forced to play a man down, which thoroughly affected our 3rd game. 4 players had to have liquids IV'ed into their veins after the Italy game, para que sepas.

One crappy game. One impressive game. Kinda like Mexico (Iran, Angola and Portugal were mediocre to piss-poor outputs). But as Mexico showed, it's a LOT easier to look good against inferior opposition (Italy >> Argentina).


B/c there's no tangible method to determine whether your assessment is valid or not. Show me the proof. If you can't, then your opinion is merely opinion, and stop passing it off as fact.

Our group in Korea was of lower quality than our group in Germany. THAT's undeniable. So right there, you're beginning to see the limitations of your assessment.

You see.

THAT's the proof as to the validity of friendlies in assessing the prowess of a team: over the last 7 years, the US has the overwhelming upper-hand over Mexico. Friendlies. Legit competition. Extremely important competition.

The fact that Mexico went aggressively for a win by putting out their A+ side, and the US used MLS, out of season players + a sprinkling of our Euro stars...

... just consistent w/ the findings that friendlies over the long-term are incredibly reliable in determining the strength of a team.

Again. One match means little. Lots o' matches mean a lot.

Eso dicho, I'm perfectly fine stating that the US is merely o.k. in international friendlies vs. elite of the elite teams.

But the world Doesn't revolve around Mexico eh?....
:rolleyes:

Please almost any post which has to do with the USMNT, US fans bring up Mexico so don't come in here with that B.S.

The day Mexico starts using the US as a measuring stick is the day I will stop watching futbol. You people live for those results and even moreso now that the US has regressed in the International stage and performed like pure crap in the WC. I understand you guys need some sort of consolation and I know that you find that in the fact that you've been beating Mexico consistently.

You bring Mexico up in your arguments that try to (falsely) prove that the US has progressed.

You bring Mexico up when you try to justify the USMNT poor performance at the WC.

The FACT is that almost anny time a spazzo tries to "prove" that the US is good or that the USMNT is improving they'll constantly bring up Mexico.

Hellooooo....Mexico is not the only opponent the US will have to face you know???

:rolleyes:

[uclacarlos]

But the world Doesn't revolve around Mexico eh?....
:rolleyes:

Please almost any post which has to do with the USMNT, US fans bring up Mexico so don't come in here with that B.S.
When conversating w/ ppl from a certain nation, the games in common tend to come up more often.

If you want, I can go and show a similar "US obsession". It's not that difficult.

What the hell are YOU doing in a thread about the US when your nation ain't even in this group??????

A lil' obsessed, are we?

You people live for those results and even moreso now that the US has regressed in the International stage
Not this again.

Yeah. We've "regressed" so badly that we now have 13 guys in EPL plus nearly a half-dozen or so guys in Bundesliga.

Which is more than we had 4 years ago.

Somehow, I don't think that ppl in the know quite agree w/ the assessment that we've somehow regressed.

and performed like pure crap in the WC.
One game was crap.

Hell. I woulda loved to have been in an easier group. Didn't happen.

We tied the World Champ one man down. How is that "crappy"?

Hellooooo....Mexico is not the only opponent the US will have to face you know???
Wait.

Weren't you one of the posters who said that the US' tactics against Mexico won't help it develop a "complete" game and we're useless against quality competition?

Care to amend your posture after watching a few hours of soccer today?

[Sakuragi]

LOL, you still keep saying the US hasn't regressed when you have been proven otherwise, over and over again. The delusion by the US fans is incredible.

[dsp87260]

LOL, you still keep saying the US hasn't regressed when you have been proven otherwise, over and over again. The delusion by the US fans is incredible.

We haven't regressed....you keep making the mistake of comparing games we've played on Euro soil with games we've played away from it.

If you want to make a comparison, compare 1994 with 2002.

Compare 1998 with 2006.

We do well when not on Euro soil, poorly when on it.

[Sakuragi]

We haven't regressed....you keep making the mistake of comparing games we've played on Euro soil with games we've played away from it.

If you want to make a comparison, compare 1994 with 2002.

Compare 1998 with 2006.

We do well when not on Euro soil, poorly when on it.

Playing on Euro soil is part of the game, I'm sorry to be the one to inform you this. A decent, consistency team will adapt to any environment. Gosh, you don't see how moronic that statement is? You cannot cover the sun with your hands...the facts are still there. Euro soil or not is no different. Covering facts to manipulate your statements is a no-no.