Why Is Mexico ahead of US?

[Alex_1]

Originally posted by VFish

Ecuador’s qualifying was aided by high altitude (a kin to Mexico playing @ Azteca ). 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.


Ecuador always never was so great. I never understood why so much credit was given to them. True, they finished second in CONMEBOL. but Costa Rica finished first in CONCACAF... what does that matter - the goal was to qualify. They were very fortunate b'cause looking back at the results, they hit a high run in the early going of CONMEBOL qualifying - their biggest stunner the victory over Brazil in Quito. Had qualifying started later, Venezuela was en route to making the WOrld Cup. :rolleyes: Not to take away from the accomplishment of Ecuador, but you have to be realistic in looking at the teams. Ecuador was having serious problems before teh World Cup even began, just like Paraguay were and Uruguay. Look at who they played and the results they managed. Not very impressive.

I still don't buy S. Korea's results. They're far too tarnished. You can never take away their results of course but by realistically analyzing the matches adn what happened, I can definitely acknowledge that they were a solid football team. However they were not semi-finalist material, really. Thank the heavens for home field and open minded officials.


Dude, I think you need to look into a dictionary definition of parity.

You just contradicted yourself.

I saw the quote - either you're looking at it the wrong way or I'm understanding incorrect word usage... probably it is both. :D I don't beleive "Unexpected Results" was meant as a signal to indicate evenness across the board. It was meant to indicate the blow-outs that no-one expected and erradic results. Portugal 4-0 over Poland? Poland 3-1 over the US... etc.

[Various Styles]

Ecuador’s qualifying was aided by high altitude (a kin to Mexico playing @ Azteca ). They faltered when this advantage was removed.

http://www.socceraction.com/wcq_southamerica.htm

Korea, on the other hand, proved it deserved a place in the knock out stages by advancing to the Semi-finals.

South Koreas Advancing past the round of 16 was aided by Linesmen :D


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?

Most of the games are friendlys played in the U.S. True there is a pro Mexico crowd but the pressure to win isnt there. Mexico would get critisized if they lost those friendlys at Azteca.

In recent Competitions between the two in Cups have been pretty even. This was the first time the U.S eliminated Mexico from a tourney since Copa America 95 (pk's)

Alex1 you got it right bro

[Casper]

Do any of us really think there's that big a difference between #6 and #9?

As to why the US isn't ranked higher - maybe we shouldn't have sucked in some of our most important matches of the last eight years, about, oh, I don't know, four years ago. That might put us up a couple of spots.

[VFish]

Originally posted by Various Styles
Ecuador’s qualifying was aided by high altitude (a kin to Mexico playing @ Azteca ). They faltered when this advantage was removed.

http://www.socceraction.com/wcq_southamerica.htmI'm not sure how this table refutes my claim?.. they were out of the Cup after their first two games.

The fact is, IMHO, both these teams are overrated.

When's the last time Mexico made an appearance in the quarterfinals? ... So why should they be ranked in the top 8?

Personally, I’m still not sure our quarterfinal appearance wasn’t an apparition.... so perhaps we shouldn't we be ranked in the top 10!

Maybe we should be discussing #16 v # 19?

Regardless... the fact is the Americans have won 5 of the last 6 matches, and of the games that actually meant any thing they’ve won 2 of the last 3.

#16 USA
#19 Mexico

:)

[VFish]

Originally posted by Casper
Do any of us really think there's that big a difference between #6 and #9?

As to why the US isn't ranked higher - maybe we shouldn't have sucked in some of our most important matches of the last eight years, about, oh, I don't know, four years ago. That might put us up a couple of spots.

No doubt that there isn't much difference between #6 vs #9.... but do you really believe we're underranked?!?

[astabo0ty]

Originally posted by VFish
I'm not sure how this table refutes my claim?.. they were out of the Cup after their first two games.

The fact is, IMHO, both these teams are overrated.

When's the last time Mexico made an appearance in the quarterfinals? ... So why should they be ranked in the top 8?

Personally, I’m still not sure our quarterfinal appearance wasn’t an apparition.... so perhaps we shouldn't we be ranked in the top 10!

Maybe we should be discussing #16 v # 19?

Regardless... the fact is the Americans have won 5 of the last 6 matches, and of the games that actually meant any thing they’ve won 2 of the last 3.

#16 USA
#19 Mexico

:)
finally another american who makes sense with a good point and realizes the US isnt the best team in the world after this world cup. but forget all that crap. i see holland and norway r ur fav teams, who u think will win this week? GO HOLLAND! :-)

[Various Styles]

I'm not sure how this table refutes my claim?.

You said that Ecuador had high altitude advantage. That Link shows that they got some results playing as visitors.

they were out of the Cup after their first two games.

Actually they werent. They had to beat Croatia by two or three goals and hope for Mexico to defeat Italy. They defeated Croatia (1-0) but Mexico tied with Italy (1-1)

The fact is, IMHO, both these teams are overrated.

:confused:

When's the last time Mexico made an appearance in the quarterfinals? ... So why should they be ranked in the top 8?

