Poll: How do you look at the US

as apoo said..

if you look at the FIFA rankings yeah.... but most teams don't think of us as 5th best in the world.

but if no team should consider us a bye lest they get Portugalized© then i'd say we're about right where we should be.

 

Im sorry guys, most of us Arsenal fans arent as ignorant as Ac2004, I mean wow! I read some of your earlier posts and your so wrong on so many things. First of all Fulham and Man City are two of only a few teams that have beaten Chelsea in the last two years. so that statement is about as false as a statement can be.

Second, Tim Howard is a good keeper, but he is no where near Keller's standard. He sits the pine for Man U and Keller has been a great keeper for every team he plays with. Because Howard has played a few CL games doenst mean that he has more experience than Keller who will be going to his fourth world cup, and this will be Howard's first.

When Keller was in Spain his team was in La Liga, and basically the only reason that they stayed up was because of Keller. Tottenham did not get good because Keller left them, they brought in a new coach and some new quality players, thats the reason. Keller is having a great year in Germany and who cares that he doesnt play for Bayern Munich or Werder Bremen.

The US is overrated in the Fifa rankings but is underated by most people. We can beat Italy, Czech, and Brazil and even if we dont it doesnt mean that we cant. We are good enough to beat anyone in the world, but we are not the best team in the world. You should probably know a little bit more about the US team and its players if your gonna make such bold ignorant statments!

 

I'm not selling anything. Of course there's no setting. The US is a mediocre team because they have proven that they cannot really win games in a European World Cup, and they still face numerous problems. The only Powerhouse team the US has proven to beat is Portugal in the past. The rest of them? The Powerhouse teams have beaten the US numerous times. The US has never beaten a Near-legendary team. The only legendary team that the US has been the strongest against is Argentina, but Argentina did not have its full squad.

I write a lot, that's how I do well, and I'm no spelling bee champion. You're an American aren't you? In Europe, the people there are highly more educated than you might think. The Pele years were a different time. It's 2006 now, and since 1994, Brazil has been nearly unstoppable thanks to their Triple R Threat. The only times that they lost was that they did not have their full Triple R Threat ready during those games, or when they played France in 1998. You Americans underestimate Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, and Robinho too much, and if you play a team like Brazil, with the Triple R threat, as well with extremely powerful players like Adriano, Juninho, Edmilson, Kaka, Cafu, and Roberto Carlos, the US team will be outplayed and beaten 10-0.

The US cannot play very well, are still a mediocre team. Unless I see them beat every team that is stronger than them in this World Cup and make it to the semifinals, I'll change my whole prespective on them, I promise.

 

Still, Manchester City, and Fulham are still in the middle of the rankings. They are still mediocre clubs. If you think of them so highly, how come they have not beaten Manchester United, Liverpool, or even Arsenal? How come they haven't become finalists or Premier League Champions within the last four years?

Keller is nearly 40. That's old by athletic standards. He could lose his edge. Howard gets to train with the world class professionals while Keller gets to train with a mediocre German team, making most of the players mediocre, but slightly better than a MLS team.

If Keller is having a great year, how come his team is not #1, #2 or #3 in the Bundesliga? I did read about the US team, and they have had dismal records against teams that are clearly better than them, making them a mediocre team, and many of their players play in either mediocre leagues (an MLS team cannot beat an Italian Serie A team) or in mediocre clubs in Europe. Donovan could have had the world-class professional experience by playing in Bayer Leverkusen, but chose not to do it. If he really wanted to be closer, and if you say he's talented, he could have went to Mexico's La Primera División, the English Premier League, or the Spanish La Liga.

 

Errrr Man City Beat Man United this year! and Fulham beat Liverpool! What planet do you live on? They've each beaten Chelsea 1 time in the last two seasons....

Mid 30's is pretty standard for a World Class Goalkeeper...Taffarel, Seaman, Kahn, Banks, Shelton, Zoff all played to an advanced age on the biggest stages...it's quite common for GK's to hit their peak later in life and play well into their late 30's. I dunno who you follow or what your story is, but you are way off base here.

Cuz his supporting cast is not all that good perhaps?

PSV Eindhovan and Standard Liege sux? Like they are only No. 1 in their respective Countries...

How can you put these three leagues in the same sentence? Good god.

 

Once again you have proven your ignorance in all things related to soccer. You cant just throw statements out and believe they are true it doesnt work that way.
There is a big difference in training and playing. Howard may get to train vs some great players, but he faces none, while Keller may train with not as good players but he faces great players. Jovan Kirovski trained with Man United players for years but you dont see him in contention for a world cup spot now do you?

