Who was U.S. MVP in the World Cup

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by flanoverseas, Sep 1, 2002.

  1. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    McBride was, as usual, ok. .483 is far from great for a striker. I can't imagine Razov doing worse. I guess he exceeded your expectations, but he wasn't especially productive, unlike Mathis (.882) or, say, Rivaldo (.885).

    1998-2002
    ------------

    Mathis .995 (1537 minutes) (WC .882)
    Wolff .772 (1049 minutes)
    Razov .717 (1130 minutes)
    McBride .568 (3483 minutes) (WC .483)
    Donovan .457 (2165 minutes) (WC .415)
    Kirovski .168 (2146 minutes)

    Not much of a surprise, actually. The big difference was Sanneh, Hejduk, and the fact that we had few injuries. Add the supreme luck of finishing with the worst record of any second round team and getting Mexico as a reward.
     
  2. flanoverseas

    flanoverseas New Member

    Mar 2, 2002
    Xandria
    OK, Reilly, we know you like Mathis, and you don't seem to be egging anyone on yet with your stats...

    If McBride didn't exceed your expectations by setting up the first goal against Portugal, scoring the third and demoralizing Mexico, then you must have thought he was good from the start.

    The guy had never scored against quality competition before. Maybe once against Mexico.
     
  3. flanoverseas

    flanoverseas New Member

    Mar 2, 2002
    Xandria
    very well could've been him too
     
  4. Jordan

    Jordan New Member

    Apr 30, 1999
    Planet Earth
    Oh now he can play GK too??? Let's cloned LD and have him played all the positions since he can play anywhere and everywhere.
     
  5. flanoverseas

    flanoverseas New Member

    Mar 2, 2002
    Xandria
    You're from Mexico, aren't you. Only the Mexican fans follow US fans from forum to forum...
     
  6. Jordan

    Jordan New Member

    Apr 30, 1999
    Planet Earth
    Is that the best you can do??? I am from Mexico because I pointed out to the fact that you said LD can "play anywhere and everywhere". I suggest you get pass your severe obsession with LD and be careful about commenting on what he can and can't do.
     
  7. flanoverseas

    flanoverseas New Member

    Mar 2, 2002
    Xandria
    there you go, being stupid again.

    I've never said what he "can and can't" do. I've only said what he did do. If you really think I was also referring to keeper, then you're even more brainless than previously believed.

    Go troll in the rivalries forum (where you only said you were done arguing with me twice)
     
  8. Jordan

    Jordan New Member

    Apr 30, 1999
    Planet Earth
    I am stupid for stating what you said "
    anywhere and everywhere". I guess the GK is not a position on the field. Any player can play any position, it is a matter of how well they played that position. It is useless arguing with you. I guess your poll proves that you are wrong. Like I said before, better ask the poll on the women's forum and Donovan would have a better chance. You asked why I think Donovan is overhyped. Being labeled "US Soccer Savior" is not overhyped?? If anyone should be labeled that, it is Bruce Arena for bringing US soccer to another height. It was BA who got the US back to respectability after the embarrashment of France 98. As I said before, Donovan is a talented player. He is only 20 years and has a lot of things to accomplish before calling him the savior to US soccer. He was an integral part of the US team, but he alone was not responsible for the US success at the WC. IMO, it was a team effort but Freidel stood out to me because he saves the PK in the Korean game that might have been a major factor why the US advance to the next round.
    BTW, I am done with you. It is useless arguing with a person who only uses half of his brain that is if he has one in the first place.
     
  9. flanoverseas

    flanoverseas New Member

    Mar 2, 2002
    Xandria
    thank effing god
     
  10. Eliezar

    Eliezar Member+

    Jan 27, 2002
    Houston
    Club:
    12 de Octubre
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    statistics can be used to make funny cases

    like maybe McBride is our MVP because

    *McBride is tied for the team goalscoring lead.

    *McBride has 2 game winning goals, rest of the team 0.

    *If McBride scores we win, if McBride doesn't score we don't.

    or maybe Berhalter is our best defender

    *When Berhalter started we gave up .5 goals per game.
    *When Pope/Sanneh started we gave up 1.4 goals per game.
    *When Agoos started we gave up 2 goals per game.

    Kinda funny stuff when you think about it.
     
  11. Noah Dahl

    Noah Dahl New Member

    Nov 1, 2001
    Pottersville
    I would rank these five as follows:

    1. Landon: For reasons Flan has listed. He was just about everywhere and did just about everything, every game.

    2. JOB: Hugely influential on offense, defense and in keeping the team together, but not as consistent as LD.

    3. Sanneh: the award is "most valuable player" not "best performance." But that performance - the way he raised his game - was surely influential beyond his area of the field. Should've made all-tourney team.

    4. Reyna: Too late to the dance, but when he decided to show up, fired up, he was our most impressive player. I'm thinking of the Germany game. We coulda used that influence from game one. See: Sanneh.

