I know of very few sports where the quality of a team can be deduced and reduced to one or two or even five games. I was mentioning in another thread yesterday about how the U.S. ought to be slightly better than Egypt looking at results and the resumes of the players involved. I also mentioned that it sure as hell didn't look like it the first two games of the tournament. But as it turns out even the two most recent games are still just two games, and going nuts with the concept of "current form" can lead to the odd sort of reversals you saw today. France started the 2006 World Cup with disappointing draws to Switzerland and South Korea, two teams it generally should handle. "Current form" suggested that even if France advanced, they were unlikely to get far. Of course (after dispatching Togo) they then reeled off three straight wins against Spain, Brazil and Portugal, not shabby for anyone. Ultimately, their longer term class showed up. To truly judge where a team is at, you need to look at a larger body of games. It can be more difficult in international soccer because to do so you often have to look at a longer period of time, but you still need those games. My statistical system uses eight years (with more recent results weighted higher of course) and sometimes I wonder if I might be better going to 12. I'm as guilty as anybody else: it takes an awful lot of deodorant to wash the stink off of that Brazil game and I reacted accordingly. That we went into this tournament thinking Egypt was a game we had a chance to come away with a result in still mattered. In truth, I thought we still could beat Egypt, but I thought there was no way we could do it by enough AND all the other crazy stuff too. I'll be dipped. But again, the lesson now needs to re-applied. As marvelous as this all is, it is once again just the one game. Where we are as a team is judged by a longer term than just the Italy and Brazil matches, but it's also longer term than just the Egypt match too. I'm guessing we're roughly 15-25 in the world, and to me the medium-term goal should be to get that down to the 10-20 range which puts us into longshot territory for the whole enchilada.
You could also argue that Italy might have been a lot different if it weren't for a harsh referee decision. I thought that game looked winnable until the red.
Completely agree, it was an even match up until what I consider a shocking decision on a bad tackle, that in every major league is nothing more than a yellow card, especially considering it was his first foul. Brazil was bad, really bad. I thought Bob was atrocious that match, but on the flipside, managed an excellent match in the face of adversity.
Even-handed and honest analysis. I thought the above paragraph was the best of the lot. There's no reason to panic, nor to shout it on the mountainside. The US are a young team and a work in progress, and the real test, the lasting test, is next summer. Assuming we qualify, which is no cake-walk. I urge the rest of you, if you're just going to spout lines proclaiming Bradley be fired because he is "stupid" and "clueless", or are going to dance like madman and scream at all of Bradley's "haters", please avoid this thread. Thanks.
Good post and spot on. This also showed that our players are indeed good. I didn't understand the nonsense that our player pool was beneath Egypt's pool, as I thought we would trouble them with our speed and size going forward. The game could have been much worse than 3-0 if we were a little more efficient in the final third. This also shows the importance of being prepared and motivated early in games as well as the fact that our players can succeed and perform quite well when given a chance.
My system always had a hard time with Italy. It somewhat missed them in 2006, and will probably miss them again next summer (they were 8th going in and this won't help). They really do seem to get results when and only when they happen to feel like it at the time. A tough team gauge. I'll still say that I don't think they sit as any more of a favorite next year than England. Italy may still be able to turn it on when it counts the most, but that sure does seem like going about it the hard way. Brazil and Spain's method (just try not to stop winning, ever) seems more reliable to me.
Yeah - I put $20 on France in 2006 before the Cup started -- based on your system -- only for Italy to foul it all up! Would have been a nice payoff - should have hedged but I hated Italy too much.
The current Italy player pool appears well below that of Brazil and Spain. History says they would put together a great side and make a run in the WC, but they don't appear to be a very dangerous side as they struggled against us pre-red and looked okay against Egypt. I would not rate them as any more of a favorite than England either.
But the 2006 one wasn't really that impressive either. Cannavaro was always an outstanding defender, but he was an outstanding defender having the tournament of his freakin' life. It does appear that the transition from the Maldini/Nesta/Cannavaro led defense to whatever comes after is a little rocky. But they're Italy, sorting out defense is their reason for living.
