Why do people say CONCACAF is crap?

Can u guys now accept that US and Mexico are the 2 most overrated teams in the world. THe US mens national team loses at HOME to a Morocco B team fielding only 3 starters who were even in the nations cup squad. In case u didn't know Morocco failed to get out of their group in the nations cup. And u guys have the nerve to say that US is better than all African teams. you guys are a joke, and please no stupid excuses.

 

Forza Morocco!

 

ohhhhh my gawd

Stop the presses... USA loses in a friendly tuneup


USA is overated

CONCACAF is overated

USA is gonna crash at the WC

USA SUCKS!!!!

 

yeah, 'cause it's not like the USA didn't dominate........o wait. we didn't even play that poorly. JOB for one looked like the playmaker of old......certainly better than anyone on the African continent. just joking i don' tthink we're better than Cameroon or Ivory Coast, but honestly we're a really good team with a legitimate chance of winning the Cup. more likely than Ivory Coast and certainly more likely than Cameroon. our system is more likely to prevail against superior opposition. unfortunately Ivory Coast and ourselves were both drawn into such unfair groups. tough luck in its purest form.

 

I disagree that you are more likely to win the cup than Cameroon. I would say they are about twice as likely to go all the way as the United States.

 

i was kinda pointing to the fact that they didn't qualify........i don't mean at every World Cup i mean at this one. Ivory Coast won't be perenially superior to Cameroon.

 

I am aware of the fact that Cameroon didn't qualify. I stand by my earlier comments.

 

Yes, I've read all 60+ pages of this thread, and over all, I will be very happy when I see Mexico, Costa Rica and the U.S. pass to the 2nd round.
I would like to see T&T too, but, I'll be happy if they manage to score some goals.

 

For me the problem with Concacaf if not USA and Mexico, is the lack of competition. Besides Costa Rica there is no other NT that presents a serious challenge to the powerhouses in the area. Basically they beat everybody else by 10 goals at home and by 4 away, and according to FIFAs ranking method that gives them a lot of crappy points, sending them to the top of the ranking close to countries that face real competition in their own confederations.

Besides Oceania (that now is going to be New Zealand's realm with Australia's move to Asia) concacaf is the most unbalanced zone and their powerhouses (that play fairly at international level, but have never achieved anything special when it counts, i.e. WC) benefit too much from it.

Dmike has a point in that all the results from here to June 9 don't count, don't make conclussions based on them, they are tune-ups. But on the other hand CharlesEFC has a point in that good african teams like Cameroon and Nigeria are not in WC, proving that Africa is a more leveled field. Same thing happened with Conmebol and Europe, were teams that are regarded as quality teams failed to advance. Concacaf? The only thing that was not clear was the fourth spot. It is almost impossible for Mexico and USA not to advance.

 

Hi to everybody...

Well im sorry but.. yes i do.. I think the concaf its crap...
I dont going to refuse there are three good teams. But being serius... somebody Can really to imagine to Mexico,Usa or Costa rica more far away than quarters?
And they are the regioal superpowers...
I think actually The South American and European zone are the more strong. And i bet my asshole the future world champion and finalist are gingto come the both from that zones.
In a tournament can happend many things and in all usally comes some suprises. You can to be sure some of teh "big names" will back to home before of all us suppouse. And some of teh "weak teams" will go more far away anybody supouse, that happend usually in all the final rounds.
But that dont change the fact and thats how many times in the last 50 years we saw in the final to some team non south american or european...
otherwise that two zones, i think the third zone more powerfull its Africa, they gave great soccer player to our leagues.
I have a question.. lol i think im going to bet a draw in the match Usa-Italy the italians love to draw LOL Im crazy?

 

sorry if it seemed like i was questioning your knowledge of that fact. i wasn't really making a definitive argument so much as saying that the USA has a much greater chance of winning THIS World Cup than Cameroon does. i think Africa is a lot better than CONCACAF, with little disparity between the top teams. Mexico is better than every team in Africa at the moment and the USA is equal to the top squad (Cameroon, as i see it) in my opinion. the French league has really been a great tool in developing soccer in Africa. Africa has been raped by imperialism and i think i speak for most when i say that anything that conjurs a smile on the face of good African people is a great thing, indeed. at the World Cup, however, i'm afraid my loyalties lie closer to home. i don't think think this argument is even relevant, man. does any US or Mexican fan want victory for their neighbor as opposed to a victory for any other team. i'd be fine with CONCACAF only getting one World Cup spot so long as we qualified every time.

