I think 6 or 7 is good enough for me, not 8. I don't agree with your comparison with Peru against those sides. We've played the USA, Costa Rica, South Korea, and Japan since 2010 and only the USA have been able to beat us. Of course you shouldn't read much into those friendlies but we have a better squad overall than a lot of those teams you mentioned with only South Korea and maybe Costa Rica having an edge on paper. I think a lot of South Americans can agree that we're not the best continent, that would be Europe. What we don't agree is that CONCACAF is near our level, which they are not. No one said that we are better than UEFA. Europe wins world cups, and while we are capable of winning it, we don't do it. And any South American side except Bolivia are capable of making it through their group in the WC. Depending on their group of course. If Peru got put in place of Colombia in group C with Greece, Japan and Ivory Coast, I'm confident we would have made it through. In Group B in place of Chile, Spain, Netherlands and Australia, I'm not so confident.
I forgot to include "anymore" As I said, we have the quality to win it but Europe has overtaken us. We don't win Intercontinental Cups/Club World Cups anymore, and World Cups on its own, its something we need to get back to winning before we can call ourselves "the best continent" once again.
One more thing I have to add to this debate is to add world cup finals results between CONMEBOL and non-European nations. Hope I didn’t miss any. If you read through this I think it supports 5.5 teams, but not 7. Bolded = knockout. 2002 Senegal 3-3 Uruguay Paraguay 2-2 South Africa Argentina 1- 0 Nigeria Mexico 2-1 Ecuador Costa Rica 2-5 Brazil Brazil 4-0 China 2006 Ecuador 3-0 Costa Rica Paraguay 2 - 0 Trinidad and Tobago Argentina 2 – 1 Ivory Coast Brazil 2- 0 Australia Japan 1 – 4 Brazil Argentina 2-1 Mexico Brazil 3-0 Ghana 2010 Uruguay 3 – 0 South Africa Uruguay 1 – 0 Mexico Argentina 1 – 0 Nigeria Argentina 4 – 1 South Korea Paraguay 0 – 0 New Zealand Brazil 2 – 1 North Korea Brazil 3- 1 Ivory Coast Honduras 0 – 1 Chile Uruguay 2- 1 South Korea Argentina 3 – 1 Mexico Paraguay 0 – 0 Japan (Paraguay win on pens) Uruguay 1 – 1 Ghana (Uruguay win on pens) 2014 Brazil 0 – 0 Mexico Cameroon 1 – 4 Brazil Chile 3 – 1 Australia Colombia 2- 1 Ivory Coast Japan 1- 4 Colombia Uruguay 1 – 3 Costa Rica Honduras 1 – 2 Ecuador Argentina 1- 0 Iran Nigeria 2 -3 Argentina
Brazil and Argentina just don't lose to teams outside of Europe. Not once since 2000. However, no one's doubting whether those 2 sides deserved to qualify for those world cups, and they are clearly on a different level to teams in other federations. So, perhaps if I delete Bra and Arg results and leave the others. That is the real question: How good are the 3rd-5th best South American teams against the rest: let's post the list again: 2002 (W0, D2, L1) Senegal 3-3 Uruguay Paraguay 2-2 South Africa Mexico 2-1 Ecuador 2006 (W2, D0, L0) Ecuador 3-0 Costa Rica Paraguay 2 - 0 Trinidad and Tobago 2010 (W4, D3, L0) Uruguay 3 – 0 South Africa Uruguay 1 – 0 Mexico Paraguay 0 – 0 New Zealand Honduras 0 – 1 Chile Uruguay 2- 1 South Korea Paraguay 0 – 0 Japan (Paraguay win on pens) Uruguay 1 – 1 Ghana (Uruguay win on pens) 2014 (W4, D0, L1) Chile 3 – 1 Australia Colombia 2- 1 Ivory Coast Japan 1- 4 Colombia Uruguay 1 – 3 Costa Rica Honduras 1 – 2 Ecuador Overall W10, D5, L2. If we count penalty shoots outs as a win, it's even starker at W12,D3, L2. If we include Brazil and Argentina (although I don't think that's the best comparison) it would be even more one sided. Looking at the above results actually I think you could argue for at least 5.5, and maybe even 6 or 6.5. It is actually pretty harsh at 4.5. I don't know how they came up with that number for 2018. It needs looking at.