WC 86. Anyways the rankings add up the results of the past four years, remeber Last place at France 98..

Personally, I’m still not sure our quarterfinal appearance wasn’t an apparition.... so perhaps we shouldn't we be ranked in the top 10!

The Ranking is based on Points. How hard is it to understand. Winning the Gold Cup, doing good at the World Cup it all add's up. The USMNT spot is well deserved.

[wu-tang beez]

Originally posted by Various Styles
The Ranking is based on Points. How hard is it to understand. Winning the Gold Cup, doing good at the World Cup it all add's up. The USMNT spot is well deserved.

Holy Christ did hell freeze over or did curious styles just compliment the US? I have some promises to keep. Adios mios!

[WHOLMAN2]

Originally posted by superdave

Then why did the Group D teams beat the Group G teams.
Finish your sentence. A preposition usually ends with a question mark. But of course, you knew that. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by superdave
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.

During the knockout stage, it became blantantly apparent that both Italy and Spain played South Korea 11 v 14.

If Mexico were in Group D and were scheduled to play South Korea, the Magical Mexicans would have won. Look how long it took for South Korea to get a shot on goal against Portugal when given a 11 on 10 advantage. South Korea required a 11 on 9 advantage to score on Portugal! But then again, this line of reasoning is a silly assumption because, in particular, I'm full of s***. :rolleyes:

[WHOLMAN2]

Originally posted by geordienation

Get over it.

Good one!

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.

You're right: they'd trade. This is just a small part of the big picture. Mexico will be angry for the next four years leading up to Germany 2006, just like the US was angry for the four years leading up to Korea/Japan 2002.

An excellent head to head record does not justify a better ranking. Otherwise, Bolivia would be ranked ahead of the US.

[VFish]

Originally posted by astabooty
...i see holland and norway r ur fav teams, who u think will win this week? GO HOLLAND! :-)
It's just a friendly... but Hup, Holland, Hup!

[VFish]

If you want to use Ecuador as your barometer of Group G’s toughness, so be it. I thought they were weak and nothing I saw @ the WC could change my mind.

By the way... using that criteria I can understand why you think Mexico is the 6th best team in the World.

[HoytClagwell]

Because the football establishment is a homophobic lot.

And Mathis' hobbies are furniture shopping and collecting Martha Wash CDs -- if you know what I mean.

[Deimos]

Originally posted by HoytClagwell
Because the football establishment is a homophobic lot.

And Mathis' hobbies are furniture shopping and collecting Martha Wash CDs -- if you know what I mean.

You meant this post for another thread, right?

[Casper]

Originally posted by VFish


No doubt that there isn't much difference between #6 vs #9.... but do you really believe we're underranked?!?

No, I don't think we're underranked. Although I think that people frequently overrate the "rest of the world" and "Europe" when saying we're not a top ten team - in reality, there are only about 10-12 teams in the world with consistent success over time, rather than a couple of brilliant World Cup runs a couple of times. My point was just that if people want the US to be rated higher than Mexico, the '98 World Cup was really our blown opportunity. Maybe the '01 match in the Azteca against a Mexico team that was struggling coming in, Reyna was hurt, and Ajax wouldn't let JOB play. That could have helped.

[superdave]

Originally posted by WHOLMAN2
A preposition usually ends with a question mark.
SIG LINE!!!

[RevsRule]

The bottom line is that we are no longer intimidated by the Mexican nats and who cares if they're ranked higher for now. We know that we can beat them when it matters and we also know that they can't stand it. They are no longer the big kid on the block and will continue to play at their current level. We however, have their number and will continue to improve. The next generation of US players will be even stronger then the present group and in the end, we'll get the ranking we deserve.

[eldiablito]

England has not beaten Sweden since 1968. They have played them 9 times since then. England is ranked higher than Sweden, and nobody hears Bjorn complaining. Most would agree that England has outperformed Sweden internationally in the past 8 years, despite failing to beat them twice in the past year. The same is true for Mexico and the United States over the past 8 years. We still have France'98 to atone to get a better ranking than Mexico. It will happen soon enough, but as is the consensus on this thread regarding Mexico's higher rank: lah-dee-frickin-dah.

[Baracuda]

Yawn!

[butchiesboy]

I think the problem is that you all are sensible people -- most of you -- and you're trying to understand a ranking system often doesn't make sense.

A few months ago, mighty Colombia was ranked in the top 10, on the basis of having won a terribly watered-down Copa America last summer (And doesn't THAT seem like a lifetime ago?) Certainly they didn't rate that highly because of their WC qualifying campaign, did they?.

Going into the '98 WC, the Czech Republic was ranked No. 3 or 4, apparently because it had finished runner-up to Germany a whopping two years earlier. It, too, failed to qualify for the Cup.

I also seem to recall Nigeria dropping below 50 at some point in the mid 90s, which probably had more to do with FIFA having to move a tournament out of Nigeria.

Point is, whether you like Mexico, the U.S., or any other team, you should do what I do: check out the FIFA rankings for nothing other than laughs.