Why Is Mexico ahead of US?

[Alex_1]

Not only that but in the WC of 2002, Mexico's opponents/group was ranked as more "difficult", given Ecuador, Italy and Croatia vs. S. Korea, Poland and Portugal. All the teams have their share's of advantages/disadvatages but in history, especially recent history, Mexico's group collectively had the better success.

As trivial as that may seem, that plays a part in the equation and ranking formula. Multiply that maybe ten fold and there you have it. Strength of opponent, type of tournament, location etc.

The US has enjoyed more success head to head with Mexico in recent years. But despite recent years even with Mexico's horrible slump, they managed some impressive results against Brazil (twice) and other National sides.

So it's not just about the US. :D

[Scotty]

Originally posted by Various Styles
I would also like to add, that in the World Cup despite the U.S victory over Mexico they made the same amount of points (7)

If it helps you to sleep better at night, then fine.

[prk166]

Originally posted by Various Styles
I would also like to add, that in the World Cup despite the U.S victory over Mexico they made the same amount of points (7) :)

In the first round. Obviously, the extra win in the 2nd round would give the US 3 points more. :)

[gnk]

Originally posted by Alex_1
Not only that but in the WC of 2002, Mexico's opponents/group was ranked as more "difficult", given Ecuador, Italy and Croatia vs. S. Korea, Poland and Portugal. All the teams have their share's of advantages/disadvatages but in history, especially recent history, Mexico's group collectively had the better success.

As trivial as that may seem, that plays a part in the equation and ranking formula. Multiply that maybe ten fold and there you have it. Strength of opponent, type of tournament, location etc.

The US has enjoyed more success head to head with Mexico in recent years. But despite recent years even with Mexico's horrible slump, they managed some impressive results against Brazil (twice) and other National sides.

So it's not just about the US. :D

Alex_1: I recognize the over all poiint of your post and agree with you that it's not just about the US and that Mexico's results over the last 4 years, taken as a whole, do warrant them being ranked higher than the US, taking the US's results over the last 4 years as a whole.

However, I must point out that while Mexico's World Cup group was "stronger" than the US's group before the World Cup, the 2 teams from the US's group that advanced - U.S. and S. Korea, went farther than the 2 teams that advanced form Mexico's group - Italy and Mexico. So maybe, just maybe, those who said that Mexico's group was stronger turned out to be wrong.

[Kobranzilla]

Originally posted by gnk
However, I must point out that while Mexico's World Cup group was "stronger" than the US's group before the World Cup, the 2 teams from the US's group that advanced - U.S. and S. Korea, went farther than the 2 teams that advanced form Mexico's group - Italy and Mexico. So maybe, just maybe, those who said that Mexico's group was stronger turned out to be wrong.

I forget, who knocked Italy and Mexico out?

Were the teams from the same group or something?

:)

If Mexico feels better that they are ranked 6 (come on, do you El Tri fans realllly think you are the 6th best team in the world? I sure as hell wouldn't put my money on the US at #9)...good for them.

There's a new sheriff in town, and his names reggie hammond

[Eliezar]

A couple things.

There is more than a strong case that the US group was tougher than Mexico's.

1) Us > Mexico
2) South Korea > Italy
3) Portugal favored to win the cup, Croatia favored to use players that have hardly played in 2 years.
4) Poland won their European group, Ecuador first world cup ever and a pretty mediocre team.

Second, Mexico has had some nice success in the past year. 2nd at Copa America, 2nd in WCQ, 1st in their World Cup bracket. That's nothing to complain about. Mexico are one of the top 10 teams in the world and have been since 1986. Fifa may not show them that way, but its sad but true. This is the 2nd world cup in that span where they won their bracket OVER Italy. The only time they didn't win their bracket is when they finished level with Holland on points in 1998 and lost out on tie breakers. Mexico just seems to have bad luck in the 2nd round (missing sitters against Germany in 98, missed PK by the ref in 02).

To be realistic the US is probably one of the top 20 teams in the world, but where they fall is anybody's guess. We had a great World Cup, but I'd still have to rate us behind:

Brazil, Argentina, Holland, France, Portugal, Mexico, England, Germany, and Italy.

Those are the best 9 teams in the world right now and I believe that overall they are a cut better than the US. The difference between those teams and the US is that those teams are more likely to consistently win against the next tier of teams than the US is. I'd put us in the next tier of teams with other good teams like Spain, Ireland, Cameroon, Sweden, Senegal, Paraguay, and Turkey.

[glove]

Base your top ten on play not a rankink system. Iam sure Argentina or France would glady trade these for a second round Cup appearance. Why FIFA spits out these meaningless rankings is beyond question. It is sponsored by COCA COLA so have a coke and a smile or a good laugh. David Lettermans top 10 list has more entertainment value and the BCS determines who plays for college Football Chamionship but FIFA rankings are for countries desperatly seekink approval. I used to go wow the US is ranked in the top 25, but guess what no one respected us not until you do well in the cup or major tourney(uefa,copa america,confed cup-maybe not this one). Columbia is 15th but did not even make the Cup let alone the second round of 16. Nuff said.

