Fine, then I'm making the claim that the U.S. is clearly better than Mexico because at the 2010 WC it took extra time in the Round of 16 to eliminate them while Mexico lost by 2 in regulation. Plus Mexico only finished 2nd in their group while the U.S. finished 1st. What, if you're going to use a tournament where the team will probably not play a common opponent to decide who's better then why can't we use the already played 2010 tournament instead of the yet to be played 2014 one?
Because the 2011 Gold Cup was the new measuring stick after the 2010 WC. Your argument has actually been used by posters here. I didn't buy that argument when it was made since both teams ended up being R16 losers. So they were equal.
And both teams have won a Gold Cup since then, so they are (at least) equal. But only one of them had to go through a playoff to qualify for Brazil... Somehow in your mind no other tournament matters except the 2011 Gold Cup. Of course, since that's the only tournament in the last 5 years that Mexico has outplayed the U.S. in, that might have something to do with it... (U.S. finished ahead of Mexico in 2010 and 2014 WCQs, the 2013 Gold Cup, and arguably the 2010 WC, based on your logic. You'd have to go back to the "meaningless" 2009 Gold Cup to find the last time other than 2011 Mexico beat the U.S. Too bad the "meaningful" Gold Cup in 2007 was won by the U.S.)
Someone should have told Zusi that regional dominance was still on the line...even though we had already won the Hex before the opening whistle in Panama.
I deeply regret Zusi doing what he did. Shutting mexicans up for at least a few months about how they are better than the Yanks might have been worth it.
Equal is fine, and that goes for the 4 CONCACAF qualified teams. They all accomplished the same thing in 2013, a WC berth. None of the berths is more valuable than the other. No one said only the 2011 GC matters, don't be silly. I already said why the 2013 GC didn't trump the 2011 edition. Because it was for 1/2 of a CC berth, not a full one. Finishing ahead in the hex, when both teams qualify, is meaningless. There's a poster in the CONCACAF forum here who keeps bringing up "winning the hex", and he keeps getting laughed out of the thread. Winning the hex means less than winning the Supporters Shield, because at least when you win the SS, you get home field advantage throughout the playoffs. "Winning the hex" gets you nothing more than the other 3 berths. At all.
Excuse me? Finishing top 3 in the hex gets you a full WC spot, while finishing 4th gets you half a spot. You know, the same logic you used to discount the 2013 Gold Cup. By your own logic Mexico is worse than the U.S., Costa Rica, and Honduras. QED
This is true, but the U.S. was the better team. How anyone can say Mexico is better than the U.S. right now is laughable. We finished at the top, and we had to save the Concacaf "giants," so they could ride our coattail into the World Cup. Sometimes I wish Zusi would have missed on purpose, but there is no class in that.
Just stop replying. The U.S. might be the better team today, but the Mexican fans are definitely better trollers.
Yeah, but I need some place to take my aggression out and at the moment there are no stupid threads in You Be The Don to use.
I can think of 8 straight reasons why people would rather talk about the national teams in this thread on the MLS forum.
Mexico had a 1/2 spot for only a month, and now it's a full spot. Maybe that news didn't get to you. So it's not the same as the 2013 GC example. It's simply not conclusive enough that 1 C'CAF team is superior to the other 3, because the 4 all earned the same thing. The final weed out process is 4 months away.
Hey look, those goalposts are moving again. Keep spinning, I guess you have to do something to avoid facing the reality of the disaster that was the Mexican qualifying campaign.
your ignoring the fact that all 4 team in concacaf played each other, home and away, and were ranked by the results, which is the gold standard of comparison. mexico in its most recent attempts has shown itself to be of substantially lower quality then the US right now.
You're ignoring the fact that the goal is to qualify, not necessarily to have the most WCQ points overall. That's why you gotta take point total among the qualified teams, with a grain of salt. It's happened before where the "hex winner" turned out to not be the best team. Like 2002 for example. That's why it's inconclusive. If only the top points-getter qualified, then they are the undisputed best. But we don't know who would have been #1 if that were the case. Different rules can produce different results.
You make a reasonable point (for a change) that the hex winner may not be the best team if they qualified early and lost some games at the end playing less than full strength lineups. Of course that logic still has the US as the better team since they qualified with 2 hex games to spare and Mexico qualified with -2 hex games to spare.