Spot on, and I'm to blame for getting a bit hysterical myself, particularly after Kljestan and Beasley kept getting minutes. One thing, how does your system incorporate the effect of South African hookers into the equation?
Italy should have been out against Australia in '06, I believe they were a man down and won with a PK on a dive.
Call all the red cards mistakes if you want,but that's exactly the type of calls that will occur next year. Learn that lesson now.
Well, I wouldn't imagine that the nationality matters. And, though I'd imagine that it's difficult to quantify the precise impact of any hookers once one knows that they're in play, I think there's one pretty reliable way to know whether there will be hookers in play. Here's the code:10 IF Sepp Blatter in town GOTO 20 20 Hookers
How about this, the last 6 non-friendlies.. at El Salvador T at Costa Rica L vs. Honduras W vs. Italy L vs. Brazil L vs. Egypt W Why would you assume the criticism of BB was based on 2 games? In the last 6 competitive games I would say today is the first time the US has played at a level that meets or exceeds expectations. And in all but 2 of these hihg-priority games the US has allowed a score in the first 10 or so minutes.
Most STDs have an incubation period that lasts longer than the tournament, so other than the lower costs, they shouldn't have any more immediate effect than Euro hookers. I've sent an e-mail to the CDC and when I hear back from them, I'll use their info to use a Gaussian method to derive an exponential Bayesian coefficient and work from there.
Which is why I'd really like to see us stop leaving our feet for challenges. It's become a disease for us and it ran rampant again today.
Sorry, but I think your expectations are too unrealistic if you actually thought the USMNT was going to get a result in Costa Rica or win in El Salvador, considering that the USMNT has only ever managed only a tie out of a multitude of games played in Saprissa and Azteca (no points ever at Saprissa). At the other non-T&T CONCACAF opponents, realistic expectations should be for a tie (and of course, wins at home). People really seem to underestimate the advantage that home field confers in CONCACAF qualifying.
Why do you keep saying this? Italy outclassed us and demoralized us. Where did you see us winning that game?
First off there's actually a home win over T&T betweem El Salvador and Costa Rica (and thank god for that). Secondly, it's a bit of a multiple endpoints issue; the match before El Salvador was the big home win against Mexico. So there's no real reason to stop at El Salvador per se. Indeed our last truly competitive game before Mexico was five months earlier, so Mexico would be the most logical endpoint for the series. Looking over the last eight years of results going into the Confed Cup, Bradley's results were slightly better than Arena's compared to the system's expected results for each match. However despite the Egypt win, so far the Confed Cup results would drag Bradley down some. His advantage was so slight, that I would approximate that: Arena 6/22/01 - 6/22/06 == Bradley 1/22/07 - 6/21/09 Maybe Bradley still maintains a slight edge, but I don't think it's one that's statistically significant. The issue is still that it's relative to one another, and doesn't really answer how they compare to some theoretical different coach. It also assumes a constant quality for both the USA and its opponents, and we really don't know how that's changed over time. And yes tomorrow is the third anniversary of Arena's final match in charge. One of the reasons I enjoy doing these ratings, is that it's not just for ranking teams, it can also help try and answer nifty little questions like that
Where we had a two-zero edge in run-of-play scoring chances when the teams were at even strength (though Italy did have one very good look off of a set piece). They only outclassed us once they were up a man, and then only in the second half.
Italy was only down a man because of a refereeing mistake, which pretty much negates the wholel "Grosso dive" argument. The very physically fit Aussies should have done better with that.
Whether what Rico of Kljestan did warranted a red, the reality is that for the foreseeable future, leaving our feet and sending an opponent flying puts us in danger of seeing red in these tournaments, justified or not. So we should just stop and come up with a better way to defend and take it out of their hands. We do it way too much, even today against Egypt. Bradley snagged a yellow today for leaving his feet and going in from behind. He didn't get much of the guy, but given what's gone on so far, that didn't strike me as the wisest thing he's ever done on a soccer field.