    5. Friedel: I can fault him like crazy, but he still put in an awesome performance.
     
  12. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    Words can be misused just as easily as numbers. I suggest we use no more words.
     
  13. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    I thought and think he is average, which means he is capable and likely to have some good games.

    People fail to realize that the difference between someone like a Beckham and an Eddie Lewis is a mere 1 NET goal per 5 or so games. This is true in most team sports. A .350 hitter is only likely to produce an extra run every fourth game or so as compared to an average player. The difference between a world class player like Mathis and a mediocre one like McBride is similar.
     
  14. Eliezar

    Eliezar Member+

    Jan 27, 2002
    Houston
    Club:
    12 de Octubre
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well if you can make an arguement to convince us to not use words without having using words maybe you will make sense.

    Your numbers indicate that Mathis had more impact per minute than McBride. But that is all your numbers indicate. McBride was much more valuable to us than Mathis was at the World Cup. You can argue that if Mathis played equal time to McBride he would have been more valuable, but that is not a logical arguement.

    I might think you are right, but it doesn't have to end up that way.

    Your vote for Mathis is pretty thoughtless and dishonest.

    1) How could our MVP be someone who didn't play in any game we won? If he's so valuable how come our record was better in games he didn't play in (2-0) than in games he started (0-1-1)?

    2) How can it be that in games our MVP plays we score .667 goals per and in games our MVP does not play we score 2.5 goals per when the said MVP is a forward?


    I seriously doubt a rational person thinks that Clint was our MVP in the world cup. Maybe his mother does and maybe someone thinks he's the best player on our roster.

    However, the most valuable player at the World Cup Mathis is not. 1 meaninglful goal. Sure without his goal we would not have advanced. Of course without JOBs or McBride's we would not have either. All of our 4 goals in the first 2 games carry the same weight.

    So try to pull up some statistics and act like they point to Mathis having a bigger impact than McBride or JOB or Friedel or whoever you would like, BUT...

    Mathis was not our MVP.
     
  15. Ian McCracken

    Ian McCracken Member

    May 28, 1999
    USA
    Club:
    SS Lazio Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    Kasey Keller could've stepped in and done just as well as Friedal. If Sanneh didn't play, who would've stepped up and filled his role? Nobody. Sanneh was MVP.
     
  16. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    Easily McBride for me. Played huge in Portugal and Mexico games -- game winning goals in each -- and did everything that was asked of him and more. And I'm almost as big a Mathis homer as BenReilly.
     
  17. soccerdome

    soccerdome New Member

    He was unbelievable. He should have been nominated as well. I think the overall, best thing about this World Cup for the US is that almost everyone did their job well. There were some stand-outs but we didn't rely on "stars" like some other teams did. I believe that was our stregth and that is how we got to the quarter-finals. We must continue to work this well together and have that same chemistry. :)
     
  18. Serie Zed

    Serie Zed Member

    Jul 14, 2000
    Arlington
    Re: Re: Who was U.S. MVP in the World Cup

    If it will shut you up, I'm all for this latest idea of yours.
     
  19. Ghost

    Ghost Member+

    Sep 5, 2001
    Ben,

    Come on. Even you don't believe what you're saying. You're trying to justify the validity of your mathematical formula by saying it proves a conclusion that nobody buys. You're arguing that a man who didn't play in a single win is clearly the MVP. You think you're establishing the credibility of your theory, but actually you're just undermining it.

    Sanneh in my view was the MVP. I think he won the poll immediately after the cup. JOB, Brad, Pope, Reyna, McBride and LD all deserve consideration. It's great that we have so many candidates.
     
  20. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002


    Mathis not only accomplished more per minute, but he accomplished as much in far less time. He was demonstrably more productive than McBride.
    As I've explained to others here in the past, one player accounts for 4.5% of the game. I realize how that little fact is so terribly confusing for soccer fans, but I will never stop trying to explain this.

    The draw vs. Korea happened to get us into the second round. He was a but for cause for the second round if you're impressed with that sort of thing.

    Sorry, but you can't include Germany as a full game. That is manifestly dishonest. Again, I repeat -- please try to comprehend --- one player is worth 4.5% of the game. Mathis does his part, consistently and world classly.

    Of course most people do not think that. Since I know with certainty that it is the case (leaving Friedel aside for the moment), I am not troubled by this. If most people think the Earth is flat I will be unphased as well. It's humorous, but people will eventually learn. It could take a few hundred years. Hopefully all the data will be preserved.

    Mathis is our best player and I'm pleased to see that he was by far our best player during the World Cup. He was so much better than any other player that he was overall more valuable despite his lack of minutes. A remarkable accomplishment.

