While the domestic leagues are stronger, the best african teams are almost entirely europe based. So while they may not have as much talent int he domestic league, squads like, say, cote'de ivor's golden generation just outright outtalent us. It's closer with mexico but the US didn't have a plethora of cl players and Landon Donovan/Rafa Marquez aren't didier drogba or Samuel eto. The domestic league getting better helped bridge the gap, but on paper, teams like cameroon and cote de ivor should have done better than we did. Nigeria and Ghana have done well enough considering their talent pool. Also, idk if we count it, but there's also the confed cup where mexico and the us have both made the final and Mexico have won while, with the exception of when ivory coast made the final in the 90's and beat canada, the caf rep generally has done worse. As for h2h, i don't really see the point of bringing up friendlies. Canada has tied ghana, haiti has tied italy, and el salvador has tied cote d'e ivor. Nigeria aren't as good as mexico because mexico have generally been in tougher to much toucgher groups yet have done better or as good each time. Well I'm also counting 1990 where they escaped a very difficult group and they did well in 2002 where they were grouped with the 1st and 3rd best team in the world cup and only missed out because of GD. And in 2010 they narrowly lost an intercontinental playoff to eventual semifinalists Uruguay. So really, they've been consistently decent with the exception of 2006 and 2018 since 1990 which i can't say for any caf team besides nigeria despite never having anywhere close to the talent the other teams they've had. Eveen their 2014 side probably wasn't more talented than egypt who finished dead last in a group with saudi arabia. Costa Rica also have more wc wins than any side from africa except for nigeria and have picked up as many points. Considering that us and mexico essentially have basically made every world cup and won every regional title, I don't really know how you can argue that. The only time one of us or mexico hasn't finished first in qualifying was when costa rica did it in 2002. This is circular logic. You're saying the african "big boys" are better than they seem because the "minnows" are better than they seem because the "big boys" are better than they seem. We can't really make that sort of comparison unless we see them play in the other confederation. Bermuda beat panama away. But that's besides the point. You can't use "in-region" results as proof becuase the logic is circular. No, you're just using bad logic. Suriname is not bermuda, they've beaten bermuda by 4 and bermuda has better players than multiple caf teams. Perhaps why you think caf teams "aren't struggling" is you're overrating these teams, which is the more likely answer given only one caf team ever does well at a world cup at a time(except for 2014) Panama was a good match for tunsia at the world cup, why are you saying they're a "bottom half" afcon team? Honduras have gotten more points at the world cup than cameroon since the 90's. They're not a "bottom half afcon team". The reason why sides like suriname and bermuda can't get the results less talented afcon teams like sierra leone and cosmoros get is that the regional toppers make them look worse by performing better, which is reflected in said team's international performances and rankings(canada, us, and mexico are currently ahead of every caf side in elo ). The only caf side that has demonstrated any sort of consistency over the last 30 years is nigeria.
1- without a greater number and sample of intercontinental matches, we can't really compare teams from different confederations reliably based on a few games once every 4 years between different teams in different matches than the ones being compared. But from what the tea leaves show, Concacaf lacks depth: its weaker teams are weak enough to allow for more consistent dominance by top 20 teams like Mexico and the US, with Costa Rica in the past and Canada today the only sides in Concacaf that I would rate internationally competitive. 2- my own view: right now( never mind history) CAF has more (10+) sides that would be internationally competitive with another 10+ who are regionally competitive. Concacaf (right now) has around 3 internationally competitive sides and 3-5 regionally competitive ones. 3- a team. like a chain, is only as strong as its weakest link if properly analyzed by an opposing. Teams like Mexico or the US are, generally speaking, tough teams to beat because their weaker links are still pretty sturdy. Which is also why I think so highly of Morocco as well. Their depth, which they aren't even utilizing properly, allows them (like the US and Mexico but unlike some others) to make sure they don't field horrid weak links. Yes, unlike some other CAF teams, they don't have real superstars upfront. But before superstars (some more fortunate and famous than being ridiculously talented) can shine, a side needs to make sure (a) it doesn't have weak links and (b) a coach's tactical designs properly accentuate a side's strengths and hides/limits its weaknesses.
