I would wake up with the biggest possible hangover after having a 2 day drinking and bitching binge and go into a depressive funk for the next 6 months.
Has anyone actually seen Guatemala on TV? They are pretty pathetic. For them to take 3rd would require some ... uh ... something ...
Yeah, to not qualify it means you would have to be worse than two or more of the following: Guatemala, Panama, Trinidad and Tobago, and the fifth placed Asian team. With the depth of talent we have, I don't see it happening. We just beat Panama 6-0, have never lost to TandT in eight qualifiers and have never lost to Guatemala in six. On the other hand, the fifth best Asian team in the last WCQ was Iran (after S.Korea and Japan as hosts, and China and Saudi Arabia as qualifiers.) And we have lost to Iran. You never really know for sure in sports.
A more interesting question is what to do - with Arena - if the US barely qualifies from the Hex. As a pessimist, I picked the US to finish 2nd with 17 points. The optimists have the team at 1st with as many as 25 points. What happens if they sneak in to the World Cup in 3rd place with ... oh ... 13-15 points and in 3rd place? This would make it - despite what Connolly wrote - a second consecutive mediocre year for the USMNT and I personally would wish Arena good luck in any of his other endeavors. What the cut-off point for Arena? How many would just not be good enough?
The question that pops into my mind is... (drum roll) In the highly unlikely event that the U.S. doesn't qualify, will I still go to Germany in June 2006? Yes, I think I would just for the fun and spectacle.
God but I loathe Big Soccer sometimes. Just what part of a year that saw the US go undefeated except for a 1-0 loss at Holland don't you like? We should win 5-0 every match I guess? No? You'd settle for 3-0 in away matches in Central America? What? Oh, you want the team to line up and take turns personally servicing you? Well, that makes sense. I can see why it was a "mediocre" year then.
I'm wondering why I didn't say anything like this when I read it. So, for that, here's some rep for ya.
first, there would be silence on BS-if it didn't implode-then, there would be an appalling amount of posts on BS lamenting our horrible turn of fate, much gnashing of teeth, and don't forget the wailing, then, we would reload for 2010-and take everyone by suprise, winning the whole thing in a shoot-out against austrailia to take the cup. it could happen that we don't qualify, but it just as easily could happen that we do. i like our chances to go to duetshland. winning it is another matter. let's just get there first.
Oh, please. The US has lost against the only team ranked in the top 20 that featured an "A" vs. "A" team format. The US subsequently neded last minute gasps to tie Haiti (ELO #92), Jamaica (ELO, #50), Poland's B-team that was Legia Warsaw in different uniforms, and Panama(ELO, #78). That's some achievement for a team that FIFA had ranked 8th, huh? With the exception of Poland away, the bulk of the US wins were gimmes. I, for one, am not going to get excited about beating the pathetic Sallies twice and one-time thumping Panama. I'll even expand on what I said earlier. Not only was the US record mediocre this year, so was its schedule. If Denmark, Holland, Poland (twice) and Mexico friendlies all were played against the opponents "A" teams, then it'd be a reasonable measuring stick where the US stood, but unfortunately they weren't. There were only two decent "A" squads on the schedule all year, Holland and Poland (away). The US played 50% ball there. Hooray for that, huh, Zed? Whoo-hoo. Can you contain your excitement? As to the hysterical flag waving, spare me. That premise already is a built-in scoundrel defense. Wrap yourself into something else the next time.
If USA fails to qualify then where does that leave us Canadians, who are looking to the future with the MLS model as the Great White Hope for the Great White North?!?!?
Right, but that's because you fundamentally don't understand the sport of soccer. Pretend I did a bunch of research on great soccer nations getting similar results to ours and put it right here.
relatively speaking, the USMNT not qualifiying for the field of 32 to go to Germany would have worse consequences than the US team not making it to the second round in Germany. in fact, i can't wait for the thread in a year's time asking what will be the exact consequences of the US not advancing to the second round.
for me 2004 was a year of effective soccer, getting the job done which was asked of you.... if you want to be entertained by high quality of pretty soccer...then this isn't your squad.... it's all about results...you could play like honduras and have flair...yet they're NOT in the hex..... the pragmatic arena will err on the side of conservatism, because he knows that's a sure bet...while erring more liberally increases the probabilities of the main job, advancing , not happening... I'm a statistiscal programmer, and anyone with a degree of comprehension will know, 10-15 matches do NOT a representative sample make.... so take the nats performance and figure in the appropriate confidence levels and you'd get a feel for how the team really performed... i'd say 2002 wc was significantly to the right of the mean, if you think of the bell curve.... while 2004 was a dab to the left of the mean....doesn't mean much.... I suspect 2005 hex, we'll see movement on the curve towards the left...don't know how far... but it'll be sufficient to get to deutschland... and I'd wager most of it won't be too pretty neither
Ya, Dave, I suppose you are right. I don't fundamentally understand how in one thread the US fans are beating their drums about being contenders in 2,010 while in another they consider the last second ties against the minnows as a remarkable achievement. From where I come from, you either strive to be a top team or you are happy to dwell in mediocrity. You can't be at two places at once.
