That would apply if the US had lost perhaps. But as stated winning two games does not need much of a boost.
This guy.... Why does it matter so much at this moment? Would it not make more sense to grade the groups after it's all said and done? If the US and Costa Rica get knocked out during the QFs, would it still be the "toughest" group? damn....you're desperate
Dude I heard the USA got a penalty in their first game because of a dive, maybe that game would end 1-1 otherwise.
Just like in any tournament you can isolate things at a certain stage and observe things. It is not like I am saying anything rash. It is observations.
Again you avoided the question, did you watch all 12 games? Just because the US struggled does not mean Haiti is better than all the other 3rd placed teams, have you considered the possibility that the US just is closer to Haiti than you would like to admit? We will know when teams play against teams of other groups. If the US and CRC walk all over their opponents on their way to semis, then I'll have to agree with you, but at this point I am not making any determinations. /p
I see our first problem is you don't read very well. I'll repeat my self, I did not, but I am not the one making determinations. Wait until semis to have a better informed opinion, if both the US and CRC lose, would you conclude it was the weakest group? /p
A person does not have to wait until a following stage to see which group initially looked the most competitive/difficult.
Really dude, I agree that all for groups were relative equal, with 2 strong teams and 1 weak team. But was there a stronger #3 team than Haiti? Now Arguably Cuba-Canada and or Panama-Jamaica were more balanced than the other two groups. But outside the top 2 in group A and El Salvador (won by 1) every other team beat up on the #3 team and that was good enough to make it to the next round regardless of how they did between each other. And people always speculate about grupo de la Muerte shit before any games are played, many times it turns out it was wrong. at the end hardest groups are about balance between the teams, USA and Costa Rica were not as good and Haiti was ok so that made the group more balanced than the other 3 groups.
Moving the goal posts is an inaccurate analogy/ idiom. That usually applies to when someone makes a declaration or tries to make a statement of fact. As I said before The Group arguably was the toughest group of the tournament. That means it can be argued. Not that it is 100% the best. I would like for someone to show me a more diffucult group though. If not now, later on after all the results are played.
Is the argument for the most balanced group or the toughest? I was under the impression your boy said toughest. I saw a bit of the US -CRC game and it was not by any stretch a good display of futbol, could it be that all three of you are better matched but not necessarily better? /p
Well, Haiti in my eye looked better than the other third place teams. And that speculation is not really out of kilter or a stretch.
How many games were a "good display of football"? Most games had a good 20 minutes of "good" football with lots of periods of not so good football, that is usually what happens in the U-20's (Concacaf). Like I said, technically all groups had 2 "good" teams and 1 bad team (all 3rd places had 0 points). So your and In your defense argument is that is not that Haiti was a better 3rd place team, but that Costa Rica and the USA were just bad 1st and 2nd places. So as dude Cheruterol said arguably the toughest group. All of you criticize him for saying arguably the toughest group but nobody has pointed out what group would be tougher as of now. I mean if the USA loses but Costa Rica goes on to the final what would that mean? If Jamaica gets one lucky goal and eliminates Mexico does that mean that group was the weakest (regardless of what happens to El Salvador). At the end dude said arguably and nobody has made a good argument for a different group. Es mas facil destruir que crear. So as of now what group looked the toughest?
I will say that at least Haiti managed to not get blown out of the field like the other 3rd place teams did. Now, in my opinion, this was very much the case because both the US and CR were mediocre at best during group play (and I say this as a Costa Rican). So, if all three teams are crappy as opposed to one crappy and two not-s0-crappy, does that make it a Group of Death? Who cares, really? Also, when each group consists of three teams and two teams advance, 'group of death' sounds like overkill. Heck, 'group of mild fever' sounds like an overkill. Maybe 'group of slight headache'?
Am I the only the one that gets a little annoyed at the fact that Mexico and the US aren't grouped together more often. Wouldn't it be better to watch them play early on, instead of hoping that one doesn't get eliminated before a chance to face each other? Now on the subject of "toughest" group, maybe we should leave that up to fans of the other teams. Ask them which group they've rather be in, Mexico's or the US one.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I think is bullshit that Canada, USA and Mexico do not have to qualify to any Concacaf Final, they/we should be forced to qualify with Central America or the CFU. Maybe Mexico in C.A. that way there would be 8 teams for 2 groups of 4, and Canada and the USA in CFU to save on travel (at least for Canada).
Looking for validation? You took a few words I said & made it into a psychological inferiority complex. Hilarious
Canada does not deserve a free pass. I have no interest in watching alternate Mexico teams beat on weak opponents, we have been through this and Mexico won a lot to a little against some opponents in the 90's (for WCQ). Didn't do anyone any good. /p