Someone posted on another message board that Portugal was the fifth-best team in the world coming into the World Cup. Is that true?
Also, where does the USA national team appear to stack up compared to European national teams? It seems to me that the US team right now is about as good as an middle-of-the-road European national team – it seems the US might be able to consistently beat some weaker European national teams (maybe Greece, Switzerland, Croatia?), but also consistently lose against France, Germany, Italy, and other European powerhouses.
To European football fans, does the US national team appear to have been getting progressively stronger and stronger over the past dozen years or so? Does it look likely that the US team will improve even further?
Is the USA as a World Cup champion in, say 16-20 years unthinkable for the football-savvy European of 2002? Or is it seen as a possibility?
Any and all opinions welcomed! Thanks for shedding some light on this.
It’s crazy to try to judge the relative strength of the USA and “middle-of-the-road European national teams” on the basis of one game. Although I’m happy to congratulate you for that result, Portugal did defend pretty badly in the first half, so maybe you should wait for at least the next two group games before trying to draw too many conclusions.
Nevertheless, I think there is a perception that the USA has been steadily improving over the last dozen years. There are also noticeably more American players in the best European leagues than there were ten years ago.
If you’re looking 16-20 years ahead I don’t think it’s at all unthinkable that America could produce a World Cup winning team, but it depends on a lot of things contributing to the continued improvement in standards.
Also you shouldn’t view it as a failure if the USA team doesn’t win it in that timescale. Many people think that the Brazilians who won in 1970 was the best team of all time, but Brazil weren’t world champions again until 1994. There’s a lot of competition out there.
It’s VERY hard to win the World Cup. There have only been seven different nations that have won: Uruguay, Italy, Germany, Brazil, England, Argentina, and France. I’m counting West Germany and Germany as one.
And England and France only won when they played at home. And some Germans will tell you that England’s third goal in the final never crossed the line.
The only real dark horse winner was Uruguay in 1950. Uruguay also won in 1930, but that was in Uruguay and few European sides participated.
In 1950 Uruguay actually managed to beat Brazil in Rio at Maracana before a crowd of 175,000-200,000 people (accounts vary).
I think an African team will win before a CONCACAF team, but that’s just MHO.
The US team played well against Portugal and got some breaks. But if the US loses to Korea, they will be in danger of not advancing.
It was actually the second goal that caused the controversy.
BUT… recently found footage shows that a linesman raised his flag following the second German goal (he had spotted a hand-ball by Schnellinger). However, the flag was not spotted by the ref, so the equaliser was allowed (link).
Alright … amend my OP to ask: Is the USA as a World Cup SEMIFINALIST in, say 16-20 years unthinkable for the football-savvy European of 2002? Or is it seen as a possibility?
This is the umpteenth time I’ve heard that the USA’s victory over Portugal was less than 100% legitimate. I haven’t seen the game … did Portugal beat themselves, and did the USA luck out big-time?
You make it seem like the USA beating Korea is highly unlikely. My impression of South Korea’s team was that they were a distinct cut below the USA team, despite the Koreans home-field advantage. Still, they are ranked 42 in the world, so apparently Korea is not dead in the water. Seems like in international football, you really can’t look past anyone – ask France.
Bear something in mind: 16 years is NOT a long time, by international sporting standards.
In 1956, Bill Russell and the American college basketball players SLAUGHTERED the rest of the world at the 1956 Olympics. But by 1972, the Russians won the Olympic gold medal in basketball (yes, yes, I KNOW that the Russians’ win was tainted by horrible officiating at the end… but the mere fact that the Russians were within 1 point at the last second proves that the Russians had closed the gap, and their “amateurs” were as good as our top collegians.
In 1992, the “Dream Team” of NBA stars SLAUGHTERED the rest of the world at the Olympics. Heck, players from around the world seemed THRILLED to be humilated by Michael Jordan and Larry Bird! But at the last Olympics, European teams gave the U.S. pros some genuine scares. With all the European stars in the NBA today, will ANYBODY be shocked if a European team wins the gold medal in basketball by 2008?
My sense is, the U.S. hasn’t advanced in soccer quite as rapidly as the Europeans have advanced in basketball, but the progress is genuine.
To use a VERY crude basketball analogy, I’d say that the U.S. win over Portugal was like a #11 seed beating a #5 seed in the NCAA basketball tournament. That is, it’s surprising, but not astonishing.
I think the U.S. team is on the verge of becoming… a Gonzaga. A good, solid team that regularly wins a few games in the big tournament, but gets spanked as soon as it runs up against one of the true elite teams.
