i know its wishful thinking, but i say semis, they are good enough to, after all, they are 6th in the world, sha
I can't stand polls that are rigged. Why no option for finals and winners? I refuse to vote. p.s Anticipating a possible reply, whether I would vote finals or winners is irrelevant. Why vote in a poll that's rigged?
The FIFA rankings are really not taken seriously by anybody other than (perhaps) FIFA themselves (although frankly I'd be surprised even there). We all know the U.S. has made great strides, but SIXTH in the world? Ahead of France, England, Spain, Germany, Turkey, Italy? Come on. I think the last world cup was an anomaly and "order" will be restored. The U.S. is still good enough to make the second round, possibly even the quarters but I just don't see the semifinals as a possibility...yet. Then again, I've been proven wrong before...
Most likely, we'll put up a good fight, but won't make it out of the group stages. I don't think we can be favored to beat 2 european teams in europe, or even get 4 points from them, even though we're likely to be much improved over 2002. expectations are a little high here.
This can't be repeated enough. Who on our team could start for England? Nobody. Yet we are ranked higher. It's absurd. Plus, we never do well in Europe, so we'll be lucky to get to the second round.
I think you may make it into the second round depending on who you get in your group. It's something of an advantage having your season at the same time as everyone else's is finished. Truth is, though, that there's really no way of knowing because there are too few games involved. Most cup competitions are a bit of a lottery in that sense.
I do think we'll do better than in '98. The second round SHOULD be within grasp, provided what kind of draw we eventually get. Remember the African and Asian teams don't do well in Europe either. But we've had several guys play in the Bundesliga these last couple of years, which might be an advantage.
I thought everyone knew that the FIFA rankings are a statistical analysis of the previous 8 years, (or whatever it is), results. They don't sit around and decide what the rankings are so they are taken as seriously, or not, as you take the results which include friendlies which some countries, (i.e. England), don't take that seriously There are two REAL problems, however. 1. Why is there no weighting in the FIFA rankings of the results of the relative strengths of the various area conferences? 2. If the FIFA rankings are so accurate why don't they use THEM as the basis for WC groups? If the last WC was an anomaly what was the EC then? The truth is that there has been an enermous compression, for want of a better word, of the qualities of soccer between the best and the worst. This is largely because most soccer players tend to ply their trade in a relatively small number of countries, usually in Europe, where they share the same coaching, food, lifestyle and soccer development as all of their main competitors in WC's. In the 2002 WC the EPL supplied something like 170, (IIRC), of the 750 odd players and that's just one league. However, the other thing that's altered is that many of the coaches in countries like the US have come from Europe and South America. Guys like Steve Nichol and Paul Mariner know how to win soccer games... even though you wouldn't believe it when you watched them play sometimes as I did.
I will say this Mexico will make it farther than the usa now i'm not trying to be biased in any way it's just that usa has never bothered to play any real international experience other than Mexico, look how much Mexicos experience have taken them pretty far use the confederations cup as an example!
There is... but essentially results in lesser confeds like CONCACAF are only discounted 6 or 7%. But come to think of it, if you have a valid ranking, you shouldn't need to weight the confeds (i.e. because you're already receiving fewer points for lower ranked teams). You should get the same points, after all, for beating the 73rd ranked team whether that team is North American or European. Perhaps a larger problem is how types of competition are weighted. I'm not sure that the Copa America should be weighted the same as the Euros anymore because no one takes it seriously. Ditto the Gold Cup. Haven't you heard the rumors? There is, apparently, a chance they will do this. I don't know how stock to put into it, but obviously, it's a horrible idea that will meet with considerable resistance. However, if you did want teams outside Europe to start taking their regional championships more seriously, having WC seeding depend on it might be a step forward.
different animal. you can't really compare the two and identify any type of trend, IMHO. In the Euro one team (Greece) upset everybody and in the World Cup there were a number of surprises (both negative and positive). From France and Portugal not getting out of the group stage, to South Korea making the semis, Turkey making the semis, Senegal making the quarters... maybe, but how do you explain teams like South Korea, Japan, and Paraguay, all of whom did well but very few of whose players played for European clubs. Or even Senegal. Those guys were only known in France.
Hmm. I didn't think there was but I'll take your word for it. Anyway, as you say, the 6-7% figure looks a bit mystifying. I mean, where did THAT figure come from? I'm kinda assuming you meant that sarcastically. If that's the case I, for one, would have no problem with it AS LONG as the figures are weighted realistically. Now, what would be a realistic weighting? AH... now THAT'S the question. I suppose the only other thing you could do would be to have qualification groups go across regions. It means we would miss out some of the, shall we say, exotic teams, taking part but having had England miss out in '94 only to reach the semi-finals of Euro '96, (albeit in England), I wouldn't mind that. Most European countries can quote similar examples including France who weren't, apparently, good enough to GET to the WC in '94 but were good enough to do well in euro '96 and had improved so much that they won both WC '98 EC 2000. That kind of thing frankly makes a bit of a nonsense of the WC.
WHY can't we compare the two? exactly? The fact that South Korea made it to the semis might be because this was the first time that the WC was local to them and they were familiar with the environment and people. If we'd played the WC there before they might have done better before. I believe that the situation now is that, as coaching standards have improved and soccer is played at a professional level in more countries, we will see more and more 'surprises' to the extent that they're not surprises any more. All we'll be talking about is a propensity for a team to win something. Er, well, I thought I already had. Coaching standards rising due to coaches from large soccer nations going to others and 'spreading the word'. The problem with teams from Africa, for example, wasn't that they couldn't play the game. It was that they were tactically inept. That's largely changed now.
But again, you shouldn't need to worry about discounting results except where teams are sending less than full strength teams. But I'm not sure how you'd do that uniformly (I mean, you could have a formula where you discount a win over Brazil based on how many of their players had played 50% of matches with the full team over the last 2 years, but it would get complicated quickly). This is not a confederation-specific problem. I wasn't being sarcastic-- with the rankings as they stand right now, it would not be fair and it's tough to imagine FIFA fixing it soon. Well, I look at those situations as showing why UEFA qualifying needs improvement. Obviously, Saudi was a far worse team than the Netherlands in '02, but then, so was Slovenia, you know?
I don't like the fact that most of the world dismisses our performance in '02 as an accident, but what really ticks me off is how WE, American citizens put ourselves down. The U.S barely misses out on a semifinal appearance, being knocked out by the runners-up, while beating Portugal, tying a semi-finalist, beating Mexico (highly respected in '02), and we're "lucky", it's an "anomaly", the competition was week, etc... Cameroon make a quorter final appearance in 1990 and they're dubbed the "indomitable lions". Greece wins the Euro cup and they are honored all over the world as conquerors. Why can't we just be proud of our performance in WC '02 and stop putting ourselves down? Then, maybe the world will respect us as a soccer nation too.
You know what, I never thought of it, but that's a good point. Having the World Cup right in the middle of the MLS season, with players match fit and not fatigued from long months of play before like pretty much the rest of the world, is kind of a nice advantage. People over here always complain that MLS is played at a different time than the rest of the world, and who's going to watch MLS during the World Cup? But it probably does benefit our MLS national teamers giving them match fitness without wear and tear. Especially since the US team relies on their fitness more than more skillful national squads. It's probably not a huge difference, as all teams are sophisticated enough to train properly for the World Cup, but every little bit helps.