Just thought it was kinda mild up til your post - but no worries. I agree with you that we don’t want it here.
Then I will gracefully exit this discussion. The last thing I was seeking was more tribalist divisions. You have no need for. my opinion here.
The individual ratings seem to match up pretty well with the eye test, but I'm surprised Aaronson is that low.
Because there are a lot of good analysts of soccer in the rest of the world (also), and it’s helpful to get input from knowledgeable outsiders who have different perspectives and knowledge bases. I learn a lot more from people from abroad who analyze the games dispassionately than from agenda-driven keyboard warriors on Twitter and US studio analysts trotting out contrarian views to generate cheap buzz.
These ratings all start out at a 6.0 and then add or subtract values based on actions in extended box score stats. I.e., a completed pass +.02; a goal +1.0; a pass of yours intercepted -.05 or whatever. Because of that, minutes matter. It's nearly impossible to get a high score if you don't play enough to register points above 6.
I'm just waiting for you to add more. It's all so meaningful, especially when you told us to emulate a team that got 0 points and only wasn't the worst team in the tourney because of Qatar!
Ream and our entire defense has greatly benefited from the work of MMA. I think that has to be accounted for. If the goalie and defense are spared much work, you can't rate them that highly.
Even before our match with them and the WC, I thought they were the non-traditional power most likely to make noise in this tournament. More likely than us. And I like our team plenty. It would be pretty cool, and not too surprising, if we met them in the semis.
Totally appreciate your attempts to unite the BigSoccer USA fanbase against a common enemy, but it probably won’t work!
Regarding the actual question posed in the title, I watched the post-game interviews of several English players and they were all pretty quick to heap praise on our guys. The implication of a draw vs. the USA from the press is that England must have done something wrong not to win, but the players didn't feed into that narrative. I don't have exact quotes, but I recall Kane, Rice, and Mount all basically saying, "Hey now, they're a good team." In other words, "We didn't play poorly, they just made it tough." I think the guys actually kicking the ball down there on the field are impressed with this team we've put together. They know quality when they see it, and the narrative is less, "We should have rolled them over" and more "They're a good team and it wasn't an easy game." That feels like a material difference from 2010 and probably even 2014. I remember Kompany being interviewed after the 2014 match. He didn't have anything kind to say about our guys. Instead it was just, "Wow, Tim Howard." Translation: "We would've killed them if their GK hadn't worked miracles for 120 minutes." There's a different vibe now where teams understand that our squad can really play ball. The casual observer always lags behind the expert, but I think more people will sit up and take notice IF our team can beat the Netherlands. That will really open some eyes. I don't want to get ahead of myself, but IF these guys can make the QF, I think they have at least a puncher's chance of shocking Argentina, which would really blow the lid off the powder keg of hype. That would be a transformational win in terms of how the general casual public views our program, but I think the sea change has largely already taken place. As I've said elsewhere, that draw against England was one of the best performances I've seen from us in 15 years. That was a big boy match, not just a scrappy team being stubborn.
Collectively, maybe Brazil. Individually, I'm not sure there's a way to stop Mbappe. He can make a whole team look silly.