I am looking forward to the day when a European basketball team beats a team of NBA players in the Olympics. I think it will be a great moment for international basketball.
For a European team to win the gold in 2008 seems a little soon, though. I guess I wouldn’t be SHOCKED, but I’d raise an eyebrow. I’m looking for it more like 2016 or 2020.
I didn’t mean to imply that the U.S. got a tainted win against Portugal. The U.S. was the better team. But they also got a break on the own goal. But the U.S. gave that one back, so that evened out.
I think the US-South Korea game is a tossup. I think Korea’s homefield advantage might be enough to put them over the top.
I just read a wire service report about the Italian team. The Italians already think they have won their group despite just playing one game. If Italy does win its group, it would play the second place team in Group D (the US/Korea group). The Italians want the U.S. They think they match up better with them than the Koreans.
They also don’t want to deal with a pro-Korea crowd.
Distinct possibility, especially if there’s anything like a continuation of progress made since 1994. Collective and individual self-belief counts for a lot in football too. There’s a fine line between imagining you only have to turn up to win (e.g. France v Senegal) and feeling that this really could be you day even if the opposition is higher ranked than you. American teams need to keep playing competitive games against slightly better opponents, and I fear that they don’t always get the right test against CONCACAF teams.
Portuguese complacency at work again to an extent, but you can only beat what they put in front of you and the USA won fair and square.
Also, it’s worth noting that the FIFA rankings often come under severe criticism from fans. I’d take a pinch of salt if I were you and trust the outcome of real games.
Might help if they actually won their group, first. hehehe
First of all, the US is not as bad a national side as it was in 1990 in Italy, or even in 1994 in the US. Consistent improvement in strategic and tactical understanding of the game, combined with better development of younger players has lead to play at a level probably comprable to mid-level European teams. In the early '90s, by comparison, we were clearly a third-rate side, unable to trouble the Brazilians when they were down a man for a full half of football. As another way of looking at how good we were then compared to now, back then, players from other countries with the ability to play for the US (dual citizenship or similar situations) routinely were put into the starting lineup immediately upon becoming eligible for our team. Now, that would be much less likely, and you’ll note that David Regis is sitting on the bench while Sanneh and Hejduk are starting.
But Portugal are one of the better teams in the world. Semi-finalists in Euro 2000, top goal-scorers in the qualifiers for J-K 2002, a team chock full of talented players. If one had to guess at which two teams would have been seeded had the Koreans and the Japanese not been, pretty good bet England and Portugal would have gotten the seeds.
Is this win as shocking as the win over England in 1950? No, not really. Is it anywhere near as shocking as North Korea over Italy in '66? Not even close. Is it more shocking than US 2 Colombia 1 in '94? Yes, by quite a bit. Assuming that we advance to the next round, it may well be the most important win we’ve had.
It would be quite ironic if we ended up playing Italy as the second place finishers in THEIR group. hehehe
Finally, I’d be careful suggesting we could routinely beat either Croatia or Switzerland, or even Greece. Those teams are not bad by European standards, and Croatia have had a very good record since splitting off from Yugoslavia.
I think England are underrated by a couple of places on those FIFA and UEFA rankings.
Well done USA, they definately upset the world rankings, most teams would not look forward to the prospect of meeting Portugal at any stage in the competition.
Pretty much any team in the current World Cup is capable of causing an upset, but some teams are clearly ranked lower than they should be, Senegal did not win by luck but by ability.
Paraguay are a good team but luck is not on their side.
Horrible officiating is taking two goals away from Italy when the attacking players were neither offside or tugging on anyone’s shirt. What happened in that fateful game between the USA and Russia was a crime. Your point stands, the two teams were about equal, without any doubt. However, what transpired at the end of that game was proof that had the original result repeated itself a hundred times, it would have been called back again and again until the powers that be (whoever they were) got what they wanted.
With the success of the CONCACAF teams in this tourney (and the possibility of only one South American team going through), how about giving the Northern Americans an extra half spot and having them compete with the fifth placed team from South America?
[hijack]The 1972 Soviet basketball team was close to the US team then because the US assumed that they could roll out 12 guys out of college and beat anybody. They couldn’t. The US played 1950s style basketball and the team was fortunate to be that close anyway.
HBO is running a special on the 1972 men’s Olympic basketball championship, which I am eager to see. The producer interviewed players on BOTH teams and I hope it is presented with impartiality [/hijack]
As for the Italians, they are taking their loss rather well. Those were some pretty tough calls. If Italy loses to Mexico, the Azzurri will probably be a bit more peeved.