Your missing the point. The two confederations have fairly comparable performance on the common stage and the US has a vastly better record at the World Cup, Confed cup and even this Copa America than the "The US/Concacaf sucks" trolls suggest. Yes, the best five teams from SA have done very well, but the same is true for the best Concacaf teams also. I mean 3 of 4 concacaf teams made it out of their groups, a record quite similar to SA. The ranks of those who didn't are stuffed with African, Asian and lesser European sides. Is anyone suggesting that the teams that finish outside of qualifying are as good or better than those that qualify? Because unless that's true, teams that make it to the World Cup *and do well* are quite likely as good or better that those who don't qualify. The point is that pretty much any team that makes it into the last 16 on a reasonable regular basis in the World Cup is a good bet to qualify from SA or Europe for that matter. I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference what confederation the US is in, we'd qualify most of the time. Same with Mexico. If we had a joint qualifying tournament 8.5 joint berths, both the US and Mexico would still be regulars at world cups. If the US were just to join SA alone we'd certainly be in more often than not. It'd be the Honduras and T&T that's likely give way to Paraguay would be the consequence. The point isn't that the top performers in concacaf are as good as Arentina Brazil or even Uruguay or Chile (I neglected Uruguay earlier) but that they're certainly close on their heels. Yes, two bad results are bad, but that's not the whole record.
No they're not. I can guarantee you Greece wouldn't have a chance in WCQ in South America. Neither would Nigeria, or the USA. Just because they make it past their group doesn't mean anything. If they go onto the quarter finals then fair enough but even then you need to prove yourself. For example, Costa Rica made the World Cup quarter finals but that was one good tournament and that's something we've never seen and we won't see it anytime soon as shown in this Copa America and even last years Gold Cup. A continent who regularly does it like South America has nothing to prove. Only the teams do. It was no shock to anybody that Colombia reached the WC quarter finals for example. If Peru was in CONCACAF I can guarantee we would always qualify, and I'm basing that on our overall squad quality compared to every CONCACAF side except Mexico and maybe Costa Rica, and our head to head results. We haven't lost to Mexico in the last 4 and we haven't lost to Costa Rica ever in 4 matches. Now look at Peru in CONMEBOL, we're essentially a minnow team with some history. Sort of like Nottingham Forest.
Conmebol is way closer to UEFA than CONCACAF to CONMEBOL. If we are to compare Confederations as a whole then all members have to be considered, the weakest Conmebol can totally challenge CONCACAF's fourth which they did against Panama this cup, if anyone saw that match then it was clear it was pretty even. Now imagine Panama in La Paz. Mexico, USA and maybe Costa Rica are solid teams and can offer a challenge to the almost anyone in South America, but what about Jamaica, Haiti, Panama, El Salvador? Can they play any Conmebol team? And thats not even CONCACAFS worst, Imagine Cuba, Barbados, Antigua etc
I don't see how you can compare CONNBEBOL to UEFA. UEFA has over 50 teams and at the last World Cup 6 out of their 13 representatives made the R16. Even though they had 4 teams in QFs that's less than 8% of all UEFA teams. You'e basically saying the top 8% of their teams are better than 30% of CONMEBOL teams.
This is just down right false. You Conmebol teams just don't seem to get it. Every year you guys have to play each other all the time. You got into each World Cup cycle knowing you are playing those same teams. You guys game plan and know their style almost as much as your own. The USA doesn't get that. That improved knowledge helps you vs teams that are much better than you and you're able to get results. Just like Jamaica or Guatemala beating the USA neither of those teams are as good as the USA but playing them so often gave them a leg up and they got results. The same would happen in Conmebol with the USA and Mexico. Would we make the World Cup every cycle no but this notion that we would never make it is false.
