Oh, the one you lost at group stage vs. the team that also beat you for 3rd place. . . (originally posted in my previous post, but as this reply came while I was writing and editing it, I decided to erase it there, and put it here instead) (sorry): The other issue not least important, is that your team, and in a certain way for our team as well, the real Brazil with Neymar in its ranks was being kept out for the Olympics that year, and it was Dunga's Brazil team the one that came to the tournament, instead. Because if the real Brazil (Tite's) would have come, your team might have been knocked -out at the quarters instead, and we would have faced a diferent opponent at the finals. (Luck, was also for our side in 2016)
okay well what is your explanation for the explosion of PK's and games going to extra time/pks? my take is that it has to do with higher levels of athleticism and better training of players which means defenses a have an upper hand over scoring. modern day defenders are better able to prevent scoring, imo....
Also add the usage of VAR at present times, where penalty kicks that in the past didn't get called, now do. Or at the same time, some pk's in the past that got called, now don't. If the VAR would have been in place for the 1974 WC, nobody would have ever known Cruyff and the clockwork orange, as they got away with it during european qualifiers, over an unfair disallowed goal that Belgium scored on them the last minute of their last qualifier match, which if allowed, Belgium would have qualified instead of them, as they finished tied on points, and the dutch team won the group on goal diferentiate. Same thing on regard to how France qualified for the 2010 WC, after T. Henry scored their last goal with his hands..., where the referee validated it
croatia's 2 knockout matches went to PK and the third went to extra time. in other words, they didnt WIN a single knockout round match. worldwide, the teams are evenly matched overall. last wc was decided in extra time germany with extra time goal...... it's not an accident, imo.
Losing Jermaine Jones was a big deal, and it ripped the heart right out of that team. And that's a tournament I'd have expected a Chilean to remember a little better, considering you scored a touchdown (and PAT) vs. Mexico. Hell, we started Wondo up top, it wasn't going to be pretty. The 3-game run that was being referenced, we smashed Costa Rica 4-0, beat Paraguay while down a man 1-0, and beat Ecuador 2-1, despite ejections opening up space for their wingers. That's 3 possible WC teams, and a +4 GD. No "top" team, but impressive nonetheless.
Easy Ricky D! I'm describing our best extended performance as wins against costa Rica, Ecuador, and Paraguay sandwiched between 2-0 and 1-0 losses to Colombia [they rightfully outplayed us and I am ignoring the Argentina thrashing]
A very interesting team this last world cup was Peru. I think two lessons can be derived from them: - with the right coach, a bunch of ordinary players can play excellent soccer; - if you don't have someone to score goals, all the prettiness and dominance is for nought.
Crazy thing that Croatia only won two World Cup games between finishing third in 1998 and second in 2018.
the circumstances over which any team may lose one or more players, is something all teams must deal with at some point, so going for that route, only makes you appear as making unworthy excuses. Fact is, all teams have replacement players, and have to deal with whatever they got. Or else, they are not a team. And the fact we gave Mexico the shock treatment there, was just a consequence for them having a very bad day (same as Croatia vs Spain, or Brazil vs. Germany in 2014), anyhow we still were better than them, but for real not at that diference. Your team at the end, was a deserved 4th place. No one takes away anything from that. It was a good finish. Also means that your team finished better than the other 12 teams that took part in the tournament. The only thing I will not accept, is those who say that Copa America is "below competition" on regards to the WC, as deep down , they are comparable one to the other (not worse, and also not better).
You are still over reacting... I was speaking of our 3 specific opponent. Neither of the 2 conembol opponents we faced made the world cup.
More crazy was Paraguay for the 2011 Copa America, whom were also finalists, but actually didn't win any game the whole tournament. They got out at group stage by being a best 3rd place (getting only draws), and afterwards eliminated both on pk definitions, first Brazil at quarters (2-0, where 2 of their kickers missed their shot, and all brazilians missed theirs), and Venezuela at semi's (5-3), to finally lose to Uruguay.
So what, they didn't make the WC after ?. You didn't either. And for the case, we won the tournament, and also didn't make it to the WC. This issue will never devalue what was achieved there. And in our case, due to it (together with our win, the year before), we still are the current champs of Conmebol.
You very clearly implied that we'd done poorly because Argentina smashed a depleted US squad. So, I responded. Plenty of teams lack depth, and plenty of teams have key players, so either you're new to sports, or you're just choosing to pretend otherwise. Portugal, with a depleted Ronaldo, didn't do as well in 2014 as you'd expect. Argentina, without Messi, all of a sudden, a worse team. JJ was the beating heart of the US midfield for an entire cycle-and-a-half. So yes, losing him is a big deal. The fact that we didn't have a replacement is not uncommon, and his absence goes a long way to explaining the lack of cohesion in that game.
I had some doubts over it, so I had to look it up (at wikipedia). Actually, as they also qualified for the 2002 WC, where they beated Italy by 2-1, also qualified for 2014, where they beated Cameroon by 4-0, which together to their 3 wins in 2018 (all at group stage), makes it 5 won matches at the WC, between their 3rd in 1998 and their 2nd in 2018.
Home field advantage is good enough for another round of action, IMO. So we should at least make the QFs in 2026. Copa 2016 is not really worth mentioning, as in a tournament played at home the US triumphed over no one of note and played poorly against anything resembling a top team; 0 goals against Colombia in two matches; failed to produce a single shot against Argentina. On paper, reaching the Copa semis sounds good, but the only teams we played well against were more or less Gold Cup knockouts level of competition. For instance, in the 1995 Copa held in Uruguay, the US ended in 4th place after defeating Argentina, only to be knocked out by the World Champs.
Since progressing through the 2026 knockouts is among the topics of conversation here, it's worth noting that the tournament will have 48 teams and 32 in the knockout stage. Teams will need to make it through four knockout matches just to reach the finals. Also, if FIFA really does go with the idiotic three-team groups it could lead to some weird results at that stage. The tournament will be watered down, but one match can really screw you over when you only have two group matches from which to get points.
Hopefully they cancel it, or in a worst case scenario, just design it to mimic the NCAA Tournament. 3 team groups strike me as moronic.
Maybe there's a nuclear world war soon enough to avoid us all the embarrassment of a three-team group World Cup.
FIFA and regional organizations already have many tournaments (youth, women, etc.) with an imperfect number of teams/groups as they relate to a 16-8-4-2 knockout stage, yet they always have groups of four and send X third-place teams to the knockouts. It's almost like that works and makes sense. I just want to know what asshole was at the expand-to-48 meeting and chimed in with, "Wait a minute, everybody, do you realize that 48 is also divisible.....by three?!"