Match 5 | England vs. USA | June 12 | Post-Match Thread [R]

I agree with you. He use to frustrate me a lot - for example, any time he's started Brian Ching and then left him on past the 65th minute. He's definitley more deliberate about changing formations or making substitutions. I cannot recall a time in recent memory; however, when his tactics cost us a game. He's patient and I think he's done a good job so I'm not complaining anymore.

 

England disappointed me big time. I can't see them going anywhere this WC.

 

Overrated.

 

Very overrated. And no depth.

 

What team did he play for in MLS?

And that about sums up this post.

 

Green's howler looks even clumsier in the lego version.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXo2nm2ODF0"]YouTube- USA vs England in Lego[/ame]

 

I gotta ask, whose howler was worse: Green's from the other day, or David Seaman's against Brazil in the 2002 World Cup, where he didn't seem to have any clue where he was standing, and let a 35-yard floater sail into the back of the net?

 

i'd say green's was the worse howler. but seaman's mistake cost more.

 

Zidane thinks that the US are better than England.

 

No comparison.
One mistake sent them home, one didn't.

I stopped reading after that because I have a rule if the first two words of a post are clearly false then it's not worth reading. It's been well established that Zidane does not think.

 

Based on performances at this World Cup, he'd be right. But then I tend not to pay too much attention to former-footballer's opinions when they are so publically stated. They tend to have other motives...

 

He's clearly trying to motivate Algeria, but for that to happen there has to be some truth in what he said.

 

We will see tomorrow. If the USA gets out of the group and the Anglish don't, well clearly we are better.

 

The fact that England were appalling against Algeria does not make them a worse team than the US, who they quite clearly outplayed in the opening game.

If England don't beat Slovenia then we deserve to go home, we clearly haven't played well enough so far and our performances in the opening two games fall way short of the performances in the qualifying campaign, when we were far more convincing against better opposition.

I suspect we'll muddle through and improve in the later stages, but there certainly hasn't been much to get excited about so far.

 

If the U.S. finishes ahead of England how are they not a better team? They played the same schedule in the biggest tournament, drew with England, and (in this scenario) finished higher than them. How else would you measure who's the better team?

Funny how in the MLS forums its all "A league schedule where everyone plays everyone balanced proves who the best team is, playoffs are just a random chance" but int the World Cup forum, where everyone is playing everyone balanced apparently that's not a good judge of the best team.

 

In a league there can be no dispute about the comparison between two teams, as they play each other twice, along with playing all the other teams in the league and over the course of a season it becomes very obvious who the best team are.

In a knock out competition, the tables are turned completely and a poor team can have a good day, while a great team have a bad day and knock them out the competition.

North Korea put in a fantastic performance against Brazil, do you think the North Koreans are as good as Brazil ?

You don't need to answer that by the way.

We've been terrible so far, we've deserved the results we've got and either we turn it round or we go home and rightly so, but to suggest that the result of one or two games determines who are the better team is patently ridiculous.

I'm a Hull City fan, we beat Arsenal and Tottenham, drew away at Anfield, so are we one of the best teams in the Premier League ? No, we got relegated. Enjoy your draw if it excites you, but the fact is that you were second best in that game and we didn't play well at all.

 

No, because they lost to Brazil.

So in other words you finished between 18th and 20th. Thus you;re the 18th to 20th best team int he EPL. Just like if the U.S. finishes 2nd, they'll be the 2nd best team in the group. If England finishes 3rd, they'll be 3rd, thus the U.S. is better than England.

Typical Euro response. For years its "The U.S. isn't any good until they prove it at the WC". Should the U.S. advance and England not its "Well it was a bad day, the U.S. still isn't better than England". Just out of curiosity, is there any result that would allow the U.>S to be seen as better than England? What if England goes out and the U.S. makes the quarters? Semis?

 

You don't understand the difference between playing 38 games over a season and playing 2 games in a cup competition ?

Obviously if the US finish second in the group, they will have been the second best performing team in the group, but that doesn't make them a better team than England.

I wish to take nothing away from the US team, they've done well so far and good luck to them, but to suggest that the US are a better team than England and as a consequence are now a major force in world football is ridiculous.

As for your question "is there any result that would allow the U.S to be seen as better than England ?", you could have outplayed us(Howard was MotM after all) and a win would have been fairly impressive, you're hardly going to impress me with hanging on for a draw.

 

As soon as they have a league for national teams we can discuss it. Until then the only option, especially for teams from different confederations, is the World Cup and maybe the Confederations Cup. BTW, when was the last time England beat Spain in competition? When was the last time England led Brazil by 2 in competition? Heck, when was the last time England beat the U.S. in competition?

Since the only competitive matches that both the U.S. and England play are the World Cup, they are the biggest influence on the ratings of both teams. Looking at the results of the World Cup in a scenario where the U.S. finishes ahead of England I have to give serious consideration to the idea that, when the results matter (i.e. not friendlies) on a level playing field (so the teams are playing the same or similar opponents in the same or similar environments), the U.S. is better then England.

How would you choose to judge the teams, if not on World Cup results?

 

If the US gets better results than England in the same group in this World Cup, then the US has shown to be better than England in this tournament. But while I don't find England to have been really any better than the US so far, its best to discuss this issue after the last games are played. There is an undertone in these comments that suggest the US is somehow assured of beating Algeria, an assumption that to me is unwarranted until the US actually beats them. And for all we know, England may show up against Slovenia and light up the scoreboard, although I certainly don't expect anything other than a close match between which either ends in a draw or is decided by a goal here or there.

 

Certainly on more than two games, we won nine of our ten qualifiers for this World Cup, how did you get on ? (I haven't checked)

If you had to bet your parents life on the result of an England v USA game played tomorrow, who would you bet on ?

If you were putting together a single team and could select from the US and England squads, how many US players would you select ?

I'm genuinely interested to know the answers and for the record, I'm quite happy for England to go out tomorrow, I think our players have not played to their potential, have disgraced a nation and should all suffer a slow and painful death(though on the upside, at least we're not French).

 

Not at all,. thus my liberal use of "if the U.S. finishes higher" and "in this scenario". I think that Slovenia is likely to not lose to England though, but I'm not as sure about the U.S. - Algeria result (though that may just be the U.S. fan in me preparing for the worst).

 

3 games, not 2, once the group play is complete. We finished top of our group in both the semifinal round (winning 5 of 6, the only loss after having already qualified) and final round (6-2-2 with one of the draws coming after qualification had been clinched). But qualification, IMO, isn't a good way to judge teams across confederations. Different opponents, different environments, different travel, etc.

Neutral site, current teams? Probably England, but I would have to think long and hard about it given the disarray int he English camp and their play in the WC.

Off the top of my head without giving it much thought, 4 for sure. Howard, Dempsey, Gooch, and Donovan. Just talking about the starting XI. For a full team I'd take all 3 of our keepers over any of your 3.

But England's biggest problem,. IMO, is that they have a bunch of great players who can't play as a team. Just because on a position by position basis a player may be better than his U.S. counterpart doesn't make England a better team.