The USA don't have the quality compared to other South American teams, it has nothing to do with not playing the other South Americans. Last night's smashing did have to do with you not playing Argentina often, but even then you would have still lost 2-0 or something. You don't seem to understand how difficult it is to qualify in South America. If you can't even beat Guatemala away from home, I wish you luck trying to get results in Quito or La Paz, or even Asuncion.
Those away fixtures are brutal in conmebol. Playing in hostile environments, horrible condition(altitude or heat), fans that will do whatever it takes to try to give their team an advantage. They might find the hotels the players are staying at and keep them up before game day or who knows your players might have a sudden case of food poisoning the day of the game .
Dude No one is saying the USA would top Conmebol but this idea that we won't qualify ever is laughable. With all the games being played it is not hard to drop a game you know you should win. The USA has those problems too. There are plenty of horror stories of things that teams do to disrupt or off put the USA during qualifying. The only difference is the level of the teams that's it
Whoever said that is probably right to be fair. You haven't became relevant until about 1994 and the only time I'd give you in with a shot to qualify would be in 2002 and 2010. Mexico wouldn't qualify every time but with the team they have they'd make it every so often. You struggle against central american teams away from home that you're clearly better than. I don't know what makes you think you'll win away from home with harsher conditions and by far better teams than central america. These days, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay are miles above you. Brazil and Ecuador have more quality than the USA and I'd even go as far as saying Peru and Paraguay have better squads as well. Maybe not the team we sent to this Copa but definitely the one we sent to last years Copa America. In terms of actual performances, I've said this before you'd win a couple home games. You'd beat Peru, Paraguay, Bolivia, Venezuela and maybe Ecuador but that's about it.
I respectfully disagree. Though last night's match would have been very very tough under the best circumstances, it was practically insurmountable given that we played with one arm tied behind us. 3 of our very best players didnt get to play. So we had very little chance. But we need to play the S. American teams anyway or we'll never improve. Fire tempers iron. We need that competition. (Plus...its just fun).
USA away to central americans in recent years 2010 Qualifying Mexico 2-1 USA Costa Rica 3-1 USA Honduras 2-3 USA 2014 Qualifying Guatemala 1-1 USA Honduras 2-1 USA Costa Rica 3-1 USA Panama 2-3 USA 2018 Qualifying Guatemala 2-0 USA Trinidad 0-0 USA I know Trinidad aren't central american but its still a bad result to get for the USA. So, that's 2 wins in 8 not counting the Trinidad game. I don't know what makes you think you can get away results in South America. Maybe 1 or 2 like Peru usually gets but that's not enough as we've shown in the last few qualifiers.
I think the USA have good players that play in a weak league. For example, Clint Dempsey and Michael Bradley. I think they're both good players but if they want to be up to level internationally they need to play in a higher standard league. Klinnsman even said this himself and he's spot on. I've seen the Peruvian League and the MLS and there really isn't a big gap between the 2 leagues. I'd say if it wasn't for the Designated players, we'd have a better league than the MLS. Of course the MLS players could always perform well similar to how Peru did this Copa and how Clint Dempsey played a good tournament, but the whole reason we called up those players was to experiment and to try and get a new generation of players. It wasn't because the Peruvian League is of a high standard, which its not.
Some people can consider it part of central america, but I also forgot to include the 0-0 draw in the 2014 qualifiers. Wouldn't have made a difference really though.
The bold are the only bad results I see on there. Brining up Mexico and Costa Rica makes no sense because Mexico is even or better than the USA right now. Costa Rica has struggled but they proved in World Cup 2014 their worth beating Italy, Uruguay , Greece and tying England on neutral field . Even still the Hex hasn't started in the 2018 qualifying yet which is when things get serious. Before that it just a formality
Absolutely! Agree 100%. Also Im not very high on MLS. I wish it were better. But the level of competition... the opportunity to compete against the S. American teams was what made this so thrilling for me. We lost last night and it hurt. But ive had so much fun watching the skill and tenacity of the S. American teams. Its been fun. [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]