? Slovakia plays today and Ecuador tomorrow, and that‘s only two and they ain‘t in the quarters yet. Of course as you said, previous tourney performance with a rotating pool isn‘t a good barometer of current results, if that‘s what you meant.
I haven't seen every team in the tournament play, but from the ones I have seen (I haven't watched The Gambia, Colombia, or Italy yet), I think Brazil, England, and Uruguay look the best. I'd be willing to put Argentina in this contender category too, even though I thought they were meh in the one game of theirs I watched against Guatemala. They are the hosts, and they do have talent on the roster. I'd say the US would be an underdog against any of those 4. If we do get Uruguay in the quarters, though, we'd obviously have the advantage of more rest, so maybe that makes that matchup a tossup.
How Varas tries to play Uruguay with the rest, if we get them, will be very interesting. I still think The G can pull off an upset there. They play that type of game that can have an opponent on their heals, or have a good one take them apart. Should be a fun watch.
That's a laughable boast. To win tournaments you need to beat semi-finalists and finalists. Also not sure which of Fiji, New Zealand, Solvakia or Ecuador you're categorising as quarter finalists
I agree with you about the overall technical quality, that this pool may not have any stars, and about Craig, but disagree about Cowell. Cowell does have an elite touch, his problem is that his touch is not consistent. He also doesn’t look up enough for a pass, and needs to work on his finishing. Yedlin isn’t the best comparison against Cowell other than speed and physicality, but I could see him easily end up like Yedlin. His ceiling could be someone like Markus Rashford.
Or? AFC: Uzbeks Champs: Only team to test Argentina so far, probably should have drawn them. Took Israel to the 96th or 97th minute of injury time, Isreal being the UEFA runner up. CAF: Senegal: Played Colombia tough, were ridiculously unlucky not to beat them. Were the better side statistically in defeat to Japan and in drawing Israel. Gambia: Advanced as group winner. Conmebol: Brazil won the group, Uruguay outplayed England in defeat and otherwise collected 6 points. Concacaf: We dominated qualifying, and then dominated our group. UEFA: The best teams in qualifying were England (1st place), Israel (2nd place), France (3rd), and Italy (4th Place). Well, the 3 thrat brought close to their A teams are all still alive, the one that took their C team went home early in France. Slovakia stunk, as I predicted. So I don't know man, pretty much everything I predicted has played out how I expected save for Senegal who were worse than I expected in results, if not performance, and maybe Japan who were the 2nd best team in Asia, but got a terrible draw and went home early. So yeah? I'd have to disagree. Oh and all my favorites to make the semi's are still alive as well (Brazil, Uruguay on one side, England and Argentina on the other). I don't know if Ecuador brought a better team, Argentina supposedly did, France clearly didn't. Ecuador's path is friendly, I mentioned after the group stage there is only quandrant that lacks a top 4 pre-tournament team, and therefore has a reasonable route to the semi's and it's Ecuador's: the four teams in that pod are Ecuador, South Korea, Argentina, and Nigeria. A much easier path to the semifinals than ours. So it's definitely possible.
I have more confidence in this team winning at the QFs than all the previous teams we have ever fielded. It really doesn't matter who we play, all teams are pretty good at this stage.
The deal with Argentina for me is their quad of the four is the only one that lacks a top end team. Our grouping has Uruguay (conmebol runners up, very good in the tournament) and us (group winner and dominant in our region), the next quad has Brazil and UEFA's runner up, after that you have England, Italy and Colombia. Argentina has itself, and a bunch of teams that lost in regional semifinals and failed to win their own groups here. The path to the final four for Argentina and Ecuador, two teams that were awful in qualifying, lacks any real challenger of quality. Every other region has 1-3 legit powers within it. So Ecuador and Argentina could make a dep run and yet not prove a lot only having to likely beat one another, and one other middle of the road qualifer to get to the semi's. As an example, if England wants to make the semifinals, they've got to beat Italy, who beat Brazil and were top 3 in Europe, for a third time this cycle, and then beat Colombia, who were clearly the third best South American team in qualifying and pretty good group winners in the group stage. Not easy. Argentina and Ecuador? Relatively Easy in comparison.
2007 we drew Austria in the knockouts after defeating Pato's Brazil, and Cavani and Suarez's Uruguay. Nobody could've told me Austria was the favorite. I think 2017 and 2019 are more speculative, I didn't realize how good Ecuador was until later, nor Venezuela. If not for the rest advantage, I'd be putting $$$ on Uruguay. They are just substantially better than us at this level, but with a 4 days rest to 2 days rest advantage, that is HUGE.
I agree with this 100%. I really didn‘t think we had what it took to win those previous matches. Part of that was having no rest compared to our opponents. I am naively (?) optimistic here. I feel like we can actually play these teams. Winning is a different story but I feel pretty good.
Brazil is up 1-0 after 10 minutes on a deserved PK. I guess upset hopes in this one are gone already.
