Not only did Wolff play 22 minutes, but Razov and Armas went the full 90. http://www.sams-army.com/index.php?Mlist=match&Mid=737 I think there was another Fire player called into camp, but can't recall.
Yes but after: Australia - 31 American Samoa - 0 Oceania has decided to do what CONCACAF was doing and let Australia (and New Zealand) skip the exercise in humiliation for Samoans of all persuasions.
There are essentially 11 teams in CONCACAF capable of beating the USA (with maybe two more with an outside chance given a favorable ref at home). With all of the discussions of the FIFA ratings (and it's problems) I decide to create a ranking system myself (turns out the necessary data is fairly easy to come by). I won't go into the system, but it does a fairly good job of grouping teams roughly where they belong. The system says there's a fairly large gap between the 12th team (Haiti) and the 13th team, which is Barbados. That's correct, the system ranks Barbados 13th out of the 35 teams. Barbados is the team we schooled 11-0 in our home and away matches last time around. The record of teams in competitive matches, in which the gap between teams is as large as the gap as the USA and Barbados or greater (adjusted for home field) is: 493 Wins 10 Draws 1 Loss The loss was New Zealand losing 1-0 at Papua New Guinea in 1998 WCQ. 11 days later in the home leg, they ran over them 7-0. As far as the difference between the USA and Guyana, teams with that large (or larger) of an advantage went 113-0-0, winning by an _average_ of a little over 7 goals a game. Guyana is ranked 26th of the 35 CONCACAF teams, meaning the system says that there are nine teams worse than they are. My point here is only to illustrate how large the gap _really_ is between us and the lower half of the CONCACAF countries. The gap between us and Cuba is likely half as large as the gap between Cuba and Guyana. Should we have to play them? Don't know, but the reality is they have no shot at all even if we do.
http://www.thisislondon.com/sport/football/articles/6889222 Like I said, Arena and everybody...*shrug*
Beasley will play 2, get hurt halfway through the second game, and watch the rest from the bench. Donovan, on the other hand, will play every position on the field during the 6 games, filling in as keeper for the final 5 minutes of the last game.
In Gold Cup play last year, St. Lucia beat T&T, Gudaloupe beat Barbados, who tied Jamaica, Guatamala lost to Panama but beat Honduras. Are those akin to Guyana beating the U.S.? Nope. But funny things can happen. I just don't think it's fair to base everything in 2004 on something that happened in 2000 or 2001. Let 'em play. My philosophy is that more games will make us a better team. And MLS will have the experience of scheduling through qualifiers the last go around to better understand how to make it easier on the league and its players. Lastly, as for six games in 90 days - we played five in 17 games last June. Brazil played seven in 28 days.
Re: Re: Is WCQ Schedule Rigged Against U.S.? I like seeing the USMNT play games, but we play enough as it is. Over the last two years we've played vastly more games than most countries. Not a single other country has played as many games as we have since the beginning of 2002. In that span we've played 36 games. I don't think we need more games than we're already getting. I hope the MLS will work out the best possible schedule, but a lot of games is a lot of games no matter how you slice it. Friendlies+Training Camps+ Olympics+Copa America+WCQ+MLS+Open Cup=lots of matches.
Re: Re: Re: Is WCQ Schedule Rigged Against U.S.? More games that count, then. I really can't get jazzed about most friendlies these days because we play so many games. I agree we play toomany games, that's why I'm not in favor of the entering Copa America, but in favor of continuing to expand MLS rosters. In the expanded format, we'll play four games. Don't you think most people here would clamor for a bunch of friendlies in the run up to the semifinals? In early 200, we played the Gold Cup, the US Cup and a pair of friendlies before the semifinals started. So the number of matches really is irrelevant. It's who we will play and what's at stake. Frankly I'd rather play "minnows" in games that have a tangible result at the end as opposed to bigger name teams who might not bring their A squad or take the game very seriously because it's a friendly or lesser competition. In the end, this is a new system so all these supposed strengths and weaknesses are just conjecture. Same goes for any alternative system proposed.
I'm not arguing that they should be banned from qualifying. I'm just saying an argument can be made, if Guyana really has improved, let them prove it by dispatching the other minnows that haven't before they play us. And none of those results are particularly remarkable upsets. Guadaloupe beating Barbados isn't really even an upset at all. They just aren't a full FIFA side so they don't qualify. They do fairly well in Gold Cup qualifying (like Martinique, but Martinique is better). The only good argument that can be made is that the minnows playing Mexico, the US and Costa Rica will help the development of their programs. I'm not sure how much water that argument holds.
If Arena did happen to get hired by Tottenham, who exactly would coach the Nats? Bradley? Or would they promote from the youth coaches like Rongen, Ellinger and Mooch? Or would they go foreign and bring somebody in? Seems an unlikely scenario, but it's an interesting exercise I guess.
And the flip side is that if we or Mexico are so good, why worry about playing the minnows. I just come from a wrestling background where at the higher levels, it's a tradition to make the better people work just as hard as the unseeded guys to win a tournament. I just worry about haughtiness when - in reality - we've only qualified two cycles in a row and both times we had our struggles. But they are upsets. Upsets can happen. The whole premise of this debate started with the corruption of CONCACAF. What's more corrupt that saying certain countries are less worthy than others? Let's decide it on the field. Everyone at square one. Since this has never been done this way, I'd counter that no one knows. I generally think CONCACAF has its collective head up its ass, but I'm willing to give this idea its props.