It wasn't enough to SUGGEST you didn't understand soccer? What next? Five-story neon in the middle of Times Square? As Superdave was trying to explain to you, draws away in WCQs against minnows are going to happen. They happen to EVERYONE. And, since you seemed to miss that point, Jamaica are no minnows either. They're a solid side. Oh, and quit taking the worst US result of the year and basing your entire assessment on it. Any reasonable person has to look at the entirety of the year and be fairly content. Was it a great year? No. Did they get the job done despite playing below average a few times? Yes.
you can argue about whether the wins were pleasing to the eye until the cows come home, but here's one thing to be impressed about --- those ties that sidefootsitter complains about, just two or three years ago those were loses. Good teams get points even when they're not playing good. Sure, we didn't set the world on fire but getting points on the road in a WCQ when you play like crap says something about a team. Character, or something. And that ain't too shabby.
I agree with the concept of looking at the totality of a countries play when evaluating them.... I'm in the group who says winning the 2010 wc is delusional, because I think it's a far harder task than we think.... I'm in the group who says usa exceeded their expected performance in the wc 2002, but it did promise a better day... i'm in the group who says, the semis represented a slight underperformance, but take the results and move on..... and I'm in the group who says NOT advancing beyond the HEX would require a WORSE performance than the semis.... and I'm in the group who sees the growing SKILL base of talent portending good things... still usa isn't near to being brazil or argentina or italy ...et al... but can manage to compete with them on any given day.... but to win a WC means 4 days where fortune goes your way.... and that's NOT a good betting proposition
I agree pretty soccer is the lesser of my concerns when you compare it to effective soccer.... the dutch from 1974 and 1978 through this day have played a very pretty game, and still they lack the ultimate prize... some times it's the ugly girl who goes home happy..
OK - since the labor dispute is still unresolved -- I now have "real concerns", substantiated by serious evidence that would support as bleak a notion as the one I put forward.
Not so sure about that one. Aside from LD and DMB and maybe Howard if he makes the final squad I doubt most of the current players will even be around for 2010. Our 2010 squad will be Freddy Adu and his cohorts on the U-20 and U-17 teams and possibly quite a few guys you've never even heard of at this point. With kids like Karbassiyoon and Spector and the rest of the future of US Soccer already lining up for 2010, i'm not too concerned about whether our older 2002 and 1998 players turn out well for 2006. It will be a shame not to be able to see if our boys will be able to improve upon the 2002 results, but missing out in 2006 will not affect 2010 at all. Maybe USSF is hedging on that as part of their stance? dunno.
Actually, I think 2010 is what's driving these older players to demand the big bucks now. The U-20s are getting better every cycle. Eddie Gave, Eddie Johnson, Adu, DMB, LD are probably going to collectively earn more from their respective and future Euro clubs than the same players in their Position for the US did in the 90s. Which is why its in the best interest of the USSF to sign a 6 year deal or have to face negotiating w/ a PA that has Adu, Feilhaber, Eskandarian, Gaven and Szetela as members and figureheads. (knock on Wood, God-allow it). I think the older players are trying to build a bond of loyalty to the PA so that when the future generations are making double what the previous ones did; there won't be any problems amongst the players and as such the USSF won't be able to get away with favoritism towards certain players over others.
So basically we have USSF saying we don't need you guys, our real future lies with the U-20 crowd, while the players are saying "We're not going to just be ignored" (imagine Agoos saying that with his old long hair *shivers*). The USSF probably didn't expect a good result in the WC in 2002 and doesn't expect a repeat in 2006 so they probably feel that they don't owe the players so much for their past performances as it was “icing on the cake”. They also probably feel that getting out of our group in ’06 will be a feat so they don’t have a lot of stock in the current players since they do not expect many (if any) of them to be on the team come 2010. For me I think LD and DMB and Howard will if not be starters will at least still be in the mix, but with the increasing improvements in the talent of the younger crowd it wouldn’t too far fetched to say that’s it from the current starters. The PA players want respect for what they accomplished and I guess since they aren’t treated as equals they see respect as more money. You see that a lot working in the area I do, people will take less money for more power but in absence of the giving them power, then giving more money is the way to show you respect their efforts. I’m pretty sure this applies here too. The players are playing a dangerous game though, because if the USSF really doesn’t value them, then why not sacrifice one generation when you only really care about the next generation? It would make one hell of an example out of them, and would probably get Generation-Freddy to be more willing to play by the USSF terms in order to get into a WC.