Reading the other thread on Project 2010 a bit ago I noticed that there was a consensus that "consistently reaching the Q-finals" would be a good yardstick as to whether or not the US was a "contender" to win the World Cup -- which is the language used by the Project 2010 folks to describe the goal of the program when they started. That got me wondering how many teams "consistently" reach the quarterfinals. In the last four World Cups these teams have reached more than one: 4 times - Germany 3 times - Brazil, Italy 2 times - England, Spain, Argentina, Netherlands
And if you go back to 1986, you get the following for multiple appearances: 5 times - Germany 4 times - Brazil 3 times - Italy, England, Spain, Argentina 2 times - France, Netherlands A who's who of international football. Those eight teams would generally be considered the top eight on the planet. Can we join this group in the next six years?
We will not belong to that club by 2010. We might be better than one of those countries (say, Germany), but we won't be good enough to beat out every possible contender (say, the Czechs, or Portugal) to move into the elite club. If that was the goal of Project 2010, we will have failed. An honorable failure, to be sure, but a failure.
Actually, how does one measure whether we "consistently reach the quarterfinals" in the 2010 WC? In that Cup, we either will or we won't. If we don't in 2010, but do in 2006 after having done so in 2002, is that consistent enough to have "reached the goal"? (Two out of three is pretty good.) If we do in 2010, but don't in 2006 after having done so in 2002, is THAT consistent enough? (Again, two out of three.) How about if we do in 2006 and then do it again in 2010, after having done it in 2002? I think THAT would certainly count as consistent, right? If that's not enough, then the goal of consistently reaching the quarterfinals can't be the measure.
I agree, the goal of being good enough to consistently make the quarterfinals can't be the measurement. For the reason that you articulate. But I do think "Are we legitimately in the world's top 8"? is a good replacement candidate. The Big 8 teams are the yardstick. I'd say, when we're good enough to be in the Big 8, we're there.
Consistently reaching the quarters is, I think, a thing of the past. The pool of countries that can reach the quarters is getting larger. I think that JK 2002 will be the model rather than the exception for future World Cups -- i.e., upsets will become more common. Further evidence is the Greek win at Euro 2004.
I think that of the teams you listed before, the US at this point in time is better than France. And I say that as a fan of the French team. In fact, I think there is some serious doubt that France will even qualify for 2006.
Looking at those 8 teams: Germany, Brazil, Italy, England, Spain, Argentina, France, and the Netherlands, we know we can play with most of them on any given day. I think we also have a huge advantage in our mentality as many of those teams (and their supporters) expect them to lose, while Americans always expect to win. I think that if we win the Gold Cup in the summer and then go on to win our region, we will be ranked in the Top 8 in the World on the day of the draw, which means we get seeded. As for the goals of Project 2010, I think we can meet them as they were what, to field a team capable of winning the World Cup by 2010? We can do that, just look at the players we have who are 20 or younger: Szetela, Gaven, Adu, Spector, EJ, Marshall, etc.
Ummm, OK. Certainly, I'd love to believe that. If we're better than France, it's because France is playing poorly as a team. Not on individual talent.
I think right now we are good enough to reach if we get a favorable draw but I don't know if I'd include the US in a conversation of the top 8-10 teams in the world even if we do get into the quarterfinals of 06. Now if we get to the quarterfinals of 06 and 10 OR win the whole damn thing in 06, I might change my thoughts.
Quarterfinals is just one win in the knockout round. If you have a solid defense, you're probably at 50-50% to do so unless you meet a hot favorite like Brazil or Holland, which are two of the very skilled teams. Argies are too small to overrun the US, IMO. The Germans play down to their opponents. The English shoot themselves in the foot. Spain lays down without provocation. Others may or may not survive group stages and/or qualification. If the US can become a "tournament" team like Germany - and it has several similar traits - a fit hard-working team with good goalkeeping - it should be able to get to quarters.
I think this is right. We may indeed pull even with a number of consistent contender, but so will several other countries. The next ten to fiften years will see a growing pool of top caliber soccer nations. The USA will be among them, but we might not always get the results at the World Cup that we'd hoped for because of the increased competition.
I find it odd many people just assume usa will get out of group play.... I doubt usa is a #1 seed soon, so the fundamental matter is the luck of the draw.... since it's the top 2 advancing out of the group, I'd say the chances are 60% at best.... so take that 60% and say the chances of advancing in group play are 50-50... 60*.5 gives usa 30% chance of reaching the quaterfinals... 30*.5 gives usa 15% chance of reaching the semis... 15*5 gives usa 7.5% chance of reaching the finals... so 3.75 chance of winning the cup.... and that's not a sure bet at all!!
I tihnk the US reaching the quarterfinals in 2006 and the semifinals in 2010 would be a monumental achievement. Those seem like realistic, albeit very difficult goals. The lower bound is to get out of group play. Anything more is pretty unlikely. Let me tell you, if we accomplish both of those goals then we would be considered among the top 8 teams in the world, and would have a fighting chance of winning it all in 2018. One can only dream....
Reaching the QFs, QFs, SFs in three straight World Cups is a realistic goal? Really? Kudos to you Mario. I'm not ready to say "being as good as Brazil or Germany" is a realistic goal in the next six years, but I admire your optimism!
Yes, that's exactly it. In terms of individual talent, France is certainly better than the US. For some reason, however, the same players for France that play outstanding on some of the best club teams in the world totally underperform for their country. Just look at Henry, Pires, and Vieira for examples at Arsenal. When Domenech gets canned, I would love to see Wenger as his replacement. He seems to utilize the French players at Arsenal much better than Lemerre '02 and Santini '04 did for the national team.
Well I think winning the World Cup is an unrealistic goal at this point. However, having reached the QFs in 2002, and as I think the 2006 team will be better than the 2002 team, I think QFs in Germany are realistic, yes. Having said that, I think 2006 will be a more difficult WC for the US, and we will need to play at a higher level than 2002, which we will. From there we will need some luck, a great deal actually, to reach the Semis, but hey, I think we'll have a kick a$$ team in 2010. And I believe South Africa will be kind to the US. By then, Donovan and Beasley will be the old men in the team, but Freddy will be in his prime.
Actually, according to early exit polling data, i can safely project that the USA has won a seed in the 06 World Cup.
Freddy will be treated as a returning hero in Africa. An African kid returning to the continent where he was born leading his adopted country to the World Cup Final. The South American and European stranglehold on the World Cup will be ended. It will be quite a story and you heard it here first.
One follow-on conclusion from my first post is that IF the US were to make the quarters again in 2006 or 2010 we would have a pretty good indication that we have in fact joined the 2nd tier of nations. No one has made two or more of the last five quarterfinals that ISN'T a top-10 nation.
for usa to get a number 1 seed in germany, then it'll have to win the hex... most people already are taking that for granted..but I think it'll come down to match day 10 between usa and mexico..... the algorithm fifa uses for seeding include past wc performance....mexico advancing out of group play the past 3 WC, is a qualitatively superior WC performance THAN the american performance... usa only chance to outseed mexico is to with the federation qualifying... and that still might NOT be good enough for a number 1 seed...hope France doesn't advance, and CONCACAF has a good shot...
Yeah, I ran all the scenarios and seed ranks several months back, and it came down to someone ahead of us not qualifying. Though at that time I did not know the WCQ ranking was a factor. I thought it was only last 3 WCs and FIFA rankings.