[Deimos]

Originally posted by glove
Why FIFA spits out these meaningless rankings is beyond question.

They're used to determine who is seeded in the World Cup.

That's why they're so important.

[astabo0ty]

history is the answer. this isnt a power ranking saying who is the best right now. they look at the past too. and just face it, one good performance cant earn you everything. basing everything on 1 game is stupid. can holland be saying they should be ahead of the US because they beat us with half their starters missing? i know it was a friendly but still. the US played very well and is an up and rising team but why cant americans just wait a lil more for a lil more respect?

[Elninho]

There aren't too many people who would argue that the USA is ahead of Mexico based on a single World Cup match. The thing is, it's not a one-off. The US has won 5 of the last 6 against Mexico.

[WHOLMAN2]

Originally posted by Eliezar

There is more than a strong case that the US group was tougher than Mexico's.


Think so? Before the tournament started, Group G was considered to be the second or third most difficult group, while Group D was thought to be less difficult. Put USA in Group G and Mexico in Group D. Now tell me what you think the results would be.

My opinion (post yours if you disagree):
Mexico draws with Portugal.
Mexico defeats South Korea.
Mexico defeats Poland.

USA draws with Croatia.
USA defeats Ecuador.
USA loses to Italy.
Mexico: 7 points.
USA: 4 points.

No way was Group D more difficult than Group G. If anything, the groups were equal in difficulty.

[WHOLMAN2]

BTW, Mexico is ahead of the US because they deserve to be.
Reason: results.

Get over it.

[Various Styles]

It is hard to say who had the harder Group. On paper Mexicos group was clearly harder. Let's compare the group leaders. Italy was stronger than Portugal who got to the World Cup with their key players recovering from Injury.

Ecuador was a newbie but they Qualified from one of the hardest regions (Conmebol) in 2nd place. South Korea on the other hand only had the Host advantage going for them.

Poland or Croatia ? Polands best game was against the U.S, while Croatia defeated Italy. I think this showed how much more parity there was in Mexicos group were no Squad got ouytplayed. All the games were very close (2-1) while in the U.S group there were Unexpected results..

[superdave]

Originally posted by WHOLMAN2
No way was Group D more difficult than Group G. If anything, the groups were equal in difficulty.
Then why did the Group D teams beat the Group G teams.

In particular, you're full of s*** with your silly assumption that Mexico would have beaten SoKo. Italy couldn't do it. Spain couldn't (OK, they got cheated out of a goal, but that was in OT.) But of course the Magical Mexicans would have won.

[superdave]

Originally posted by Various Styles
I think this showed how much more parity there was in Mexicos group were no Squad got ouytplayed. All the games were very close (2-1) while in the U.S group there were Unexpected results..
Dude, I think you need to look into a dictionary definition of parity.

You just contradicted yourself.

[geordienation]

Originally posted by WHOLMAN2
BTW, Mexico is ahead of the US because they deserve to be.
Reason: results.

Get over it.

There's only one result that counts. The FIFA rankings can keep the Mexican squad warm at night, I'll settle for the victory in the World Cup. I guarantee they'd trade.

Get over it.

[fdp]

Originally posted by geordienation


There's only one result that counts. The FIFA rankings can keep the Mexican squad warm at night, I'll settle for the victory in the World Cup. I guarantee they'd trade.

Get over it.

ROTFL

Good way of seeing it.

Viva Concacaf...

[footfetish]

Originally posted by geordienation


There's only one result that counts. The FIFA rankings can keep the Mexican squad warm at night, I'll settle for the victory in the World Cup. I guarantee they'd trade.

Get over it.

hell yeah.

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by gnk

However, I must point out that while Mexico's World Cup group was "stronger" than the US's group before the World Cup, the 2 teams from the US's group that advanced - U.S. and S. Korea, went farther than the 2 teams that advanced form Mexico's group - Italy and Mexico. So maybe, just maybe, those who said that Mexico's group was stronger turned out to be wrong.

We have to be realistic in looking at group G and what happened there as well as the US group. As little as I care for Italy, there's no denying how badly they were robbed in the World Cup in the Korea match... let alone the match with Croatia. It was as if the referees were told to not accept their goals. Portugal was rated high, yet were "stunned" by the US, hammered Poland which they should have, and had "difficulty" with S. Korea, just like every other top team seemed to in the World Cup.

The US always was solid, but S. Korea? A giant killer overnight... highly unlikely.

[VFish]

Originally posted by Various Styles
...
Ecuador was a newbie but they Qualified from one of the hardest regions (Conmebol) in 2nd place. South Korea on the other hand only had the Host advantage going for them.
...
A comical line of reasoning… I’d suggest you leave it out of this debate:

Ecuador’s qualifying was aided by high altitude (a kin to Mexico playing @ Azteca :D). They faltered when this advantage was removed. Korea, on the other hand, proved it deserved a place in the knock out stages by advancing to the Semi-finals.

I’ve a question: Mexico and the U.S. play each other often enough, why not use head to head competition to compare the two? ;)