 

I haven't read much of these quotes, but anyone that really knows world cup soccer knows, that the CONCACAF is basically an also-ran league against the rest of the world, especially Europe. And especially when they are playing in Europe. Those coca-cola rankings are hilarious...they should stick to making syrupy carbonated soda that rots your teeth! USA #5??? Uh I doubt it!

USA doesn't get out of their group and Mexico loses in the round of 16...

Forza Azzurri!!!

 

Mexico is not better than every team in Africa. Cameroon, Ivory Coast and even Nigeria are probably all better.

And for u to say US is equal to Cameroon is just a joke. Try not losing to a Morocco B squad at home before u try to make ridiculous statements like this. Morocco is probably ranked #7 or #8 in Africa.

 

Isn't there some sort of rule about trolling a thread after 1000 posts?

 

Is this garbage thread still open? seriously, some mod needs to take this out back behind tool shed...

 

you guys have been saying this whole time that friendlies etc. don't matter

at least USA got the results when it counted. Cameroon didn't win every match in qualifying, i take it? start talking shit next time you beat out Angola and Togo for some World Cup spots. i respect Cameroon as a team a lot but you're standing on a brittle foundation when you cite results in noncompetitive matches.

 

Very simple: Forget the rankings, they don't mean jack. Historically speaking when was the last time a CONCACEF team made it past the quarters? Think hard now.

 

While I agree with the first sentiment, is having a team make a semi-finals appearance the mark of a great confederation? In that case, Asia is better than Concacaf and Africa. Huh?

 

you have a very good point, but aren't you one of the ones saying concacaf is better than africa because they've done better in WC's, so you're going against ur logic with your latest statement. Anyways it is pretty hard to judge which team is better than which team when they are at least in the same general area of rankings. U can't use FIFA rankings cause we all know they are a joke. U can't use how far one made it in a world cup 4 a number of reasons
1. teams could have off days
2. certain teams have easier groups than others
3. teams could be hosting the tournament
so unless teams have some sort of hockey series with each other where they play each other home and away(more than once) it is really hard to say which team is better than the other, it is really just general opinion. My opinion comes from weighing all these factors together, and not just how well a team did last worldcup, because going by that logic US and Korea are better than Argentina, and we all know that to be false. So maybe Mexico is better than every African team, maybe not. Maybe US is equal to every African team, maybe not, Maybe Korea is better than US, maybe not, it is all just opion based on a number of data all added together. Some people put more weight on friendlies, others on WC records, others on the individual players each country has, who knows.

 

Which is how you get a 1000+ post thread. There's clearly no definitive way to conclude the relative strength of the smaller confederations due to lack of objective results and the fact that everyone wants to use different secondary criteria to do the comparison.

I personally think that the overall results of all qualified teams (not just one team making a run) in the world cup (not qualifying, which is purely intracontinental and means zilch when you're doing an intercontinental comparison) is the best measure.

But to each their own...

 

Better or worse? Who knows.But probably better represented by stronger teams.

 

yeah thats why the concacaf team won the play off game.. when was the last time an asian team won a fifa title? never

 

Don't get stroppy with me!! I love both the US AND Morocco.

 

we all know that the top teams from each confederation are all competative with each other. Using Brazil (since they are the best team) as a measuring stick, they have been beaten by teams in every confed. Mexico has beaten them, Cameroon has beaten them, Korea has beaten them, and obviously teams from uefa have beaten them. The difference between confederations is depth, and the number of high calibre teams. By high calibre I mean a team that on their day can beat any team in the world, and on an average day should be competative with them. I would say uefa has a little less than 20 of these teams, Conembol has about 5 or 6 , CAF has about 5 or 6, concacaf has 2 (sorry I do not count Costa RIca) and Asia now with Australia has about 4.

 

Costa rica is just as good as any asain team?