usa national team and euro 2004

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by adila4, Aug 30, 2002.

  1. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    Re: Photar

    True, but its all we have to judge for qualifying in '02.

    '98 was another time, another place with all different teams. We all knew going into the most recent hex that it was much, much more difficult than the one from '98 qualifying.

    Since we are going back in time, I could thrown in analysis from '94, which would prove actually that almost NO European teams would have qualified from CONCACAF that year. Mexico was the only qualifier, and they won the "group of death" against three European sides.
     
  2. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Convenient that we can drop those results…. okay, use our 2002 results vs. EUFA teams instead. Still think we’d waltz through any European qualifying group?
     
  3. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Re: Re: Photar

    Come on, no European team would have qualified from CONCACAF in 94?! This is just silly.
     
  4. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    Re: Re: Re: Photar

    There was only one space, and Mexico got it.

    Mexico won the group of death that year.

    It is hard to imagine any UEFA team out qualifying Mexico during that campaign. Mexico even finished ahead of Italy in the group stages, a team that ended up in the final.

    Certainly of course, '94 qualifying was an anomoly, and most UEFa teams would have jumped at the chance to qualify out of CONCACAF in any campaign. 1990 and earlier, they would have done extremely well. In 1998, they probably would have done quite well too.

    However, '94 and '02 qualifying would have been very difficult even for the best UEFA sides. '94 would have been nearly impossible.
     
  5. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Re: Re: Re: Re: Photar

    There was only one space, and Mexico got it.

    …but it was also a one horse race with Mexico dominating qualifications.

    Mexico won the group of death that year.

    … via the tie-breaker. All 4 teams had a 1-1-1 records. Must I remind you Mexico lost to Norway? ;)

    It is hard to imagine any UEFA team out qualifying Mexico during that campaign. Mexico even finished ahead of Italy in the group stages, a team that ended up in the final.

    All in all, it was a typical WC for Mexico: strong start in group play only to disappoint in the second round. In the end, 8 UEFA teams finished ahead of Mexico and Mexico had a losing record against UEFA competition.

    1994 Final Standings
    1. Brazil
    2. Italy
    3. Sweden
    4. Bulgeria
    5. Germany
    6. Romania
    7. Holland
    8. Spain

    9. Nigeria
    10. Argentina
    11. Belguim
    12. Saudia Arabia
    13. Mexico
    14. USA
    15. Switzerland
    16. Ireland
    17. Norway
    18. Russia
    19. Columbia
    20. Korea
    21. Bolivia
    22. Cameroon
    23. Morocco
    24. Greece

    I still contend CONCACAF membership would mean certain qualification for a strong European side, and that the U.S. would have a tough time in Euro2004 qualifiers even with the benefit of an “easy” draw.
     
  6. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    I'd like to revive this after some of the results in today's Euro qualifiers--

    Scotland draws the Faroes? Good God.

    The USA would, at worst, finish second in that group. The Faroes are probably worse than Barbados.

    And Finland loses 2-0 to Wales? Ukraine draws Armenia? This is pathetic stuff. I think even VFish would have to agree that the USA would have done better in both cases. :)
     
  7. TxFan

    TxFan Member

    Sep 6, 2001

    'nuff said.
     
  8. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    I wouldn't underestimate Wales. They have their best team for almost 50 years, and an attack of Bellamy, Hartson and Giggs will trouble wost international sides. If they can hold the defence together they could do very well.
     
  9. astabo0ty

    astabo0ty New Member

    Mar 25, 2002
    South Florida
    I'm sorry but some of you guys are idiots. I have heard way too many times "if wateruus wasn't so lucky (they mean good) we would of won the match" or "if kahn wasn't so lucky (again they mean good) we would of won the match. maybe im stupid, BUT isn't that guy standing in the goal supposed to block that ball thingy??? couldn't umm i think korea say if friedel isnt lucky and stops the pk they beat us? don't get me wrong. i think the US has become a very good team and could probably go top 2 in most of those groups but still, stop being so damn cocky. i mean ************, i hate how my brasilian and argentinian friends are cocky, but atleast their country has history. so holland beat us with their B team (haha), just except it, we r still good.
     
  10. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    I wish we had a great team, but that is clearly not the case. Until we can start developing top rate defenders...or even half-decent defenders, we're nowhere near a great team.
     
  11. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    50 years???? I don't think so. Man, read up on WC history.
     
  12. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Yes, people are definitely taking this too far. We were lucky to make the QFs and will have to improve dramatically to make the QFs again. We are far from a great team, especially with our pathetic defense.