Nobody is arguing against Mexico having a better WC record than Nigeria. They've had a 30 to 40 year head start. What is more astounding than anything else is the fact that for 50 years, Mexico hasn't once made it to the quarter finals. Something Senegal did in their first world cup, and something both Cameroon and Ghana did in their second. None of these countries needed to host the tournament to accomplish that either. 1990 is ancient history for you to be trying to cling to, and you forget that CR failed to qualify for 2 consecutive world cups in 94 and 98 no I dont consider beating China in 2002 a major achievement either. Im sorry but failing to qualify for 2 straight tournaments then failing to progress past the group stages in the next 2, with a sole victory over China, then failing to qualify again, making a quarter final run, and then failing to get out of the group stage again, IS NOT CONISTENTLY DECENT. It's consistently MEDIOCRE. thats a completely meaningless statistic given that Costa Rica has played in far more tournaments than any African team other than Nigeria and Cameroon. Considering that the US just FAILED to qualify for the last World Cup losing to the likes of Trinidad, then YES the top guns in Concacaf DO STRUGGLE against their lesser teams. You compared Senegal playing Guinea, Algeria playing Sierra Leone, to Canada playing Bermuda. That is laughable. Any serious football fan would laugh at such an asinine comparison. Bermuda can't touch any of those teams. No what I was doing was comparing these teams the only way we can and that is to judge them based on how they fair against the top teams in their respective confederations. The best result you can show me for Bermuda is a win over Panama, while Ethiopia has a win over Ivory Coast, Sudan has a win over Ghana, and Sierra Leone has draws against the likes of Nigeria, Ivory Coast and Algeria. The only logical conclusion based on speculation (which is all we have) is that Bermuda is not better than ANY of the teams at this current Afcon, and you've yet to provide any evidence that would suggest such. I dont agree Panama was a good match for Tunisia. Tunisia played them off the park and the scorline flattered Panama. Tunisia also did far better against the other opponents in the group. Tunisia was clearly the better side, and I dont even rate Tunisia. What I meant is that teams like Panama and Honduras, El Salvador aren't much better if at all than the bottom half of teams in this tournament. So when the top guns of concacaf draw or barely beat these teams its really no different than the top guns in CAF drawing or barely beating teams like Sierra Leone, Guinea etc. It isn't supposed to be anything similar to Canada thrashing Bermuda or Suriname, which you mistakenly think it is. You have no evidence that Suriname and Bermuda are more talented than Sierra Leone or Comoros. In fact there is no way in hell you can claim those teams are better than Sierra Leone a team who has drawn with Algeria, Ivory Coast, and twice against Nigeria all in the space of a year. Are you telling me with a straight face you think Bermuda or Surinam could do that ? You are sounding kind of insane. , You dont want to start this argument. Elo rankings are highly flawed and definately have a bias against the CAF sides and illogically favor the conacaf sides, they should not be used for any serious argument. They are even much worse than the FIFA rankings which are already quite bad to begin with. I've already completely destroyed the methodology of Elo in my "alternative world rankings" thread. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/alternative-world-rankings-thread.2092151/ They are utter garbage. I dont even know what you are trying to argue here, you seem to be trying to say that concacaf is somehow better than CAF, trying to boost teams like Bermuda and Surinam, LOL.
Senegal for the first time have all their players and for the first time are not playing the early match with the toughest weather conditions. I expect to see a dramatic improvement to their play.
I never saw in the last years Senegal as disjointed as in this first half. You would have thought they go all out to prove a point. This was arguably even worse of a performance than the first half against Guinea. Something is not right with this team.
Yup they've been terrible. Malawi even had better chances and look more up for the game. I think it's Cisse. He is a poor coach who has been letting the team down. Tactically they are set up poorly with 3 defensive midfielders. Then playing a striker as a winger when they have Keita Balde on the bench, also they have a more creative midfielder in Pape Sarr on the bench. Cisse is clueless. He is going to waste a golden generation of players.
