I dunno if we can win it or not, but the fact that our guys are in it means I’ll be watching soccer this afternoon. That ain’t something I’d normally do.
GEAUX U.S.A.!
Good luck Yanks. You’ll need it. Rooney’s comin’ at ya
… the USA would almost certainly qualify.
They’re ranked 14th in the world, and it’s been years since they ranked lower than 31st. Their international results over the last ten years would indicate they’re legitimately a mid teens-to-twenties rank.
The US is good enough to play in the World Cup but they are still lucky with their group where they along with Mexico are almost certain to qualify every time quite easily. I think you could make a case that their group should get 2/3 slots and not 3/4. That would make the US and Mexico sweat a bit more for their places though both would have qualified anyway this time round.
Don’t read too much into the rankings. But you’re overall point is correct. The US is certainly among the 31 best in the world.
I agree there’s a good case ot be made for 2/3 slots. But I’m happy that it’s 3/4. 
Too bad they don’t allow girls to play on these soccer teams.
Considering it seems like every girl in America is currently playing soccer at school (at least if you watch US television/films), I would think they have a huge pool of great soccer players to choose from.
While I grant the chances of the US winning are slim, odd things do happen. I doubt anyone in England thought they couldn’t beat the US outright, and from news reports, a lot of their sports writers think it was somewhat of a humiliation. I believe the poor English goalie who let that US ball slide by might even be benched because of it (as per MSNBC article today).
Still, every team has good and bad days - if the US has a lot of good days, and the other teams bad days - well, anything is possible. And as mentioned above, Las Vegas bookie 66/1 odds are still not horrible. Not great, but better than, say, 5000/1 odds.
Well, they do have a Women’s World Cup, and you are correct in that the US is one of the elite sides in the world, along with Germany and Brazil. The US won the WWC in 1991 and 1999, and finished third in 1995, 2003, and 2007.
The team would be exactly the same.
No women would even be close to making the bench for the u-17 team. The full women’s national team regularly plays 12 year old kids to even matches. Athleticism matters. A lot.
I’d be interested to hear any evidence that women are excluded by rule.
Well, yes, but they would never be as good as the best men, especially up against men from the rest of the world, where soccer is number one. I don’t even think our best women now can beat our best men now, let alone the rest of the world’s men.
BTW, why is there an “England” team? Why not a UK or British team? And is there a Welsh, Scottish and/or Northern Irish team?
Never mind. Answered here: Why does England compete as a separate entity in the World Cup instead of a UK team? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
Like others have said, you should not put too much stock in what the FIFA ranking says. The ranking is naturally skewed because it is based on the games the US plays, which are predominantly in WC qualifications against a barrage of weak teams. It is no wonder that the US end up winning most of those games, and as a result ends up with a higher score than many European and Latin-American countries which face fiercer opponents on a far more regular basis. When the US do face opponents from those countries the results are typically fairly poor (I recall losing against Slovakia just recently) although the US did do exceptionally well in the Confederations Cup, I’ll have to hand 'em that.
In the World Cup, however, the US, although this is the 6th consecutive tournament that it has qualified for, typically does not progress beyond the 1st round. Very few countries can boast such a World Cup qualification record, yet most that can boast such a record do far, far better when they actually get to the tournament. The US, in the 5 most recent appearances, has won only 3 out of 18 games. This is another reason that I would argue that the qualification system such as it exists today gives the US a much easier time getting to South Africa, in this case, than other countries. Off the top of my head I can think of the Czech Republic, Croatia, Sweden, Norway, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, and Romania which I think are more deserving than the US (as well as a number of other teams) of playing in the World Cup. I have no way of checking it but I’d be willing to bet that the large majority of these countries have winning records against the US. These are only the European countries that I can think off; I am less familiar with African and Latin American teams.
