Poll: How do you look at the US

The USA and Australia are on par with each other?
Croatia, Poland and Mexico are a whole level above the US?
You have to place the US as at the very least as a rising team, if not a powerhouse. You can certainly say that they are not legendary or even near legendary because the word legendary requires a long history. It was a rare site to see a US team at the World Cup until 1990, but they haven't missed since. With the exception of 1998 where the US completely stunk it up, the US has progressively preformed better and better at each cup.

You said that the US could only beat Mexico and Costa Rica at home. The US lost to Costa Rica away after qualifying and sending all of the European club players back to Europe. Bruce Arena was more interested in determining his World Cup roster than fielding a team that could beat a Costa Rica team that still needed points to quality.

As for Mexico, the US always has trouble playing Mexico at Azteca. Playing at Azteca is a massive advantage. The altitude and the Mexico City air pollution make it difficult to breathe. After the game, if you blow your nose, black goop comes out. However, since 1991, the US holds a 10-6-6 advantage against Mexico. The last game played before 1991 was in 1980 and the US won that game too. If Mexico is so much better, why did the US win the CONCACAF region in WC qualifying?

As for Poland, didn't the US just beat them in Germany with full squads on each team? I believe the US was also victorious in their last game with Portugal and that was played with full squads too.

Mediocre? I don't think so. Powerhouse? Maybe, but definately at least a rising team. If you look at what the US has done from 1990 to 2006, there are very few teams that would meet that definition so well.

 

O yeah , we should listen to ac2004 , Serbia and Montenegro are obviously a powerhouse team . and Mexico is definitely way better than us . Anyone remember June 17, 2002 ?
I dont care how you rate teams , because from your rating system , its completely wrong . The Polish are a very strong and physical team , similar to the Czechs , but we just beat them in Kaiserslautern . We have a fifteen percent chance of beating Italy ? Where does this number come from ? A WC is a WC , and anything can happen , and this would not be one of the bigger upsets if we took points from the Italians .
We didnt beat Mexico away because the Azteca is a very difficult place to play at , and we gave away two stupid goals in five minutes . We lost to Costa Rica because we sent a B team there since we were already the first to qualify from our group . Do your research .

Please stop talking about the Triple R threat , Brazil has nothing to do with this thread at all . And you continuously talking about those three players shows you know nothing more of the Brazil squad .

 

I agree with almost everything stated. However, a 15% chance of beating Italy is not really that bad. I think that the chances of a draw are far more likely. I know you really like the US, but do you really think that the US has a better chance of beating Italy than Italy has of beating the US? I am not saying that Italy will win and I agree that anything can happen, but isn't a draw also part of anything and a more likely result than a US win.

I would probably say that the chances of a US win are about 15 to 20%, the chances of an Italian win is about 35 to 40% and a draw somewhere between 40 and 50%.

As I understand it, a draw is taking points away as your opponent is only getting 1 instead of 3 points for the match. The above chances are well over 50% that the US would do that.

 

Why is Mexico for the past several years, more favored to go to the World Cup semifinals than the US in the past few World Cups before 2002? Why is Mexico labeled the giants of CONCACAF? By the way, didn't Mexico win more Gold Cups than the US? That's why Mexico has usually been better than the US, and thereby a level above the US, even though the US has beaten them recently. The US has improved, but they certainly have not proven that they are a rising team. They have an iffy record against rising teams and powerhouse teams, and have a dismal record against near-legendary teams and legendary teams.

 

Other than what I have been mentioning, Adriano will also come in and outplay the US defense while scoring goals, Juninho, Kaka, and Edmilson will cause so much frustration for the US defense and midfielders, while Cafu, Roberto Carlos and Rocque Junior will block any US attack from even coming into the penalty area, leaving Dida just watching the entire match.

I'm going to restate an argument that you may not have read. If the US wants to get the best World Cup experience by either repeating 2002, or even go all the way, they are going to have to get first place in their group, because if they get second place, they will face Brazil. Brazil will win their group, no doubt about that. The US should avoid Brazil, because if the US plays Brazil, Brazil will beat them, no matter what resistance the US will put up.

 

Well, at least you didn't mention the triple R threat this time!

You are going to have to define what a rising team is. How can you say that the US is not a rising team based on what they have done between 1990 and 2006? There is no better definition of a rising team! The US has gone from a team that could almost never even qualify for the world cup prior to 1990 to qualifying in every cup that followed and progressing further in each cup other than the 1998 cup.

Mexico was expected to go farther than the US prior to 2002 because the US didn't have the history that Mexico had. Remember we are talking about a rising team. If they are rising, that doesn't mean that they were going to go farther than Mexico prior to 2002. By the way, why did you cut off at 2002? Was it that the US beat Mexico in that Cup soundly by 2 goals? Mexico showed such great sportsmanship in that game too, trying to pick fights and assaulting players cleat first. (But I digress.)

