Again, it's a preemptive complaint about the entirely hypothetical US soccer media response to an entirely hypothetical string of losses.
It's just a query as to whether one would find acceptable losing 3 or all 4 of the matches to go out in knockouts. No cynicism needed. Pretty simple.
theres no reason to reach for what wasnt the problem- klinsmann was a dipshit. full stop. i absolutely agree with this quoted statement, but its not either/or. im not sure theres a scapegoat/reason everything went to shit all at once that isnt at least partially accurate. a couple of years after winning with porto he was winning the epl with chelsea and going out to the cl to the winners- one of the greatest dynasties of all time. what as asinine standard to hold someone to.
FWIW, our historical records against Colombia, Uruguay and Brazil. Results are listed wins-losses-ties. Colombia 1-5-1 The only win was a friendly. Three official games - all Copa America - were all losses. Uruguay 2-1-4 The only official (CA) game was a loss. Brazil 1-18-0 There were nine official games in various competitions. We got one win and it was in Gold Cup. Them's the numbers. Is this team better? It's trending there, IMO. Are we now favorites against Brazil, Colombia and Uruguay? No. Even at home? Things even out a bit but still not favorites.
Yep. And despite all that, he burnt out his welcome faster and faster with teams. There's been a shift in player power and what they will put up with and even Mourinho has had to soften his motivational techniques. My point was simply that cultural matters do often matter in terms of motivating players. Absolutely. But isn't that people's point? That's there's a lot of coaches out there who can make the team consistently overperform or be better than the sum of its parts? If Herve Renard is the reason for the brilliance, why can't he repeat it? If he could get his team to beat Argentina, why couldn't he beat a Mexico whose coach had tried to quit and a pretty mediocre Poland squad? They didn't score again in that tournament after Argentina until a meaningless 90+5' goal against Mexico at the end of their last game. If Caleb Porter can be the reason a team wins two MLS Cups, why does he usually miss the playoffs? Could it be that people are wildly overestimating the control and impact coaches have on these things? Small sample size results -- and that's freaking international ball -- is rarely a good way to judge impact. I wouldn't mind if Herve Renard was our coach; I think he's a pretty good coach. His coaching style isn't all that different than we run, either, possession and a high press. But I don't think we'd suddenly be better.
I think losing these games would be far from unexpected based on the quality of the US team vs the teams listed. The position of the US team in world soccer has remained largely constant over the last 20 years or so based on the results anyone can see. I mean, we're basically treading water and have passed Mexico (or they have regressed) but no other team above them. That's really not a dramatic change to be consistently better than exactly one team that used to most often handle you. I can't really think of any teams we used to be underdogs against that we'd now be a favorite. So I do think if we can't get to the level to beat better teams at least occasionally, I'd really appreciate a moratorium on hearing about how much this team is going to change how the world sees US soccer and the constant propping up of every player on the US as some sort of world beater that we get. I'm fine with admitting these teams are above the US, but the constant over-the-top marketing we get always seems to want it both ways. We're supposed to fawn over all the remarkable progress we are making and yet still be OK with being beaten by the same tier of teams we have always lost to. It's really one or the other to me. I am honestly fine with still understanding that while soccer has gained popularity in the US it still dramatically lags behind the sports the US really cares about and we're not likely to be in the top tier of a game the rest of the world cares about deeply and focuses on intently when we don't just because we're the USA and feel like we should be able to claim top status at everything since we have bigger piles of money than most. But, the constant push against that reality makes a lot of US Soccer folks come off as pretty insufferable. And then they wonder why fans who are fed a steady diet of how great we are becoming get pissy about still losing to the same teams we have for decades now.
It's worth noting that these come from two different sources. Changing how the world sees American soccer, I'm pretty convinced, was initially meant as an internal rallying cry -- a mission statement of sorts within the national team and a motivational tool with the players. And then marketing got a hold of it. The US player hype machine is fan driven. The average USMNT soccer fan is weird because they seem dedicated to hyping up our players relative to other players in the world but I'm pretty convinced they never watch those other players. It's not going to go away until about a decade of being an elite team. And even maybe not then. Hype is part of American sports culture. That latter part has little to do with US Soccer or the staff or the players. As for the team itself, I don't think the recent history of the team has been better than the best of our past. We are constantly confusing talent and potential for performance in terms of current players and ignoring injuries, etc., but in terms of the past we pick upsets and ignore the bad losses and down times. People also seem to ignore the quality of the past when we were better -- we don't have any keeper near anything like Keller or Friedel or Howard, and we relied on them heavily. If this team doesn't get consistently better overall than we were consistently before as they reach their primes, then I will agree we aren't getting better. But let's let them get to their prime. Let's have a run of play where we actually have players in their prime. The other big barrier is that there is a massive gap between our tier and the next tier. It simply takes a lot of improvement to bridge that gap. Being consistently at the top of our tier would be an improvement, but it's not one that people would acknowledge.
