All of this is really simple for the USMNT, the standard has been the same throughout the modern era... if the results in 2018 had been the same as 2010 and 2014 maybe we could raise the bar, but alas... Not qualifying - historical disaster (qualifying in every position is the same) ==World Cup== Last in the group - big failure Not getting out of the group - failure --Pass/Fail Line-- Getting out of the group - good World Cup Winning the group - obviously better but all that matters is the result of the round of 16 game Reaching the quarterfinals - great World Cup Anything beyond that is by definition an unprecedented success
It is not just the result, but how we do it. I have been an adult for every post-1950 men's WC. This is the best group stage performance I have ever witnessed. Hands down. Going toe-to-toe with England and largely bossing that game is the best USA performance I have seen in a WC since 2002 vs Germany. I'd rate Confed Cup win over Spain + the 2-0 lead vs Brazil as the best 3 halves. I rate both higher than the Portugal win in 2002 (they overlooked us) or the draw vs them in 2014. England are legit contenders. Top 5 in the world. We did not trail in any match, at any time, for the first time since 1930. If you cannot see that as progress, then you are willfully blind.
2022: R16 (min) 2018: DNQ 2014: R16 2010: R16 2006: Group 2002: QF 1998: Group 1994: R16 1990: Group Of the last 8: 1 DNQ 4 Out at Group 3 Rd 16 (n/i 2022) 1 QF
Round of 16 is a minimum achievement, but anything more than that is a good World Cup. We’ve won one knockout game in the modern era, so beating a team like the Netherlands in a knockout game is a big deal. Anything more than that is otherworldly. Making a semifinal means we also beat Argentina with Messi. Something like that is not reasonable to expect. Everyone talks about our talent, but teams like the Netherlands and Argentina have more. We certainly don’t have an easy road going forward The #USMNT remaining schedule in Qatar 2022:🇳🇱 RD 16🇦🇷 QF🇧🇷 SF🇫🇷 Final— Michele Giannone (@MicheleG3) November 30, 2022
Meh. Those teams are not prepared for BREAKING: Official x-ray of Pulisic's injury pic.twitter.com/oWVMtXk4kx— Pete Blackburn (@PeteBlackburn) November 29, 2022
Going into this one I thought Quarters would be a great job...especially with a young team trying to put it together. We have pure gold up the spine in Adams and Musah. But Hey, I figured at some point GB would fine tune it into something solid... it was always a long slow build...we're in a good place right now...team spirit is high and they believe they can do big things....GB deserves credit for putting it together. For 26 it needs to be at least Semis...then go for broke.
Definitely not, but I'd actually argue that Netherlands and Argentina are two of the most favorable realistic matchups out of all the possibilities. I would rather face them now than someone like France or Brazil, who loom further down the road. I rate England as a tougher foe than the Netherlands in this cycle. We already played a better team than the Dutch, and arguably deserved to win. I think the USA has a significant non-zero chance of beating the Dutch and the Argentines. Neither team looks invincible. There are areas where the USA seems to have a clear edge over them. Not sure I can say that about France or Brazil, should we meet. In particular, Argentina are a team with limited pace and athleticism. Their technical level is off the charts, but the same is true of France and Brazil, except those nations also have players who can simply out-athlete you if needed. That's why Argentina aren't in my top 2, or perhaps even my top 3 or 4. I think a motivated and well set up England might be the third favorite. It depends on Southgate being able to get the most out of his pieces, because he has everything you really need if his CBs don't fail him. Portugal are another team with the weapons to theoretically win it all. So yeah, in my "I really don't like our chances against this team club, I'm probably rating it 1. Brazil 2. France 3. England 4. Portugal 5. Argentina Maybe throw Spain in there somewhere too. That we can't possibly face any of the top 4 until the semis is a small win for our schedule, IMO. We avoided the nightmare R16 draw and we potentially face a QF opponent who look beatable.