As for the Gold Cups, there has been 8. From 1991 to 1998, Mexico won 3 and the US won 1. We are getting back to being a rising team now. See if you see a difference here. From 2000 to 2006, the US won 2 and Mexico won only 1. That certainly looks like the US is improving or in other words rising.

I don't know how Mexico can be labeled the giants of the CONCACAF when they are only one country. However, that term is probably because of their domination of the group before 1991. Old titles die hard.

I am glad that you agree that the US has improved. Someone must have hit you over the head. However, did I not just show that your rationale for why the US is not a rising team is completely false and that in fact there can be no better example of a team that is to be called a rising team than the US?

 

It is not guarranteed that Brazil will win its group. Remember that Croatia is in their group and you touted Croatia as a power house. Last I heard, power houses were teams not to be reckoned with. If Brazil had to win the group to advance, Brazil would win the group, but they don't have to win the group to advance. A draw here or there by Brazil and a win here or there by Croatia and Croatia wins the group.

Result: A 2nd place US team plays Croatia!

 

The US has proved that they can beat pushover teams, and at least beat and draw with mediocre teams. But they still have an iffy record against rising teams, powerhouse teams while having a dismal record against near-legendary and legendary teams. I define a rising team as a team that can beat pushover teams, mediocre teams, other rising teams and have the weapons to beat powerhouse teams and near-legendary teams. They have to have an iffy, but not dismal record against powerhouse and near-legendary teams. So far the US drew with another mediocre team, Jamaica, was clearly beaten by a legendary team, and have beaten numerous pushover teams (other than Mexico and Costa Rica) in order to qualify for this World Cup.

Mexico is no pushover for the US. Everytime I see the US playing Mexico, I get the feeling that Mexico will beat them because Mexicans are more passionate about football compared to the Americans.

 

Croatia winning Group F? Not a chance. Brazil wants to defend its championship and really wants to get out of the group. Brazil is a legendary team, meaning it can beat any team. The only way Brazil can be stopped will be if they played a legendary team or a near-legendary team.

 

Just to add a little more in-depth info on the Gold Cups (nicely handled Polar Bear ) here is the USA and Mexico's standings in the 8 that have been held so far....

1991
USA Champions, Honduras 2nd place (USA beat Mexico 2-0 in the SFs and Mexico finished 3rd)

1993
Mexico Champions, USA 2nd place

1996
Mexico Champions, Brazil 2nd place (USA 3rd place...lost to Brazil in SF 1-0)

1998
Mexico Champions, USA 2nd place (lost 1-0 to Mexico in the final, but beat Brazil 1-0 to get to final)

2000
Canada Champions, Colombia 2nd place (USA finishes 5th....lost to Columbia in QF on PKs) (Mexico also went out in the QF, losing to Canada)

2002
USA Champions, Costa Rica 2nd place (Mexico went out in QF on PKs to Korea)

2003
Mexico Champions, Brazil 2nd place (USA 3rd place...lost to Brazil in SF 2-1 in OT)

2005
USA Champions, Panama 2nd place (Mexico lost to Columbia 2-1 in QF)

As you can see, Mexico does have 1 more Championship than us (4 to 3), but we have finished in the top 3 teams 7 out of 8 times. Mexico has only managed to be in the top 3 teams 5 out of 8 times.

Also, someone else mentioned that our record against Mexico since 1991 is 10-6-6 (it's actually 10w-7L-7T....and that's if you're counting the 2 games in 1991, a win and a tie). Since 2000 (including the games in 2000) our record is even much more impressive...7w-2L-1T (and both losses were in Azteca).

 

Then why do we beat them more often than they beat us nowadays? (look at the record)

It's like you're living on some other planet and have no grasp of the facts whatsoever.

 

I guess it's because if there's one team that the US knows very well, that team would be Mexico. They played Mexico numerous times, that the US is getting smarter, and now somehow knows how to beat Mexico. But the US still have not proved that they are a rising team by beating other rising teams as well. They still have an iffy record against powerhouse teams, and have a dismal record against near-legendary teams and legendary teams. The US is still a mediocre team, and unless they prove themselves by beating more rising and powerhouse teams, then the US would be a rising team.

 

For a team to be a rising team, does their team filled with only 3 potential WC starters have to beat a full squad legendary team on their home soil like Germany last month?

Does it have to beat a Jamaican team when it plays mostly with players that are trying to make the WC roster, subbing liberally with players that won't even be in the WC? Remember, the US didn't lose the game.

The US beat 2 of the 3 rising teams you listed in just the last 8 months with full squads on each side and didn't lose or draw to any of them.

Of your power house teams, the US has only played 1 in the last 4 years and the US won that game with full squads on each side.