 

I guess the numerous times we've beaten Germany don't count? How about England...beat them 2 times...once in the World Cup. USA 1 - Brazil - 0 Gold Cup 1998. You correctly identified Portugal and Argentina...and that's about it. Any powerhouses we left out?

I dunno about Rhonaldinho and Robinho playing in 1998??? hmmm??? You wanna rethink that?

Anyways, the 1998 team were beat by Holland and eeked out a win on PK's and went on to get throttled by France as I recall. In 2002, Turkey outplayed Brazil (Group Play) only to receive a red card rescue.

Don't get me wrong Brazil is a great team....and most sane people have them as the favorites...but they are far from unbeatable.

As for the 3 R's ....err
Robinho - Disappointing
Ronaldo - Old
Rhonaldhino - Amazing
Adriano - A thug, overrated
Junihno - Enjoying a nice revival
Kaka - Great player
Cafu - Good but old.
Carlos - ditto.

Right now you have 2 ,,,maybe 3 great players in their prime....the rest on your list are suspect. Don't be overconfident....

In the last 2 years Brazil has taken hits from Argentina, Mexico, Paraguay and Ecuador.....eminently beatable.

Who cares?

 

Actually, the US split with Mexico in qualifying, but if you want to spead false news that is positive about the US, I'm okay with that.

 

But Mexico has such a dismal record against that "mediocre" US team. Aren't "rising teams" supposed to handle "mediocre" teams?

 

Wow! Looking at those odds, I would have to agree. However, those odds are to win it all! The odds of the US getting out of the group are 8/5! If the US has no chance, that is a terrible payout. In order to entice someone to bet in such a circumstance, you would have to offer double digit to one odds.

 

Once again, you need to change your definition of what a mediocre and rising team is. Teams are not supposed to beat teams that are better than them so to suggest that a team is only rising if it beats every team that is better than them is ludicrous.

Additionally, mediocre means average. Last time I checked, only 32 teams make it to the world cup. The FIFA rankings list 205 teams. Average teams do not qualify for the world cup 5 consecutive times and do so by winning their group in the most recent qualifications.

 

So, I guess this settles it.
40% Over-rated
20% Under-rated
40% Respectively feared

I think that the voting depended a lot about how you took the question. If you just thought, "5th ranked", you probably put over-rated. However, if you disregarded the 5th ranking like the people that voted for over-rated will tell you to do and looked at it as how do you feel that the US is looked at by the other countries, you have to put underated or respectfully feared.

I believe that the majority of the world does not think much of the US and therefore feel that they are under-rated. If all I was doing was looking at the 5th ranking, I would have put over-rated.

Although I have multiple posts on this thread, unlike others, I voted only once.

 

The teams ranked from 102 to 205 are Pushover Teams. More than half of the teams ranked above 102 can be Pushover teams as well. That means that more than 50% of the 205 teams are Pushover teams. How the US got to the World Cup was that the continent is filled with mediocre and pushover teams (except for Costa Rica and Mexico), and the US either beat them or drew with them. Plus the US had won every home match. There are NO Pushover teams in this World Cup, and the FIFA Rankings are unreliable.

How I define a rising team is that a rising team has to have a VERY good record against teams that are only slightly better than them, but beat every pushover team, mediocre team and rising team. They still have to beat teams that are Near-legendary or Legendary at least a few times in order to become a Powerhouse Team. A rising team has to be a considerable threat to a Near-legendary team. A Powerhouse team has to be a very considerable threat to a Near-legendary team or a Legendary team. The only mediocre team that Mexico can't beat is the US and that's a special case. Mexico is higher than the US because Mexico can beat teams that the US can't beat, so they are a rising team. The US is a mediocre team because it can't beat teams that Mexico can beat, and still can't beat mediocre teams like Jamaica recently.

Pushover Teams (American Samoa, Barbados)
Mediocre Teams (USA, Costa Rica, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Angola, Togo, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia)
Rising Teams (Mexico, South Korea, Japan, Iran, Ecuador, Paraguay, Croatia, Poland, Switzerland)
Powerhouse Teams (Ukraine, Serbia and Montenegro, Czech Republic, Portugal, Sweden)
Near-Legendary Teams (Spain and Netherlands)
Legendary Teams (England, France, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Brazil)

 

When did you elevate Costa Rica to a rising team? Honestly, Costa Rica a rising team and the US a mediocre team?

I was only referencing the FIFA rankings to get a total number of FIFA recognized teams, I made no statement of the FIFA rankings reliability as a ranking tool. Having said that, I am not certain that the FIFA rankings are not a more reliable source of determining a teams ranking than you and that is not saying much for your rankings.