In any case, Concacaf has 25 minnows. Only a few of the minnows will get the opportunity to face the big boys ... That should be decided according to merit, not the luck of the draw. BTW Voros, if you're free to discuss the subject, it'd be interesting to hear about how you decided to put your rankings together, how well they correlate with other existing systems, etc. ... but of course, that would belong in a separate thread.
Re: Re: Is WCQ Schedule Rigged Against U.S.? I agree that more games the better, but not against minnow opponents. More games increase the chance of injury. I hope this new schedule works out, I preferred the old shorter one. We will live we what CONCACAF has given us.
Well, due to the finances of getting Bruce, I doubt Tottenham would go after him, specially since he has no European club level experience. But I am interested to who would replace him...
You must have missed the thread Flannigan started about FIFA's conspiracy to get the US team out of World Cup 2002 ASAP.
At the risk of being called an Arena Ass Kisser or whatever silly moniker the haters used before he made Portugal and Mexico his twin bitches, Bruce gave the new system an endorsement Saturday night in the booth for the LA game.
I predicted in threads here before the Cup that the draw would not be random and that we would be "drawn" into Korea, not Japan. The tea leaves seemed pretty obvious to me but then, I had a 50-50 chance of being right. I also correctly predicted that referees would be biased against the U.S. to send us home early. I see no reason to change that prediction in light of the outrageous calls we got in the Korea and Germany games. Even Beckenbauer said we got robbed. But I'm wrong a lot too. I think I was wrong about having Hejduk on the team and offered my apologies. Concerning the World Cup "draw" for 2004, it may interest you that Mexico requested and was granted, a delay of two games in the first round, due to a scheduling conflict with the Copa Libertadores. This seems reasonable to me, as well as not having any games at alll during a 9 week period from April to June 2004 when the Mexican League is deciding its champion. We will get no such favors. We have 6 semi-final games in 59 days right in the heart of MLS playoffs and the US Open. Even if our players get released, which is not at all certain, how many games can these guys play in a 59 day period? The MLS calendar is already packed during most of that time frame.
Okay - I removed some of the politically-charged stuff, feel free to discuss that elsewhere. I haven't read this thread, but please keep it on course, assuming it has a course.
Best. Post. Ever. -The Razov "trafic error." -the "rigging" to keep us from advancing from the first round And this thread will add to the list. I really am boggled by the ignorance of some people who think MLS won't recognize something like this and, you know, adjust the frigging schedule. But someone's gotta carry the cross. Come on boys and qualify! You've already got people making excuses in case things don't go well, so focus on doing your job!
Mexico has been treated with kid gloves with the WCQ semi-finals. The U.S. gets a boot in the neck. FIFA scheduled the first qualifiers of the semi-final round during the Olympics. We may be bringing a third string to Manzetenango this time. If you take the last Olympics schedule, the cram schedule for the semi-finals and the MLS schedule, this is what Carlos Bocanegra and DaMarcus Beasley would be asked to do in a 94 day period that will make or break us for 2006. Olympics in Greece Aug 13, 2004 U.S. v. Czech Republic Aug 16, 2004 U.S. v. Cameroon Aug 22, 2004 U.S. v. Japan Aug 25, 2004 U.S. v. Spain Aug. 29, 2004 U.S. v. Chile WILL MISS WORLD CUP QUALIFIER ON AUGUST 18, 2004 Sep. 4-5, 2004 World Cup Qualifier Sep. 8, 2004 World Cup Qualifier Sept. 13, 2004 Chicago Fire at L.A. Sep. 20, 2004 Chicago Fire at Dallas Sep. 24, 2004 US Open Cup LA at Chicago Oct. 1, 2004 Chicago Fire at home v. Colorado Oct. 4, 2004 Chicago Fire at LA October 9/10, 2004 World Cup Qualifier Oct. 10, 2004Chicago Fire v. Columbus Oct. 13, 2004 World Cup Qualifier Oct. 15, 2004 US Open Cup Final in NY Oct. 18, 2004 Chicago Fire hosts Colorado Oct. 26, 2004 Chicago Fire at Columbus Nov. 1, 2004 Chicago Fire MLS Playoff away game Nov. 9, 2004 Chicago Fire MLS Playoff game at home Nov. 17, 2004 World Cup Qualifier If you add in 2 friendlies to tune up for the WCQs, that means 23 games in 94 days. Even if they get released for some of these games, do you think they will be any good after playing such a brutal schedule? Remember what Coach Arena said after the Brasil game in the Gold Cup? We may not make it through the semi-finals with this schedule.
Can you tell the folks at MLS and the USSF I'd like a copy of next year's schedule too, please. Thanks.
He does have a point about the game taking place during the Olympics. That's just stupid. Other than that, the schedule as fine as long as MLS and the USSF make adjustments. Anyone who thinks the qualifying schedule won't be taken into consideration when drawing up 2004 domestic schedules is just stupid.