Im more stubborn to just set a label based on WC record… so much that goes into it. Imagine wiping the floor with Concacaf in qualifying only to be put into a death group where we play amazing but end up not qualifying cause reasons combined with BS ref decision.. what then? Coming off a non-qualification cycle, resetting the whole program…knowing these are youngsters shot to the biggest stage.. that regardless of the outcome here the team is trending upwards towards 2026… would tragically losing to the Netherlands 3-0 suddenly cast a big enough shadow to negate all the good performances, development and foundation for the future set in this cycle? That draw against England set this as a “great” World Cup for me not because my aspirations for our team are so low but because I recall where we just came from… I will expect to be final 8 at least in 2026, because we now have a core backbone of players to build around so we can focus on refining and adding depth.. plus homefield advantage demands that we show.. Hell as I recall we were about to enter the dark times because Mexico was about to begin a complete domination of the region because they snagged Tata Martino while our federation wasted time on their exhaustive “coaching search” and missed the boat on Tata
Indeed, how we do it, including a shambolic half against Wales, and very nearly catastrophic return to 1990s bunkerball against Iran, and precious few actual chances despite the sparkling performance against England. I'm coming around to this being the best group phase yet, (but if you're saying that 2002 is pretty on par, then how's this progress if we were doing it 20 years ago?), but if you want to cherry pick the *very* uneven performance in "how we do it," you're willfully blind.
I’d probably put Spain at 4th and Portugal behind Argentina. As long as Portugal is starting Ronaldo you’re basically playing 11 against 10 for large portions of the game. Ronaldo does not really fit into a team structure these days. Of course they have a ton of talent, but it’d be much more dangerous in Ronaldo wasn’t starting.
So, using your heuristic, getting out of the group = a "D" grade in school. After all, a "D" is a passing grade, yes? I'd like us to be a bit more than a "D" student. It has now been 20 years since this program won a knockout match. Its well past the time for us to raise expectations, IMO.
Hard disagree on England. They were lucky to be hosts of the Euro final, or else they would have been thoroughly humiliated by a superior Italy side that aren't even in Qatar. Southgate, like pretty much every other British coach I don't rate, and Harry Kane is more famous for being famous than he is for his goalscoring this tournament. England are always overhyped by their press, which leads to them being overrated. I'd put Spain, Argentina, Portugal, and maybe even Germany ahead of them, based on current form. I will agree with you that Brasil and France are the class of this tournament at the moment. After those two, there's a wider gulf between them and the 3rd-best side, than there is from, say #3 to #6, at least IMO.
Based on talent, the round of 16 was the bare minimum---acceptable. Making the quarterfinals would make for a successful Cup.
This makes no sense at all. Look at the top eight teams in the world and tell me we fit in that group. We are right around rank 15 in the world so R16 is a success given the small number of games and the randomness of a WC.
If there is a team advancing after loosing the first game 0:7, and being outplayed in the second that would be them. Never bet against CR.
Our squad transfer value is 16th among WC squads and it would be difficult to argue that it is overvalued (though we seem to have a lot of disagreement here over the talent level beyond the first 11). So round of 16 seems a reasonable expectation. So “great” would have to be something beyond that. If there is a level between “meets expectations” and “great” then Presumably that would be the quarterfinals, and greet would be the semi’s.
From my outsider perspective, regardless of the outcome, so long as the US has a credible performance against Holland, this will have been a good tournament for them. For it to be an absolutely great one, the US will have set the foundations to be counted as one of the "early favorites" to lift the trophy in 2026 as hosts. The latter would probably require the US to advance as far as the semifinal without being outclassed at any point.
England has a ton of talent, more than a lot of those teams you mentioned. And they have incredible depth in terms of who they can bring off the bench. The ability to bring on guys like Rashford, Grealish, and Foden off the bench is a pretty helpful thing. I don’t think they were lucky in the Euro final at all. Their main issue is they scored super quickly and sort of went in a shell a bit too early. Harry Kane is probably the best 9 left in the tournament and I think they have more overall talent/depth than anyone other than France or Brazil. The EPL is the clearcut top league in the world and pretty much all those guys are top players in that league. This is not the England teams of old who were overrated.
two different questions posed here. Title of the thread is what's a "great" WC. Title of the poll is what's a "successful" WC. I'd argue that we've already had a successful WC, barring some embarrassing disaster v Netherlands. Tough group, young team, shaky performances away from the US in qualifying, putrid pre-WC friendlies--in light of all that I'd say that getting the R16 was a success in light of expectations. But "great" is different than just "successful." "Great" is next level, like beating Portugal and Mexico and playing Germany dead-even in the quarterfinals in 2002. We haven't yet gotten a truly legendary outcome like the first of those two games, springing a big upset on the world stage. So if we go out in the R16 to a world top five team like Netherlands, then so be it, we've had a successful cup. But if we could beat them, then that would be greatness.
I could pick apart the rest of the post, but I'll be succinct: Harry Kane and I are tied on goals scored at this world cup. I'd take Giroud, Morata, Richarlison, Lewandowski, and Muller over Harry Kane. Some of these guys have lesser teams around them, but each and every one of them are better at their jobs than Harry Kane. In every world cup, England are always overrated, because their media always overhyped them.