    I'm afriad USA fans may be in for a great disappointment in 2006. I posted a list of the teams that have made back to back QFs. Only the elite, great teams have accomplished this in recent times. Interpreted properly, it points out how lucky we were to make it in this time. The QFs are mostly for great teams.
     
  13. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Minnows

    Scotland, Finland, Ukraine, Wales? Come on, you’re talking about minnows… these matches aren’t going to affect my opinion any more than an epic Guatemala/El Salvador showdown might influence a European’s.
     
  14. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    BenReilly

    I disagree, rather than being an aberration, our trip to the quarterfinals was a harbinger. Sure luck played a part in it… but no team makes it that deep into the tournament without a little luck. I simply think our WC 2002 euphoria needs to be tempered will a little of 1998’s pessimism. The true strength of our team probably lies between the two, and our star is definitely on the rise.
     
  15. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    Re: Minnows

    Scotland the the Ukraine are both second seeds currently on the UEFA table of coeffients, and were drawn as second seeds into their respective groups. That doesn't sound minnowish to me.

    But OK, I'll bite. What UEFA teams would you consider to not be minnows? Maybe with this on the table we'll both be able to better understand each other, and come to a clearer agreement on this discussion as a result.
     
  16. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Big Fish, Little Fish

    Scotland the the Ukraine are both second seeds currently on the UEFA table of coeffients, and were drawn as second seeds into their respective groups. That doesn't sound minnowish to me.
    UEFA seeding is meaningless. They are based on a small # of matches (which skews the results) and there are a large # of groups (which means there are a large number of #1 seeds). In reality, the Ukraine and Scotland were generously seeded #19 and #20 respectively.

    But OK, I'll bite. What UEFA teams would you consider to not be minnows?…

    Teams with some pedigree and that have made some noise in past tournaments, not teams that don’t even qualify.
     
  17. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    The only Wales side to reach a World Cup Finals was in 1958, and was by far their greatest side - John Charles, Ivor Allchurch & Jack Kelsey. The only other side which would compare to the current crop is the mid-80's team of Hughes, Rush and Southall, who lost a play-off to Scotland for Mexico 86.

    The current side has more quality players spread throughout the side than that of the 80's, which was 3 stars and the rest average.
     
  18. K.P.

    K.P. Member

    Mar 18, 2001
    Philly
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm sure we can all agree that Holland would easily qualify if they were in CONCACAF ;)
     
  19. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    Re: Big Fish, Little Fish

    Actually, I think Scotland the Ukraine are 21st and 20th respectively, because Portugal was not included in the draw.

    Ok then, with this definition in mind, I'm guessing here as to the actual UEFA teams you would consider to not be minnows:

    Definately (8): Germany, Italy, Spain, England, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Turkey

    Possibily (11): Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Belgium, Croatia, Romania, Russia, Ireland, Poland, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria--or would you consider the success of these sides to be too far in the past for them to still be strong sides?

    I'm also guessing that you would put the USA as, right now, roughly equivalent with the "possibily" sides. This would put them in the top twenty in UEFA, which means they would have a decent chance of qualifying, I think.

    Am I off?
     
  20. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    Change "easily" to "probably" and I'll agree with you. :)
     
  21. VFish

    VFish Member+

    Jan 7, 2001
    Atlanta, GA
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Re: Re: Big Fish, Little Fish

    You’ve done a good job assessing my thinking... basically I'd lump us in with the second tier teams, which means I think we'd be fighting for a second place playoff spot.

    To make it easy, use the FIFA rankings. For all it's shortcomings, it does a fairly good job of separating the wheat from the chafe:

    Top ten = Elite
    2nd ten = 2nd Tier
    21 thru 40 = Minnows that might cause some trouble
    41 thru 52 = Hopeless bottom feeders

    It might be interesting to check the current rankings. They probably do a better job than UEFA's actual seeding process.
     
  22. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    Re: Re: Re: Big Fish, Little Fish

    According to UEFA, Ireland and Turkey are 1st seeds, but England are 2nd seeds (this was done before the World Cup). I believe that they based it on the results from the last 3 qualification campaigns, as UEFA could not be seen to be using the FIFA rankings.
     
  23. K.P.

    K.P. Member

    Mar 18, 2001
    Philly
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Yeah, just like the last world cup. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one "powerhouse" doesn't make Euro 2004 as well.
     
  24. Shaster

    Shaster Member+

    Apr 13, 1999
    El Cerrito, CA, USA
    The good thing is that most countries like Italy or Holland are in same level as before, but US is in a trend to move up. Just wait for our next wave in 2006.
     

Share This Page