Of course, but history is history and some teams are bad match -ups. Uruguay plays well in the Clasico Rioplatense in Buenos Aires in general. Add to the the fact Argentina historically does not play well in the Boca Juniors stadium. They should have played in Cordoba or Mendoza in my opinion but not sure if those stadiums had conflicts. Is it still a great three points for Bielsa and Uruguay??? Yes. I agree with that.
It is really quite simple: We are just about good enough to lose to just about anybody. Also there is the fact that Colombia has a decent coach and we have Gergg.
I think KCbus was making a joke that Colombia is listed twice. Not that we play Colombia twice. We also could play the Brazilians twice and they were not mentioned twice.
Renard took Zambia to its greatest performance since their plane crashed and killed their team 30 years ago when they won the AFCON under him in '13. Pretty impressive. He then won the follow AFCON with Ivory Coast in 2015, an Ivory Coast that would fail to qualify for the WC without him in '18. In '18 he took Morocco back to the WC after a 20 year absence, and they played well, losing to Iran on practically the last kick of the game, before playing portugal tough in a 1 goal loss, and tying Spain. Not bad. We all know what the Saudi's pulled off against all odds, and then had France playing quite well at the tournament too. For me anyway, his international career is fantastic. I don't know if I like the way his teams play, but its hard to find examples of teams not maximizing talent under him, in the international game. I haven't seen Zambia hit those heights since, nor Ivory Coast, Morocco has, the Saudi's havent, and he got more out of France than anyone in half a decade when the team was in tatters. I'm super impressed w/what he does, at least in terms of results, I can't see under the hood to see the performance angle, but the results have been largely fantstic.
I would not have us as favorites in any of the games, period. Without question. Uruguay, for me, is currently the best team in South America. I think Argentina has a better ceiling, but is trying to transition to the post Messi world and playing that tournament between Messi land, and moving beyond it will be really difficult. Luckily for them they ended up on the easy side of the bracket, they are the only top 5 side in the tournament on their side of the bracket, so should make the final. But I do think Uruguay right now is probably a little better, and will probably play like it over the next few years at least. Brazil seems to be rounding into shape, and Colombia, after they finished I think 3rd in total losses (just 5 in 18 games) in qualifying for '22 (they just tied a bazillion games which is why they failed to qualify) seems back and ready. I'd put Brazil ML at probably -250 or -275 I'd put Uruguay ML at probably -225 Id put Colombia at probably -150 or -145 I bet Vegas would edge brazil over to -300 though and Uruguay and Colombia would be close to -110 to +115.
Latest Copa America odds contains surprise for USA Latest Copa America odds contains surprise for USA - World Soccer Talk
A couple reason for Mexico's better odds: 1. They have an easier draw compared to the US. While the US has to play Uruguay and then most likely Brazil or Colombia to make the semifinals, Mexico just has to win it's relatively easy group and then take care of business against an inferior QF opponent to get to Argentina. 2. These are Vegas odds, not actual probabilities. Mexico's bigger fanbase will flock to the bookies to bet on their team, which contributes to the shorter odds. 3. Mexico has historically done much better vs. CONMEBOL than the US. Of course, historical precedent isn't necessarily a good predictive metric, but Vegas certainly takes it into account.
Ain't no way you have both us and Mexico above Brazil. Yes, they may be in a "down period" but they are still Brazil. I mean they just beat England at Wembley last month.
If there is a time we can beat them it is now though. Although they did look decent in Wembley their defense looked really shaky in Spain.
In terms of form/results Colombia is up there with Uruguay but their ceiling IMO is clearly lower than Uruguay's, let alone Brazil's. Just not enough overall quality in that colombian squad. Can make a deep run, sure, but lifting that trophy? no way.
Nah. We just need to be efficient with chances and take advantage of a mistake and find a way to advance. Easier said than done of course but this moment is their lowest level in years so you never know.
We shall see. Diaz was the revelation of the last Copa as co-leader in goals. He is much improved since then. He is hard to stop out there on left wing. Colombia has one of the best defenses in the tournament collectively. They have a manager who has a good pulse of the team and has not lost a match since taking over. Lorenzo has been very clear that his main objective is to win the Copa America. I have been watching Colombian soccer for almost four decades and never has a coach come in with that mentality of going for it. (or at least having that belief that they can win it all and stating it is the main goal.) They have a good following and support that will pretty much go everywhere to see them play. When it comes to intangibles there's a lot of Colombians in Miami so it is not that out of the question to win it all there in that stadium. It is not all that crazy as you make it seem. We have seen a team like Peru make it to the Final and a Paraguay in the Final that could not score goals. If Colombia makes it to the Final they have a better chance than those teams that lost in the Final.