Because, of course, playing in the Copa America helped Mexico go so much deeper into the World Cup then we did, and...oh, wait...
because usa playing in confederations cup helped them go so much deeper than mexico and ....oh, wait....
So testimonial for older players 3 years before the WC > competition against top teams one year before the World Cup in the World Cup stadiums?.... ummm, no.
Testimonial for Boca, Dolo and Demerit. They'll be too old for the next round of qualifying, but will be relatively in good shape for this 5 game tournament. So, YES.
Not if its at the expense of a the Confed experience a year before the WC in the WC venues against top teams. Look forward not backward
Ah, so you admit it's a wash...in which case, why not go to the ConFed Cup and pick up the trophy for winning the Gold Cup while you're at it?
Exactly. It seems to me that those in opposition are marks for COPA and South American snobs thumbing their nose at their own region's cup and failing to see the bigger picture in 3 years
Plus, of course, as I mentioned to the same poster elsewhere, as far as FIFA ranking points are concerned for the US... (let me repeat that, for the United States...) Gold Cup + Confederations Cup >>> Copa America
Tbf they played the home country, a possible semi-finalist, and France. Mexico are pretty much a lock to advance out of their group. We aren't. And their players are of a higher standard.
The Gold Cup inflates the US self perception. I get its importance and don't want them to abandon it but it doesn't force us to get better. The US can beat sides without getting out of third gear in the Gold Cup. At least by playing better opponents you can gauge where you are and make changes. Not saying Mexico are world beaters but their players look so much better on the ball against quality opponents. I'm sure Copa America played a small role in that as they saw what others were doing and adopted some practices. Of the Confederations Cup squads only two have advanced past the group stages. We talk about how it helps us get a head start but has it really?
Three did. Spain & Brazil - probably would have no matter what US - did New Zealand - came amazingly close Italy - haha SA - Were playing at home anyways, shame on them. Iraq & Egypt - not in WC Not a real solid argument. Who knows how big a factor it really is. I'm of the mindset that it can't hurt.
Not much can be done going up against Argentina, especially when the ref is going to help them. Of course the US lost against a better team than Argentina....oh, wait....
Wouldn't the opportune solution be to send our prospective WC team to Gold Cup and Confed while sending a team of our older guys (players from this world cup who will be too old to play in 14), along with our higher rated sub prospects for the 14 cup to the copa?
But that is assuming that the US will win every Gold Cup. Mexico has won the most Gold Cups so far. And if the US cannot win the Gold Cup it will be without The Confed Cup and Copa America while Mexico will have Copa for sure just in case they lose out on the Confed.
Since the USA and Mexico are the gold cup, wouldn't it be logical to have it the year after a copa america?
Yes, that's because we didn't quit and cry like Mex. U.S. team played 'til the end. "outclassed by Ghana"? It was tied in reg, dude. Lost by one goal. If we were "outclassed by Ghana" then what was Mex against Argentina, esp. when Osorio shat his pants? Y'all whine about Dono pissing on the field. How do you feel about Osorio cr@pping on the field? And, crap, you yourself have to believe that something helped the U.S. tie Slovenia & England. You said that there are only 2 players on the U.S. squad that you'd want on the Mex roster. So, you must think the U.S. talent base is pretty damn bad. Yet we tied 2 teams that qualified out of Europe - how the hell did that happen?
Ya, cause if the ref hadn't blown the call, y'all would've killed Argentina. And, if the ref hadn't given you guys an offside goal against France, they'd have come back & beaten you, as well. Right?
Um, they tied the team universally regarded as the worst team in the tournament going into the cup. A team whose only result in the cup was their draw with Mex. And, the beat a France team in total meltdown. I would bet that when the dust settles, France & RSA will be considered the two worst teams in the tournament. And they lost to a possible semifinalist - why do they get "credit" for a loss?