I agree that the Austria match was wildly disappointing. I was thinking more about the last 3 quarter runs of ours. Back in those days I was thrilled with any type of success no matter what the look or form. I will say that in Europe, where I was in 2007, we certainly were not considered favs in that match. Maybe we could win but we were still the US, Adu hype aside it was kind of a curiosity.
The team had Adu, but he was the hype guy, the real revelation that tournament was Altidore, who scored 3 or 4 goals, scored on Brazil, twice I think. Michael Bradley was very good too, I think he got the winner against Uruguay and then because of course, was at the center of the brouhaha afterwards. Szetela was damn good back then, pre injury, and pre-party issues. I get that Sal got a lot of hype after that tournament but it always felt like vividness bias to me. In terms of 2015, 2017 and 2019. 2015 it was obvious very early, our attack was ----. No Novakovich meant we had to use guys like Rubio Rubin and Maki Tall as strikers. Consider that in relation to Josh Sargent, Ricardo Pepi, and Ebobisse. Night and Day. They also lacked much of a creative midfield. The team was purely defense, keeping and defensive midfielders and find a goal. They kind of got lucky in beating Colombia and were lucky that the team was light in truly dominating powers like 2013 had. It was a relatively weak tournament, to me, compared to '13 when we truly stunk. To lose on penalties hurt, but I don't think anybody watching felt there was much USMNT relevant talent beyond the back line, the 6, and Goalkeeping. 2017 had much better attacking talent, but most of it wasn't released so we had to get by with good but not great attacking talent. They were very good, but also had an easy R16 match and then a brutal quarterfinal against a really good Venezuela. I'm amazed we took them to extra time. They ran us off the field in terms of performance. 2019: Damn good team, big problem for me was the #6 position and the fact that Ledezma was hurt and McKenzie was hurt. We were unlucky, to me, to lose to Ecuador. That team could've made the final and possibly won it, but lost to a damn good team (Conmebol champions over Argentina, Brazil, Colombia etc) who I think finished 3rd overall? I was more confident in '19 than '23 because we beat freaking France, and Nigeria, and Ecuador was better than I realized but still not better than that France. Uruguay scares me more than that '19 side, but with the 2 days rest it may be closer to even.
They need Colombia to miss a few real good chances. They are gonna get them as this match moves forward.
I misspoke...I meant to say "Round of 16". Ecuador, Slovakia, New Zealand...by an aggregate score of 7-0.
I only became aware of the tournament in time for 2003, so I missed the '99 U17 run, and the disappointment of 2001. But: 2003 was brutal: they lost a 1-0 lead to Argentina on like the literal last kick of the game a day before my birthday. 2005: Always knew that team was suspect, not surprised when they fell off after starting so fast. 2007: team was fun as hell to watch, and should've made the semi's or final. I'm still bitter about that 2007 QF choke. 2009-2013: I tried to talk myself into those teams, but having watched the '03 and '07 U20's all 3 of those teams looked much weaker than those editions from earlier. Over 20 years of watching and compared to their competition rather than each other, I'd probably rank the sides as: #1: 2019 #2: 2007 #3: 2017 (including guys who werent released) #4: 2023 #5: 2003 In terms of USMNT relevant talent, I'd probably rank them: #1 2001 Donovan, Beasley, Gooch, Buddle, Convey, Casey, Martino #2 2019: Weah, Dest, Richards, McKenzie, Ledezma, Llanez, Pomykal #3 2017: T. Adams, J. Sargent, LDLT, CCV, Williamson, Ebobisse, EPB, Trusty #4 2007: Bradley, Altidore, Adu McCarty, Szetela #5 2023: Cowell, Paredes, Gaga: Speculating: Wiley, Wynder, Craig, McGlynn, Che, Gomez, Vargus, Pukstas #6 2007: Bradley, Altidore, Adu McCarty, Szetela #7 2003 Eddie Johnson, Dempsey, Convey, Adu, R. Clark, Santino Quaranta, #8 2015: Steffen, S. Moore, Miazga, CCV, Acosta, Arriola, EPB I'm not sure how you'd rank them? Do you rank them by senior level difference makers? Or by overall depth of guys graduated up even if the ceiling is more towards backups and reserves? In terms of starters: 2001 gave us 3 2019 gave us 2.5 2007 gave us 2 2023 probably gives us 1.5 to 2.5 2003 gave us 1.5 to 2.5 2007 gave us 1.5 to 2 2015 gave us 1.5. But honestly, its kind of like ranking great players and teams outside of their era's. Its hard to evaluate beyond: Just how many of these guys became starters, or immediate subs for positional cohorts? How many probably would have if not for injuries or other issues (so Steve Snow and Szetela are that for me, 18 years apart)? How many starters, and relevant depth options overall did they produce? The clear trend line seems to be more and more players each cycle with relevance in every cohort to me. I skipped looking at 2009, 2011, and 2013 because of how awful that period was, and 2005 because even though some were relevant (Adu, Feilhaber etc), none of those teams produced much of import for the national teams. Trend line seems to be really impressive since 2017 in general, and with defense and keeping since 2015.