Anyway, my point was that your definitions of a rising and a mediocre team are ridiculous. Look in the dictionary. A rising team has to be getting progressively better. That is it, period!

A mediocre team is an average team. If more than 50% of the teams are pushover teams, than by definition, a portion of your pushover teams are average. It's simple mathematics. You take all the team's level of play and divide that by the number of teams.

At the very least, and this would be the very least, please change the names of your ranking levels.

 

Gawd those are the stupidest rankings I have ever seen . If you put us in the same boat as T and T , you obviously have never watched a USA game , and know nothing about the game . We have consistently beat Mexico over the last 6 years , and they are above us ? We just beat Polands full squad with our almost-full squad , but they are above us ? We just beat Japans almost A team with our B almost C team . They are ranked above us ?

Just because you keep posting the exact same thing , and saythat theses teams are better than us and we havent beaten them doesnt make it true .

 

Trinidad and Tobago is no Pushover team. They were able to beat numerous Pushover teams, but the most powerful team that they have full capability of beating is the US, and they are very determined to beat them, if they play the US again. They also have some world-class professional experience as well, like Dwight Yorke.

The US barely beat Japan at home. Japan has beaten teams that the US can't beat, like the Czech Republic, Iran, and Serbia, and even drew with legendary teams like England, Italy and Brazil recently! That's what makes Japan above the US.

Poland did not have its full squad according to one Pole, and they also barely beat them by a single goal. The US did not beat Poland during the 2002 World Cup. The only mediocre team that Mexico can't beat is the US and that's a special case. The US fans get much more riled up when the US plays Mexico, and they can get mad if Mexico beats them. Mexico is higher than the US because Mexico can beat teams that the US can't beat, so they are a rising team. Mexico is much more passionate about football than the US.

The US has been grouped with the Czech Republic and Italy before during the 1990 World Cup. They never made it out of their group. The US played in Europe during the 1998 World Cup again. They never made it out of their group. The only time that the US had made it out of their group was when they were at home or in Asia. History will either repeat itself, unless a miracle comes. I highly doubt that US fans will come to Germany. I estimate only about 5,000, compared to 51,000 Czech fans bloodthirsty for their Powerhouse team to beat the crap out of the US mercilessly, and 43,500 raving Italian fans who will say "USA sucks! USA sucks!" or the Italian equivalent of it. It will be easier and cheaper for the Czechs and Italians to come, and they will have home field advantage, even though the matches are in Germany.

 

I seriously think that you like being stupid. Did you watch the USA game vs Japan? my guess is no, and you just looked at the score. First of all only domestic players from both teams played in that game, and secondly the USA absolutely dominated and was up 3-0 until really late in the match when we made about 4 or 5 subs and they got two goals back. I think Japan had maybe 2 shots on goal until about the 60th minute or so.

Also you cant look at world cup 90 and compare it to teams today, thats just ********ing stupid. Our team was a bunch of college players, we didnt have a league and soccer was so far off of the radar in this country its not even funny. If you look at Brazil then I guess they will only make it to the second round, cause thats what they did in 90. idiot.

98' again that was 8 years ago. things change over time, I think that is something that you should look at. A team taht was good 8 years ago doesnt mean they will be good now, or vice versa. We did suck in France, but there were a lot of internal problems with our team and we had a horrible coach. Plus our league was only 2 years old.

Friend, the USA is a legitimate soccer team, not the best but a very good team. Im sorry, I know how everyone hates the fact that we are getting better beucase its the one thing taht we have not been good at in the past but things are changing, stop trying to ignore us and hope that we are going to go away, we are here to stay and we will get better every year!

 

If you say so, then I will respect your team if they ever make it to the semifinals of this World Cup this year.

If they fail to make it out of the "Group of Death" then the US will still be a mediocre team. If they make it to 2nd place in this group, they will play Brazil, and Brazil will beat them, no matter what with their Triple R Threat, Adriano, Juninho, Edmilson, Kaka, Cafu and Roberto Carlos. Then, the US will still be a mediocre team. All the European teams, even though the World Cup is in Germany, will have home field advantage. I highly doubt that US fans will come to Germany. I estimate only about 5,000, compared to 51,000 Czech fans bloodthirsty for their Powerhouse team to beat the crap out of the US mercilessly, and 43,500 raving Italian fans who will say "USA sucks! USA sucks!" or the Italian equivalent of it. It will be easier and cheaper for the Czechs and Italians to come, and they will have home field advantage, even though the matches are in Germany.