A final reason why I don’t think the US team is very strong (and that the 14th position on the world rank probably significantly overstates their actual prowess) is that the players on the team almost without exception play for second if not third tier teams in the European competitions, often but not always the Premier League. The only player that ‘plays’ for a top-team is Onyewu, who left transfer-free to AC Milan (ie they did not have to pay for hiring him) but the reason ‘plays’ is in brackets is that he has not actually gotten to play any games for them. In other words: the US has no top players, which is why I think it has no top team.
To return to the OP: the US is in the World Cup and since anything can happen in sports they might also win. However, for the moment I think that in the World Cup, the US (and a number of other countries) are way out of their league, literally, and should not get their hopes up.
Thinking the US have an easy route (they do) and thinking they have no business being there (they do) are completely different things. So much so as to be completely unrelated.
You’re holding games from 1990 against them. You’re holding a loss against another WC team (from UEFA! OMG!!!), using their B team, against them.
Plus Howard is one of the best keepers in the world, and Donovan was one of the top players for Everton when he was on loan there. During that time they were basically the best team in the EPL.
So, basically you’re full of shit.
Everton really, really are not, never have and won’t any time soon be ‘the best team in the EPL’.
Yeah, seriously. Everton really haven’t been a power in the Premier League, let alone “the” best team.
As opposed to some of those other “deserving” nations’ teams you mentioned, such as Norway (not a single player on their squad qualifying for a Champions League team outside of the Norwegian league…at least the US has Onyewu, and two players on Rangers), the Czech Republic (only one player, Peter Cech, is on a “top team”…though I’ll admit he’s damn good and on a damn good team), Turkey (only one player on a “top team” outside of Turkey–Hamit Altentop of Bayern Munich, who has only appeared in 47 games in 3+ years), Ukraine (nearly their entire squad plays in their relatively mediocre national league…though they have one bit player for Barcelona and one bit player for Bayern Munich)…I could go on and on.
If you’re defining players as “top players” only if they’re playing for sides like Barcelona or AC Milan or Chelsea, well, there aren’t a lot of top players in the world anyway, and certainly they’re not playing for the national sides you think are “more deserving” than the US. Try again.
Everton had a very good run of form around that time, but in no sense could be described as the best team in the league. They finished 8th. While Donovan did very well at Everton, it’s ridiculous to say his presence made them the best team, he is no Messi. The return to fitness of their best player, Mikel Arteta, also had a lot to do with their good form.
Howard is a decent keeper, but not top class. In his time at Manchester United, he struggled and lost his place a couple times to the distinctly average Roy Caroll, before being replaced by Edwin van der Sar.
Their keeper is currently ranked in the top 5 in the EPL. Cite.
Here is what would happen if the US won the World Cup: It would scare the bejezeeus out of the European football world. Now, Europe is where skilled footballers from poor countries go. Now, old footballers, with diminishing skills go to the United States.
Should the United States win the World Cup, it would add legitimacy to the US league that didn’t even exist 16 years ago when this fine country hosted the biggest sporting event in the world.
Rather than go back to Argentina and coach, an icon at Boca Juniors, Guillermo Barros-Scelloto, chose to take a pay cut to stay with his US team. (I know he was never a great national player, but maybe that’s why Argentina hasn’t won in so long?) Freddie Ljungberg, whose life doesn’t suck (see yesterday’s New York Times Magazine. I tried to link it but couldn’t find it), would have made any of the teams playing in South Africa. Beckham also helps make a point. If it is for tax reasons, for security reasons or simply the result of yearnings to be free, Europe may no longer be the final destination for the finest footballers.
A United States win would accelerate the maturation of Major League Soccer. That would be to the detriment of European football. Everton and Wolverhampton and Stoke City and Queen’s Park Rangers, which make their bones bouncing from the Premiere to the First league all of a sudden, wouldn’t hold the cachet they once did.
The big clubs would probably hold their value, but they’d be hurt. Here’s what Freddie Ljungberg had to say about his vehicle, “Here I only have one car, a Hummer… I felt I got away with having the car here, maybe in Europe I wouldn’t in the same way.”
Drill, baby, Drill.