So when the 2002 WC team gave up a late goal to South Korea for the draw, that showed a lack of character by that team?
Praising one team does not knock another. I think everyone would agree that the 2004 USMNT would more likely hold the lead against Korea than the 2002 USMNT. We are better, plain and simple. Want an example? Look at how we were destroyed by Poland in 2002. When we were beating Poland 1-0 in Poland this year did you ever get the sense that Poland was on our level? I didn't. Also, look at how we beat Mexico this year. We were the team that took the game to the Mexicans. The Mexican press finally came to the conclusion after that match that the USA was/is better than them. They certainly weren't singing that tune in 2002. Even though we beat Mexico 2-0 in WC2002, Mexico was the better team for much of the game. I'm not taking anything away from the great WC2002 run that we had. It was awesome. However, winning 12 in a row gives us a better indication that we have a very good team.
As a geek, George Lucas makes a good filmmaker. A parsec is roughly 3.2 lightyears. The whole "Kessell Run" thing has never made much sense.
Well it's hard too root for the Dallas Cowboys if you have any intelligence above that of a 4 year old! (Please it's a joke people... any chance I get to pick on the Dallas Cowboys I have to take)
If we want to get overly analytical about that game, I think you have to compare the teams on three dimensions: team chemistry, fitness, skill level of individual players. To my eye in 2002, Korea and the U.S. were pretty close on all three. The U.S. may have been marginally ahead on skill level, but that was offset by an immense home field advantage for the Koreans. I'd say 1-1 was the right result for that game. And it's interesting example for another reason: Guus Hiddink and Bruce Arena were arguably the finest two managers of that competition. A siginificant part of their success can be attributed to their emphasis on team chemistry and fitness.
That would be spaciotemporal. What does it mean. It means a #10 or #8 ranking did concoct something and left a #11 ranking to improve.
Actually, time is a structure, through which 'space' moves... -Where did I put my keys? Or a function of the mere existence of mass... -Hooray for beer! Alternatively, it is a simple observation of change of state... -Out we come, all bloodied and squalling, knowing that for all the points on the compass, there is onlyone direction... And it's only measure is time.... I've often made Kessler runs that took me several miles...
I believe Yoda once coached a team that was unbeaten for 23 parsecs X 4 light years....their streak was broken when England hammered 'em.....13-0 at Millwall....
That sure is a long distance to be unbeaten - especially bad when you consider they ended up at Millwall ok I'll stop now
The 12-game unbeaten streak is nice, despite some CLOSE calls (v Haiti, v Poland, @ Jamaica & @ Panama), but the streak that is MOST impressive IMHO is the 28-game unbeaten streak v CONCACAF opponents (22 wins & 6 draws) since the 2-0 loss @ Costa Rica in Sept. 2001. During that span, we've beaten Mexico (more than ONCE), Costa Rica, Honduras & Jamaica. Most of these were friendlies but SO WHAT??!! Obviously, with the Hex around the corner, the streak will come to an end, unfortunately. But to go over THREE years without losing to an opponent from your own confederation is VERY impressive, no matter what!! The best thing about the streaks is that we have not played our best soccer yet IMHO.
This streak means alot for the US national team. 12 unbeaten is very hard to do even if your oppenents arent exactly class.In the national team game most teams cant have a good unbeaten run because of injuries Clubs etc etc. There is no buying a player if one of your players gets injured.This is a great streak for the USA. Now the bad part is the USA isnt getting challenged.When a team dosent get challenged then that team when going to a major competition could suck and not even be a challenge in the Comp.So its very important for USA to get some quality teams for freindlys next year.Teams like England,Argentina,Germany,Czech Republic etc etc.
The most impressive streak may indeed be by the Hungarians, who hadn't lost a game between May, 14, 1950 (5:3 loss at Austria, which was ranked 13th by ELO vs. 6th for Hungary) and July, 4, 1954 (3:2 loss in the World Cup final to West Germany, the latter ranked #2 before and after the game). During that span, the "Magic Magyars" went 30 games without losing and had the most amazing "home and away" destruction of England (ranked #4 in the world then) by a combined score of 13:4. After that loss to the Wundermannschaft, the Hungarians - firmly entrenched as the top team in the world - went another year and a half until they lost 3:1 to Turkey (#22) on February, 19, 1956. In other words, they had one loss in about 5 1/2 years which came in the WC final. It was #1 ranked team in the world from June, 1953 until June, 1957, and then again briefly for several months in 1958.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Hungary national football team Ok, this site says that Hungary's streak was the record until Argentina had a 31 game streak from 1991~1993.
http://www.rsssf.com/tablesa/arg-intres.html Argentina's streak was 18 wins and 13 draws, coming after the 1990 World Cup final loss to Germany, and continuing until a WC qualifying loss at Colombia. They defeated Hungary, USA, Venezuela, Chile, Paraguay x2, Peru x2, Brazil, Colombia, Japan, Wales, Australia, Ivory Coast, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Bolivia, and Mexico.