Of the legendary or near legendary teams, the US has only played 1 in the last year or so and the US lost to England when both sides fielded partially full teams.

As for Mexico, I don't know why you get the feeling that Mexico will win each time. When they don't, you would think that you would start to change your feelings. Mexico is not a pushover for the US, but I would bet money that the US will not lose anytime that the US and Mexico meet at full strength and they are playing anywhere in the world except Azteca or any other stadium in Mexico City. The company I work for had a manufacturing plant in Mexico City. I know how bad the air pollution is there.

As for the Mexican passion, you are definately right. However, it doesn't always show up in the form of effort. When they get down, they get mean. If they can't beat you, they beat you. They don't necessarily walk away with the win, but they walk away with the least amount of bruises.

 

Ok.....and how does this square with your previous statement?

This one...

I mean, do you really have any clue what you're saying?

Let me reiterate......in the last 10 games we've won 7 times, lost 2 (in Azteca), and tied once. That's a 75% winning record.....pretty darn good in soccer don'tcha think? rolleyes: )

EDIT: I'm not suggesting Mexico is a push-over or anything, but you'd think with a record like we have against them this century (since 2000) that you might have a little more confidence about us beating them. Also, with a record like this, it doesn't make sense that you'd still pick Mexico over us when you're touting other team's records and reputations and saying that they'll beat us because of them. Your whole argument is based on nothing but the reputations of certain teams. (Pretty much every "fact" you've tried to state has been proven inaccurate.)

 

When the US gets out of group E, will that make them a rising team? That means that they would have had to have knocked out one of your legendary or power house teams.

You'll call that a fluke.

If the US takes Brazil to penalty kicks even with their triple R's, will that make the US a rising team?

Does the US have to win the whole bloody world cup to be a rising team? I'd call that instant legendary status, but I dreaming right now. Wake me up in time for the presentation of the cup.

Just how far does the US have to go in this WC for you to say that they are not mediocre anymore?

 

By the way, why do you think that Mexico is a rising team? I think that they are a stagnant team on the decline. They are a very good team, but they don't seem to be getting any better. Don't you have to be getting better to be a rising team? It is a slow decline, but nonetheless a decline.

Maybe they are as good as they have ever been, but the US passing them makes them look like they are declining.

 

No.

Yes.

I can list plenty of rising teams. The three I mentioned are some examples. South Korea is another. The US did not beat South Korea the last time they played if I'm not mistaken. Ecuador is another as well, and the US has a dismal record against them, even though they beat them once.

Another Powerhouse team I can name is Ukraine. The US also did not beat them either, and the last time they played, they have beaten the US, twice.

True, and the US has no shot in beating them. They have a dismal record against them. Beating any legendary or near-legendary team other than Brazil? 15% chance. Brazil? 10% chance.

 

Welcome to the pick on ac2004 thread. I'm sorry. If you are looking for the "How do you look at the US" thread, we have temporarily hijacked it. Please be patient as I'm sure we will get back to the thread topic at any time. However, any time may be a long time from now.

 

It will take a miracle to get the US to win the whole World Cup, and if they do, they will be considered a legendary team for now, unless they turn into Uruguay post-1950 when they lost their edge (which is why I did not consider Uruguay legendary, I would consider them a Powerhouse team for now).

The US is going to have to go pretty far. They're going to have to make it to the semifinals.

 

So you're contradicting yourself again....all in the same paragraph.

Also, just as you should rate us at least as high as Mexico, you should also rate us at least as high as S. Korea. In the last three games against them, we lost 1-0 in Korea (Dec. 9,2001), we beat them 2-1 in the 2002 Gold Cup (Jan. 19, 2002), and then tied them 1-1 in a completely hostile environment in the 2002 World Cup in Korea.

(Do you ever bother to check facts before you say this stuff?....apparently not.)

 

Unfortunately, he's carrying on this lunacy in almost every thread in this forum (not to mention quite a few threads in other forums).

 

The US is a mediocre team, and if they make it to the semifinals of this World Cup, I'll consider them as a rising team.

 

It will take pretty close to a miracle for the US to win the WC. However, only 4 teams can make it to the semifinals. You are saying that the US has to advance farther than 87% of the entire field to be a rising team. You need to change your group titles. That is insane! Do you realize how many of your legendary and near legendary teams will not be in the final 4, let alone how many of your power house and rising teams that won't be there? You are saying that for the US to be a rising team they have to go farther than all of them.

 

Ok, fine...that's your opinion and you're entitled to it....but when you start throwing other team names around and listing them as better because of this or that and don't have your facts straight, expect to get challenged.

 

When was the last time that Croatia, Poland or Mexico made it to the semifinals? Power house, near legendary and lendary teams are supposed to get to the semis, not rising teams.