 

Just comical. I admire the way you steadfastly ram the point home. Almost robotic in it's consistency and relentlessness. I look forward to seeing this quote a few more times now that you've flushed out this part of your manifesto.

As far as the balloting goes, I agree with the sentiments that the US is overrated by FIFA rankings, respected by ELO ratings, and underrated by the typical soccer viewer - both European as well as in the US. US fans believe that their team can win - but those that are not as knowledgable give their team very little chance to win. This is probably a real effect of the "legendary" status of the Italian National team and general deferral to the quality of European soccer in general in the US.

But that's just it - status based rankings like "Mediocre/Legendary" and stats based rankings like FIFA's are not helpful in the discussion of national teams. The reason being that it's so rare (like, once every 4 years), that a full strength national team actually gets together that you can't use statistics, and status is only a result of long-past performance. That's why I really like the BS boards - because they'll bring you a much broader perspective on the current quality of each team based on the skill of the players, current form of players, and how they play together as a team.

Look - we're all aware of Brazil's quality. We also are quite aware of their roster and/or can look it up ourselves. We have little confidence in beating them but know it's still possible.

What we're looking for on these boards (or at least what I'm looking for) is reports and information on the current form of players and how well they're playing together as a team - particularly for Italy and Czech. That's why I like btleo's posts so much - team and player insight from a different perspective. Wins and losses play little role except for qualifying, and past success is not indicative of future results.

By the way, squadra - YHBT. Sorry about your thread.

 

Are you responding to me or ac2004? If you read my posts, I don't see how you could have responded as such. I agree with you that ac2004's rankings are stupid. T&T, Costa Rica and even Mexico are not as good as the US. Mexico must have got its seeding strictly on its history going back well beyond the 2002 cup.

Maybe you were confused in that the bulk of the post you responded to had to do with the definition of rising and mediocre. I don't feel that ac2004 realizes what they mean. I never said that any of those teams are better than the US and I don't think that it is true.

 

soooooo, lemme get these rules straight.

if USA makes it out of its group (meaning likely either Italy of the Czechs go home) and loses the first quarterfinal, it's still "mediocre".
if England or Italy don't get out of their group, they're still considered "legendary".

makes sense to me

 

No i wasnt talking about your rankings , I was talking about ac2004's .

ac2004 , I really dont care what you think , because from your posts it is obvious you do not watch the USMNT , and you only state what you believe , not what is actually true . If you want to continue to say other teams will beat us because they '' are thirsty for vengence '' and stupid crap like that , then thats fine , but just because you say it doesnt make it true . The US goes out to prove themselves also because its obvious we dont get the respect we have earned . You can label us however you want to , mediocre , rising , pushover . But it doesnt matter . Youre an idiot .

 

i hope hes just saying all of this to annoy people, and that he doesnt REALLY feel this way...

 

Why do you care what he really thinks?

I do think that he gets a kick out people responding to his babble though. I have been guilty of falling for it too many times.

 

I was actually about to brandish this argument out of my holster. Why was Mexico seeded instead of the US? It shows that Mexico was better than the US, and that's why I put them one level above. There's got to be a better argument other than history though. It might show that Mexico could be better than the US because if the US got seeded, the US would have not have ended up in the "Group of Death".

Yes, if Italy and England still do not get out of their group they are still Legendary teams because they still have left a lasting legacy on football. England still has the legacy, Italy has a storied history, and won more World Cups. The US will still be a mediocre team unless they make it to the semifinals. They have to beat teams that other rising teams have beaten in the past in order to be a rising team.

From the first statement are you saying that anything could happen? In the 2002 World Cup a lot of dreams were killed by Legendary teams. The same went for 1994. The only time a dream came true within the last ten years was when France became a Legendary team in 1998. They would have been a Near-legendary team if they didn't win.

From that last statement, it seems that you're accepting the fact that Brazil is better than the US. But you still believe that the US can beat them? How?

Idiot huh? This might be a correct fact after all: All the European teams, even though the World Cup is in Germany, will have home field advantage. I highly doubt that US fans will come to Germany. I estimate only about 5,000, compared to 51,000 Czech fans bloodthirsty for their Powerhouse team to beat the crap out of the US mercilessly, and 43,500 raving Italian fans who will say "USA sucks! USA sucks!" or the Italian equivalent of it. It will be easier and cheaper for the Czechs and Italians to come, and they will have home field advantage, even though the matches are in Germany. That means that the US has very little chances in beating those teams, and the US will still retain the status of a Mediocre team.

Are you on to something?