did you even see me bringing any "ancient" history?...i think the only team in the world based on history it's Uruguay...
Anybody who thinks the odds are ridiculous is encouraged to put their life savings on the line. The link doesn't give the odds anymore, but I'm convinced enough that neither Mexico or USA will win. I also would have given you Greece and 50-1 odds in UEFA 04, so what do I know. And no, I'm not taking that bet either way.
What is this 'behind closed doors' rubbish? Why do (some - actually, most) US fans feel the need to delude themselves that the world is secretly scared of them but won't admit to it? http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/story/0,,1663282,00.html The fact is that the US gets pretty much the right amount of respect due to a solid but unspectacular team who pulled out a couple of decent results in 2002 but has hardly set the world alight since. For christ's sake, some of you really need to get over yourselves.
Those odds seem pretty fair. Mexico has an easy group and even if we advance from our group we may face Brazil. That in itself should make Mexico twice more likely to advance to the round of 16. If we switched groups with Mexico I bet the odds would be pretty much flipflopped as well.
the truth is, the only reason we weren't ranked is because we didn't do all that swell 8 years ago. Okay, we got hammered, but this is a different team now. we've beat mexico both times that it's really counted 2002 WC, 2-0 USA winner qualifies in concacaf, 2-0 USA And we had more chances, better chances, and more posession than Germany, but a hand ball on the line that would have resulted in an almost definate goal and a red card was missed. In all honesty that game was about as fair as the 1986 world cup final. saying that the odds of mexico are twice as good to win the world cup, are, as i said: ridicule. If we didn't have the WC 94 scores affecting the seeding, we probably would have one of the easiest groups in the tournament (like mexico) instead of one of the harder ones. Truth is: mexico will probably advance, because of their group, and it will be very difficult for USA to advance, even though we all know we can do it. You never want to be in a group with the 2nd seeded team in the world, Italy, and an underdog team that could beat you if you don't work hard. There can be no denying that the odds are very, very wrong. England 13/2? come on, everyone can deny that one at least. USA 100/1, just about the same.
If I were to bet on the World Cup, I would probably put a very small bet down on USA at 100-1, although I'd put larger ones on Brazil and Germany. Germany in particular has good odds from a betting perspective, just because I think people tend to underestimate how huge the home advantage is, I mean just look at how far South Korea got last time (and yes, refs were involved, but that's part of the home advantage)...
jaxsoncrabb, The Germs got their only goal on a set piece from a BS free kick/dive.....Don't get me started on the non-call, hand ball on the goal line !!!!! Lastly, Tony Sahna should have buried a great service ball from Mathis with under 2 to play........... The Germs even said that they were lucky to win !! If memory serves me right, MX hosted the cup in 86 and what, didn't make it out of the quarters ??? Lost to ????? you guessed it the CONCACAF killa's, Germany, who lost in the finals to ARG. MX, stop bumpin' your gums about how great you are. You didn't even go deep in 86 and in Azteca. Enough said.
*sigh* The odds reflect the money placed on the teams by people in Britain along with the bookies expectations of the teams. The US are now 100-1 because they're in the GOD and are highly unlikely to win the whole thing. By all means if you think 100-1 is insulting put some money on it, I'm sure your faith will be seen through when you collect your winnings... England's odds are short because money is placed on them whether people think they're going to win or not. Please, will some of you get a clue and get over this whole 'They're underestimating us' crap.