I think with the team the U.S. has right now, this team can make some noise. I think that either this time out or next, the U.S. National team is really going to scare(and surprise) some of the better soccer countries around the globe. The U.S. has such a deep pool of talent, and it rivals some of the better teams in Europe, and possibly South America. I am just going to say the U.S. is better known as 'The Phoenix'.
Agreed. The problem is, of course, that once you implement a system of scoring that makes a difference people will use the system you've set up to their advantage. Playing or not playing people as needed. Personally I've always believed that only competitive matches should be used for calculations. Difficult to tell with you sometimes Actually Slovenia did quite well in euro 2000 and I think they beat out the Ukraine to get to the WC. I take your point though.
--- does this statement actually mean something? are you referring to World Cup matches that African teams have played in in Europe, versus matches played in South America, Mexico, the US and Asia? Senegal is the only African side that has made the QF in the last 1000 years.
I think you'll find they called themselves that BEFORE the 1990 WC as well. The same as the Nigerians are the 'flying eagles' or whatever it is. Er, I wouldn't quite say that. No, the same sort of people who don't give teams like the US any credit for doing well in WC 2002 also don't give any credit to teams like Greece for winning euro 2004. That's another matter isn't it. Tell you what, have a look at the likely teams from, say, England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, and then have a look at the likely team from the US for the next WC. Then compare how much they would cost bought on the open market. Not a perfect comparison, I'll give you that, but a reasonable one bearing in mind that they are bought and sold, usually, by people not from home countries. In England that would be Mourinho, Wenger, etc. Off the top of my head this may be England's team. GK: Robinson (Tottenham) £10m Defenders: G Neville (Man Utd), £10m A Cole (Arsenal) £15m Ferdinand (Man Utd) £28m Terry (Chelsea) £25-30m Midfielders: Beckham (Real Madrid) £20m Gerrard (Liverpool) £32m Lampard (Chelsea) £32m, Wright-Phillips (Chelsea) £21m Strikers: Owen (Real Madrid) £10-15m, Rooney (Man Utd) £27m Leaving aside my estimates of how much these guys may be worth on the open market the thing you notice abut them is that they are all starters for their sides with the exception of Owen, who is something of a special case at the moment, (which is about to be resolved I imagine), and arguably Wright-Phillips, both of whom are sort of 'between' clubs. There's nothing special about England either. You could go through most of the larger european nations and the figures wouldn't look that much different.
Not sure you're right Stilton, old mate. I believe there was an African country that that made it to the semis back in the 1300's but the pope declared their win invalid as it was against the interests of the holy roman empire. He said that the team from the caucuses had had a player tripped whilst going into the box and gave a retrospective penalty which he declared as having been scored on a rebound after John Motson, (who had only just started his career at that point), first used the phrase 'My goodness'.
Yes, but if the end result is getting a certain number of first-teamers out in every tournament, would you really call that playing the system? In the end, such teams would still have to get results to get points. I'm just talking off the top of my head, really, because given points based on the number of first teamers in the team would discourage bring along new players, but it's a thought at least. Yeah, I agree. Friendlies really shouldn't enter into it at all. Oh, true, I did remember Slovenia in 2000. I also remember France from 2000-- that argument cuts both ways!
well I don't think that explains it, not least of all because the US, for one, had an American coach. I can't remember who the other teams had as coaches (and in Paraguay's case, I never knew in the first place) but I do know that China had a high profile coach (Bora Milutinwhateverhisnameis), as did other African sides and didn't do well. Also, who was Turkey's coach in '02? I don't think he was some big-name guy. and yet, judging purely by results, they haven't really come that far now have they? No African team has ever made the semis. And the "gold standard" is still very much the '90 Cameroon side, who IMHO are still probably the best African world cup team.
Cameroon might argue with the last statement. My statement refered to performance in World Cups in recent times. Africa generally gets one team through to the second round everywhere in recent tournaments, and has had one team go through to the quarters twice, one of those in Europe. I don't think they perform poorly in Europe compared to elsewhere in World Cups which was the statement I was originally replying to.
I probably haven't explained myself properly, (although I think I did, but there we are). I'm not talking about the coaches of the national sides. I'm talking about coaching standards per se.
ok and how, if at all, do we quantify those? I still think we don't have enough to identify any kind of trend. Yes, African teams are, on balance, advancing further. But couldn't this be due to the increased number of African teams allowed into the tournament? As for the increased number of Americans, Africans, Asians and others playing for European clubs; well how do we know that is truly due to their increase in skill vis-a-vis the European (and South American) nationals? Isn't it more likely that looser rules on the number of foreign players allowed per club, together with the Bosman issue (and globalization as a whole), have allowed teams to employ more international players? Remember that as recently as the early 90s, most European leagues didn't allow more than 2-3 foreigners per team (not just non-Europeans--not foreigners period).
Unfortunately, there is a sample size problem with inter-confed matchups versus intra-confed, so FIFA feels the need for a conversion ratio to factor out the benefit smaller confeds would otherwise derive from playing disproportionately their own members.
Out in the first round. This isn't our year, folks... 1. It's in Europe. We suck in Europe, plain and simple. 2. It's our turn to get a "group of death" draw
I'm afraid I don't follow. By "smaller" confed, do you mean CONMEBOL? Again, FIFA's idea that "It is accepted that there are differences in strength between the various continents" is true, but shouldn't the ranking themselves reflect those differences? Apologies if I'm being thick here, but CONCACAF's weakness should already be apparent when you play Panama as the 83rd ranked team. I don't get why a further discount should be applied just because it is also in North America.
Er, you seem to be concentrating on African football and WC's for some reason. Look, it's not complicated, dude. All I'm saying is that coaching standards have risen throughout the world. FIFA's a bunch of cretins, IMO, but one thing they HAVE done is helped in the development of standardised coaching awards so that people throughout the world have SOME idea if a coach actually knows anything about the game. Over a period this, and the fact that more and more players are playing in the larger football nations with other good players, will mean that the so called 'smaller' nations, (in football terms, that includes the USA), will become more competitive. Now, whether that translates into the US doing well in Germany, who can say... with the notable exception of blind_clown, of course
This team will be deeper and more talented than the one we fielded last time out... That being said, there are no guarantees that we will even get out of the first round. 2 evenly matched teams and results can go either way. Just for fun though, I voted semis- Make the semis and you get to play as many matches as the finalists w/ the 3rd place match. That would be AMAZING for US Soccer, as was the quarters last time around. -Arthur
European hegemony in soccer is a relic of the past. Look at all of the African, Asian and American (north and south) players taking top spots on European club rosters these days. Last WC not an "anomaly", but simply evidence of increasing parity worldwide...leading to increasing "any given Sunday" factor in international soccer. USA could sneak into the semis, but likely won't get past quarters. But who knows...injuries could make a big impact one way or the other...either depleting the team's depth, negating a key star player, or opening the door for a surprise newcomer to shine. ABC/ESPN is wisely televising all 64 games LIVE this time around, and in HD, so let's just let 'em play and see what shakes out.
i reckon they will be grouped in a 'group of death' aka England, Nigeria, Argies & Sweden in 2002. and be knocked out in the first stage, however i think that a final 16 is good enough.