Is the U.S. a favorite to win a World Cup in my lifetime?

The Game Room
101

I agree with your general point that it is very hard to break into the elite group, having made a similar point myself earlier, but I’m now going to argue against myself :slight_smile: – some of those teams only really became top-tier when they appeared in the World Cup Final. Before that, they were not consider elite countries.

France - before 1998, one semi-final appearance, often failed to qualify for the tournament at all. Admittedly they did have an excellent team in the 1980s that won the European Championship, but other non-top-tier countries have won that competition.
Argentina - made the final in first tournament in 1930, then didn’t do much until 1978.
Netherlands - nothing until 1974.

So it doesn’t in itself really counter the view that it is feasible for a country like the US to break into the top tier.

102

It’s a continuation of a generic argument that goes like this:

World Cup success is largely about luck due to the extremely low scoring. (Plus bad officiating.)

It can’t be about luck because only 7 teams have ever won it, proving that success is about quality.

But there used to be much more scoring, which reduces luck-based variance, so it’s natural to expect previous World Cups to be based less on luck than is the case today. As an example, none of those 7 teams made the finals this year. Are they all suddenly bad, or is it possible that bad luck played a larger role for them than in previous tournaments?

103

Ximenean,
Have to disagree about France. They had reached consecutive semis in the 80’s (as well as 1958) and also won the European championships. I would say that is when they reached the elite category. In any event they clearly had a strong team in 1998.

As for the Dutch in 1974 they were clearly recognized as a strong team before the world cup. I am guessing the same was true of Argentina in the next cup. Spain would be a similar team today. These teams didn’t have much previous world cup success but they were clearly strong and no one would have been too surprised they reached the finals.

The trend of strong teams reaching the final seems to be just as strong in recent world cups as earlier.In fact I suspect there were more upsets in the early tournaments. The finals defeats of Brazil and Hungary in the 50’s were huge upsets. And when is this period of “much more scoring” supposed to end? I would say it was largely over by the 70’s.

And obviously not all strong teams will make it to the latter stages and it’s impossible for seven to make it the final . Some of them will out of form and there will be upsets as happens in high-scoring games as well. Remember Puerto Rico beating the US in basketball? Or Federer’s relatively early exit from Wimbledon this year. However the idea that the teams are just fluking it to the world cup final doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Before the tournament you can identify around 7-8 strong teams and pretty much every time two of them will reach the finals.

104

Oh, I think 1974 was a pretty big surprise. The Dutch had failed to qualify for the preceding four World Cups and the preceding four European Championships, and had been knocked out in the opening round in both World Cups they had participated in.

Ajax was a power in world football at the club level, but the Dutch national team was about as relevant as Belgium is today.

They big reason for the switch was Total Football, which Rinus Michels brought in when he took over the team in '74.

105

Wasn’t Cryuff already a superstar by 1974? And IIRC the core of the Dutch team came from Ajax which as you mentioned was already dominant in the early 70’s so I doubt it was a huge surprise that they reached the 74 finals.

106

I only said 1974 to keep it simple, didn’t want to waffle on about Ajax and Feyenoord, this being a thread about the World Cup after all. The point is that at some point in the early 70s the Dutch suddenly improved dramatically. They were not considered remotely “top tier” before then. Same goes for France - maybe it was 1984 when they joined the elite rather than 1998, but before the 80s they were a minor power.

Now, I think these improvements had their foundations in things going on in club football in those countries, coinciding with the appearance of two or three superstar players, so for the US to pull off something similar, the MLS is going to have to get a hell of a lot better.

107

What a bunch of silly arguments in here. Yikes. Look at the facts:

Since 1958, when the Brazilians finally broke through and captured their first trophy, here are the times a newcomer has managed to make it into the club:

1966 - Hosts England

1978 - Hosts Argentina

1998 - Hosts France

2010 - Spain

Equally important is looking at the losing finalists list, starting with 1966 (so I can conveniently ignore the Czechs ('62) and hosts Sweden ('58); so sue me :D):

1974 - Netherlands

You got it. In the last 12 iterations, the losing finalist has been a former winner until this year, when it was a former loser.

In short, the evidence, folks, suggests that becoming a World Cup finalist is almost impossible to accomplish if you’ve never managed it before. Only three teams have accomplished it in the last 12 tournaments (Argentina was a former loser in the finals). So, for the US to manage to become a World Cup winner, it has to be able to accomplish something akin to what the Dutch ('74), the French ('82) or the Spanish ('10) have managed.

So, how did the Dutch, the French and the Spanish break into the club? Simple: they had top-level domestic leagues, with teams that were successful both at nuturing local talent and at winning or doing well in intra-continental/international club competitions.

So, in short, when you see the MLS considered on a par with La Liga or Serie A or even the Eredivisie (the 10th best European league, according to FIFA), talk to me about winning the World Cup. Until then, our best hope is a semi-final spot in 2022 when they bring the Cup back to the US.

And anyone who thinks that the US MNT is really the 13th best team in the world is simply smoking something quite hallucinogenic. Egypt, by those same FIFA rankings, is now 9th in the world. The FIFA rankings are a joke, as any who have a real understanding of international football know. The Elo ratings are more accurate (though still somewhat tainted by the lack of significant cross-continental competition; witness the African Champion Egyptians at #12), and there, the US is 25th. This would be a much more accurate reflection of our relative ability, I think. It shows what the evidence shows: the US is always going to struggle to qualify out of its initial group at the Finals, and will be VERY lucky to make the quarter-finals. Ask yourself how we would have done this year against the Germans, had the English qualified first in the group as expected. :wink:

108

The core of the Dutch team always comes from Ajax - but they weren’t appreciably better when Ajax won the Champions’ League in 1995 than they usually are.

Having a superstar on your team typically doesn’t mean much in international football. George Weah was a superstar and yet the Liberian national team rarely qualified for the African Nations Cup. Teams that win the World Cup have three or four superstars. Look at Argentina - Messi, Tevez, Veron, and they were bounced in the quarter-finals.

Cristiano Ronaldo is the most valuable player in the world, and yet Portugal is no better than a second-tier team.

109

I think I’ll live to see not only the U.S., but also Japan and (unified?) Korea become serious soccer threats.

Look at how the game is changing in the U.S.

My dad - never hear of soccer when he was growing up.
Me - a kids’ league was created in my area for the first time when I was in 3rd grade. It quicky grew in populartity, but few kids really knew what they were doing.
My nieces - play in hard core leagues now. They have different leagues for spring, summer and fall so they are at it nine months out of the year meaning they are specialized for that one sport. They select the elite kids to play in traveling leagues against the other elite kids. Their generation is likely to produce vastly better players than my generation did.

110

“Serious threats” and “favorites” are a long way apart. England are always touted as “serious threats” to win, but they haven’t been favorites since 1970.