Exactly. Very disappointing performance so far by Senegal. I would give some of the credit to Malawi, but a lot of it is just poor play by Senegal (unforced errand passes, poor decisions etc)
Half-time: 0-0. The game has been boring so far. I think that both teams will be happy with a 0-0 draw. To be honest, there aren't 16 good/very good sides in CAF at present. There's 6, maybe 8 on a good day, when the pressure is on the lesser teams. Qatar in November (still feels weird saying that!) will be crazy, I can see a lot of upsets. It will be the last "normal" World Cup. 2026 will feel strange. 48 teams, 80 games, all played over a massive continent for the first time. We may see the Solomon Islands play Paraguay and Croatia! I hope it all works out and is vastly entertaining and dramatic. As long as the football on the pitch is exciting, then bring it on!
Yes, Senegal don't look like a side you'd rank at 20th as FIFA currently do. ELO have them at 42, that seems more reasonable. Just a wee cheeky question: How would Scotland (my nation) fair against the best Africans sides? Be honest! I think we'd do well judging what I've seen the past week. If we played them in a moderate climate, of course, not Cameroon at present! But hey, Qatar in November-December won't be easy breezy and 2026 will be draining for many teams. Some teams might have to play 5 matches of 120 minutes (plus shoot-outs) in sultry condition over a 20-day period, YIKES!
73 mins: MALAWI PENALTY? VAR... Ref says no. There was tussling, a fall, but not cut-and-dry. Only real moment of drama in this match. 1-0 would have made things interesting. Malawi would have been up against a third-place team next Tuesday, they would have loved that.
How the heck did they overturn that penalty call? You could maybe make a case for the first foul being outside the penalty box but giving the ball to Senegal? Ridiculous.
Ref blew with confidence, looked at the screen, then thought, "nah," but he should have went with it, would have opened up the game.
I don't care what I predicted before the tournament started but Senegal is going nowhere in this AFCON. No goal out of open play in 270 minutes of football... I worry about their ticket to Qatar as well. In fact my initial 32 teams list from October didn't contain Senegal. I will reanalyse everything once the playoff match ups are known.
it wasn't a penalty. Guy went down way too easy with minimal contact. I wish this kind of decision was given more often. Senegal are in real trouble. They top the group but I dont see them doing anything at this tournament, and their qualification for Qatar is even a question, when it shouldn't be. Well I said that the favorites never win, and it looks to be true. The two favorites for this tournament, and last times finalists (Senegal, Algeria) both have only a PK goal between the 2 of them in 5 matches, against some of the weaker sides at this tournament.
I haven't seen Scotland play in a while, so to be perfectly honest, I don't know for sure. But my guess would be that Scotland would beat teams playing as poorly as Senegal. This tournament hasn't been good for the reputation of any of the top ranked CAF teams, except Nigeria (and maybe hosts Cameroon, though they aren't among the top 5 ranked teams in CAF). Maybe its the weather; maybe lack of preparation, Covid...but if someone were to judge CAF just based on this tournament, they would rank most of their top sides as very mediocre. But while one can't ignore this tournament in making judgments about these CAF teams, it is also true that this is merely the group stage of a single tournament -- one that is taking place in less than ideal circumstances.
As for Morocco I see another win with a clean sheet. 1:0 victory over Gabon is my prediction. That would mean the 6th consecutive win in an AFCON group stage game without conceding.
the moderate climate wouldn't just help Scotland, it would also help the top African teams, so they would definately not be as bad with better pitches and weather conditions. While Scotland vs the top African sides could literally have any result (win, loss, draw) on any given day I would still have to favor the top 5 or so sides over Scotland. CAF sides have a very good World Cup record against 2nd tier European sides, and Scotland is definately on the lower end of the European 2nd tier.
Absolutely. We have only ever played a competitive match with one African side - 1998 WC, lost 3-1 to Morocco that marked the beginning to Scotland's decline for 22 painful years. And I saw Scotland play Egypt in a friendly in the run-up to the 1990 WC, where they beat us 3-1 in an abysmal performance. So we don't know how we'd fare against the best African teams. I have an idea for a tournament that could fix that, but I'll post a thread on that in February to see what you guys think, refine it.