Hey, since we're talking about how the USA compares to other countries, I don't know if anyone would find this interesting, but I crunched some numbers to combine the FIFA and ELO world rankings. FIFA ranks the USA 10, and the ELO rankings put the USA at 14. I scaled the ELO points to match the range of the FIFA points, so the numbers would be compatible, and then averaged them together, and the combined FIFA/ELO ranking of the USA (figured that way) was still 10th in the world. My results of doing this: Combined Top 20 FIFA/ELO World Rankings for June 2005: 1 Brazil 1961 2 Argentina 1947 3 Czech Republic 1943 4 Netherlands 1939 5 England 1913 6 France 1903 7 Spain 1884 8 Mexico 1879 9 Portugal 1868 10 USA 1843 11 Italy 1842 12 Sweden 1837 13 Greece 1826 14 Germany 1814 15 Ireland 1812 16 Iran 1809 17 Denmark 1803 18 Croatia 1803 19 Turkey 1801 20 Japan 1793 I thought, maybe, by combining two systems the results might be less biased? (ELO is a mod of the system used to rank the world's chess players.)
You know, actually, I've always wondered about that. There's money to be made in America from soccer, it is/was an untapped market. US Soccer is part of FIFA. MLS was formed to "fullfil a promise to US Soccer." This is what I've read. For 40 years, America couldn't make it to a world cup. There were, I think, two Concacaf spots. That was part of the reason. (Typically, Mexico and maybe the Ticos, I think.) Today, they've added more spots, so as many as four from Concacaf go to the world cup. It's almost like they've made it so the USA can't help but qualify for every world cup from now on. I don't have a problem with any of this. To me, maybe, the "higher ups" at FIFA simply have made a plan to help promote soccer in the US, and I'm glad because I like soccer. (I never want to see other sports disappear, but it would be nice if I could turn on the tv and see soccer news once in a while, just like other sports.) The only thing that really puzzles me is this. I think the USA national team really is about 10th in the world... but MLS is way less than EPL/European soccer... how does that work? Anybody have any thoughts on that?
Same reason the Argentina basketball team is #1 in the world, yet the league is inferior. Only 11 players are on the field at any time.
nascar ppl probrably said the same thing 5 - 10 yrs ago. remember the old days only time you'd see nascar was if there was a big-time accident. NOW, you can't run away from it. (Though I try hard ) the reason nascar is is on tv now, is because ppl want to put thier advertisements for nascar stuff. why? becuase the ratings are there. in a way having a bigger profits in advertising allows a bigger budget on tv production. AND in the case of mls, that would mean a bigger budget on PLAYERS. If you really loved soccer & specially MLS soccer now would be the time to sponsor the leauge. Of course do we see McDonalds? No. Do we see Wal-mart? Why even Mastercard left us. Yet, they still advertise soccer stuff around the world. So if anyone here owns a company... well you know...
Yeah, thanks, that's what I was thinking, too. Like how England's B or C team can still beat our A team (minus two players), you're talking about how much depth your national team has, I see, thanks.
Good point, soccer needs sponsors, and I think they're slowly making real progress, especially since that landmark 10 year deal with Adidas.
Well Mr. Scandanavia, we are in fact 10th in the world, and get used to it. Look who the U.S. has beaten in the top 10, Mexico and Portugal since 2002, as well as slaughtering the rest of CONCACAF. So how do you figure the U.S. isn't in 10th? It's not like they've lost to anyone terrible. True we had a poor showing against England, but we are certainley better than your national team which is ranked 12. Not only that, Italy couldn't even get out of the Euro qualifying stage, so they shouldn't be ahead of us either. I'm not going to get into further detail because fighting you is wasting my breath, but when you look at the facts, the US is very deserving of their top 10 spot.
sorry but beating the crap out of the concacaf teams is not a good way to prove ur the 10th in the world...just like mexico aint 6 or whatever they are...now u think the US its better than Italy? all ur doing its making a fool out of yourself by easily showing everyone how u know nothing about football...beating 2 teams from the top 10 in 3 years doesn't make you better...remember, the US lost to England's B team...
You're a fool. The FIFA rankings aren't perfect, everyone knows this, they are what they are. Mexico beat Brazil and drew Argentina (losing on PK's, but that's a draw), perhaps the two best teams right now. They also beat the U.S. at home in WCQ. That proves nothing? That's not too bad. The U.S. lost to England, but neither team were at full strength. The U.S. was without their top striker for example. This debate will all be settled in 12 months.
I was hoping that someone would be posting actual TV ratings over the last weeks, to get an overall picture where it stands. I guess that was a bit optimistic on my part. I know its Summer. Who has time for that?
so because mexico beat brazil once now is at their level? and Mexico will beat everyone from the concacaf when playing at home everyone knows that...
Maybe. If they beat them again at the World Cup then certainly. Mexico beats everyone at home because they're good. The point is, you can't prove Mexico isn't #6 in the world. Perhaps they don't deserve it in a subjective sense, but maybe they do. There is evidence to support it.
Soccer it's more than one result, it's concistency...in the end that's what makes a good team and what proves to the world how good you are...one result won't get u anywhere.. mexico beat brazil in the US = it was the U-23 mexico beats brazil twice in the Azteca = they were playing at home mexico beats brazil in germany = nobody cares about the cup and it's the way it'll be until Mexico starts doing something more important in the WC and not just once, cus Turkey,Greece,Japan's had ONE good tournament...and after that they are at the bottom again... that's the difference between being great and having one good tournament...
They don't have any figures for 2005 yet , but THANKS that helped. By the way , it looks like the figures for MLS are encouraging ; going up slightly yearly.
Yeah, I think it looks very promising, I'm really excited. Did anybody notice ESPN2 trying out MLS games on Friday nights (about twice, I think), and "primetime" slots on Saturdays (well, 10pm, but close enough)...
This man makes an interesting point. This source "IFFHS" seems legit. They rank MLS (find "USA") as the 73rd best pro soccer league in the world: http://www.iffhs.de/main/frame/?maintarget=englisch And the highest ranked US club team (2004) is the K.C. Wizards, ranked 275th in the world: http://www.iffhs.de/main/frame/?maintarget=englisch Granted, Bruce Arena's unit gets special training (high-altitude training, etc.) that MLS club teams do not, like an olympic team I would say. But, there seems to be a big discrepancy between the level of MLS (no offense) and the FIFA ranking of the USA. Argentine basketball team example noted. I just wanted to share this info with everybody. MLS is improving every week and so is our national team. Go USA!
Just wanted to say, and yet, we made it to the quarterfinals in the '02 world cup, and so, in that sense, we were in the top 8!
and Greece won the Euro 2004 and they are not the best in Europe now are they?...u can't talk about one performance to measure a team's level of play, Turkey ended up third, does that make them the 3rd best? nope..the US ended up last in 98, does that make them the worst? nope...