    Not necessarily, but I won't debate the point. For the sake of simplicity, I'll ignore the fact that some goals and assists require more skill. In other words, without Mathis we do not score against Korea. Without Mathis starting, we do not score against Germany. Razov would have had no trouble scoring any of McBride's goals. But I will not pursue this line of argument because it is not necessary. It is reflected in McBride's inferior stats. The fact is that McBride had 2 goals and assists just like Mathis, but needed far more time, thus taking up a valuable resource. Remember, we didn't go with 10 men while Mathis sat.


    Sure he was. I'm not "pulling up some stats" as I've used the same standards long before this World Cup. All good offensive players have Mathis type numbers (Rivaldo, Ronaldo, Beckham, ect.). Of course, during a short tournament anything can happen, but it was nice to see that Mathis kept up to his loftly standards while McBride didn't fall below his mediocrity.

    Anyways, folks, I don't have time to go into any more long Mathis discussions. Let me know when the Nats find a more productive player and I'll happily discuss him. In the meantime, the Earth is round and Mathis is our MVP.
     
  21. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    I'm not interested in persuading anyone as I am 100% certain that I am correct. Should even the slightest doubt creep in my mind, I might seek the comfort of popular support, but not in this case.

    I will admit that I define MVP a little differently than others. For example, I would probably vote Ralston as MVP for the MLS this year even if (when) the Revs fail to make the playoffs. To me, MVP = best. I was happy to see Kahn ranked the MVP of the tournament even though Germany lost to Brazil.

    One could also argue that drawing a semi-finalist is comparable, if not better, than beating a team that didn't get out of the first round or beating Mexico for the nth time. However, I do not make that claim. All I say is that Mathis was our best player by a good margin. And it remains a fact that we would have failed without him.
     
  22. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    You just think I'm a Mathis homer, but it isn't true. You won't hear me argue that he deserves MVP this year in MLS. McBride simply was mediocre overall, though he played well at times, as most mediocre players do now and again.
     
  23. Lloyd Heilbrunn

    Lloyd Heilbrunn Member+

    Feb 11, 2002
    Jupiter, Fl.
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Mcbride

    His play was mediocre overall. We shouldn't set out sights that low>>>>>

    We won two games and he had two game winning goals, give him his fair dues.......
     
  24. dark knight

    dark knight Super Moderator
    Staff Member

    Dec 15, 1999
    Club:
    Leicester City FC
    Look, Ben, we live in a society. One of the clear rules of society is that you don't come into a thread and argue with a bunch of people, the whole time knowing full well you define things completely different than everyone. No one here defines MVP as "best" - we define it as most valuable player for the course of the tournament -- so quit arguing about something completely different. The beauty of it is, I guess, you can never be wrong.

    You may not be a Clint homer, but I am. I think Clint is the only player in MLS (including Landon, uh, and Ralton) that clearly looks like he should be playing at a higher level. He's way too good for MLS.
     
  25. Eliezar

    Eliezar Member+

    Jan 27, 2002
    Houston
    Club:
    12 de Octubre
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is *not* a fact. Saying a "what if" is a fact is leaping from rational thinking and abandoning logic and jumping into pure chaos.

    At best we can say that if someone else played instead of Mathis against Korea we would have had a tougher time. However, who is to say that Josh Wolff wouldn't have scored? etc. You can't make that claim.

    Mathis only has 1 thing going in his favor for MVP and that is his goals/assists per minute played.

    That stat is nothing but fluff. His assist was against Poland and was 100% meaningless to our world cup.


    Tony Sanneh had a much more important assist, played in every game, and there is NOBODY else on our roster that could have filled his shoes.

    Mathis obviously had someone else able to fill his shoes as we scored 5 goals in games he didn't start (against tougher competition in Mexico and Portugal) and then you look at the games he gets big minutes and we score a measley 2 goals but we playing considerably weaker opponents (Korea and Poland).

    JOB was more valuable than Mathis. If he doesn't put the first goal in against Portugal we may have been beaten solidly. If he doesn't provide the beautiful ball to Mathis do we get a point from Korea? He was our best central midfielder in the tournament and provided MUCH better value to the team. Who could you replace him with? What bench player? None. JOB provides two plays that were seemingly first round saving as well as a lot of "statless" work in the midfield.

    Friedel was likewise more valueable. He had a great game against Korea and another against Mexico. Without him saving a penalty do we go home after 3? That arguement has the same weight as the Mathis goal arguement.

    I'm not sure this is even a conversation worth having because you take your opinion of "what would happen if.." and call it a "fact". How can you have a rational conversation with someone who ignores the laws of logic to make a case and defines the world in a way nobody else does? You can't.

    So possibly get off the crack and take a college logic class or two before informing us of what are "facts" and what are not.

    By the way, it would appear that BenReilly has left all forms of sane discussion just to troll the forum. What else is making up fictional scenarios and calling them "facts" just to try and have an arguement? Lame
     

Share This Page