5 million were Mexican ex pats. If I had to put money on it id guess that 1% were the teens I was referring to.
Both my nieces played in high school. Neither one could name a player other than Beckham. I also officiated youth soccer for a couple summers and talking to the kids couldn’t find one who watched the game. I doubt that many of the people watching Saturday morning epl matches are teenagers.
Just poke around here(it’s the link that chizzuk provided). Against Denmark, the US lost twice, drew twice, in four games since 1993. Against RoI, The US is 2/2/4, but two of those losses were in 1924 and 1979; going back to 1990 or so, you’re 2/2/2. You’ll also find there a 1/0/3 record against the Belgians (with the US win dating from 1930 and the losses dating from after 1990) and a 1/1/2 record against the Romanians (all 1990s games).
I don’t know about US fans blaming a lot on officiating, but are you sure that was ‘one of the worst calls of all time’? Dude, get a grip.
Hmmmm
Um, it’s pretty hard to get much of a worse call than that. Several US players were being obviously fouled and none were fouling. The US scored on the play. I’m not sure how it gets worse unless the ref also cautions a US player.
A few games later in the tournament when England had the ball far over the line. Done. This is factual, what fouling during set plays is concerned, this happens all the time and it gets only punished once in a while. I don’t particularly like that, bit it’s the way it is. What you saw in the US game happens on a weekly basis.
I agree that the U.S. national team is rather underrated at the moment… but the truth is that the U.S. would not qualify for the World Cup nearly as regularly if they were playing in UEFA. I don’t see how anyone who knows anything about football can argue against that.
Its not that fouling wasn’t called it’s that a complete non foul was called on the US.
In any case complaining about a goal that wasn’t awarded or a phantom foul denying a goal is completely justified. The ‘US are whiners’ poster hasn’t given much reason to believe him.
The US National Team can put on a very decent starting 11 and maybe a couple of more players deep. We always have very good goaltending which helps even things out. But where we suffer compared to even some of the middling European squads is the depth. Once we have to dig deeper than 16-18 players we start to really look bad, because we lack that European club experience. MLS is improving, but it is still not the same thing.
On a second point, the World Cup absolutely is just as much, if not m ore, about regional diversity…and almost insuring that the USA gets in (think television rights).
Regional diversity is important to the World Cup, and I totally understand that. But it will mean that weaker sides from Asia and North America will at times qualify when superior sides from Europe and South America do not. (Africa is somewhere in the middle.) There’s a balance to be had. The only team I seriously thought was a total waste of space at the 2010 World Cup was North Korea, a side which had absolutely no game plan beyond turtling–stuffing the box with every damn player of theirs on the pitch. So, not bad overall.
Re: FIFA rankings:
Nate Silver, an American statistician widely known for his baseball analytics and his election predictions, was commissioned by ESPN to create a ranking system for world football. He came up with the Soccer Power Index, whose methodology is described here. The rankings arehere.
Spain is #1, followed by Argentina, Columbia, Brazil, and Germany. England is 9, Mexico is 11, and the USA is 27.
Colombia.
Qualifying for the Euros is about as hard as qualifying for the World Cup: 13 berths for UEFA at the WC compared to 14-15 teams qualifying for the Euros (in both cases not including hosts). Winning the Euros is easier than winning the World Cup, but it is comparable (since Uruguay won it in 1950, Brazil and Argentina are the only two teams from outside Europe to make the final, though of course Brazil are by far the most successful WC team). The Euros does throw up the odd surprise winner (i.e. Denmark 1992 and Greece 2004), which the World Cup doesn’t.
Realistically UEFA qualification is much harder than CONCACAF qualification (the most difficult confederation to qualify from vs the easiest) and a team like the USA would not qualify from UEFA consistently and even Mexico would not be shoe-ins for qualification either if they played in UEFA.
The current USA team IMO ain’t that great, somewhere between the 30th and 40th best team in the World is probably about right. There are a lot of quality teams out there right now and looking at the current group of US players and their performances I don’t see what would make them any higher.
To me the SPI looks just as flawed as all the other rankings out there, particualrly it seems to overrank non-UEFA teams. Just for example the USA is 27th and Belgium is 28th and they play each other in their next game (in a friendly). The SPI rankings would suggest that the two teams would be seen as being on fairly even terms with, if anything, the USA slightly ahead. In reality Belgium will be the definite favourites in this encounter and the strength of the Belgium team is such that it’s questionable if any of the current USA players would make the Belgium starting XI.
I’m afraid Nate didn’t really try his best on this.
Any list that manages to have a top 10 without Italy (23, really?) or France is ignoring common sense.
My favourites for ANY wc EVER: Germany, Brazil, Spain, Argentina, France, Italy.
If you manage to make a top 6 without these your numbers are BS: look at some historic data and see for yourself that those 6 have been represented in every final, winning all but 3.
Maybe he didn’t get it perfect, but as the article explaining his methodology says, because of the small amount of useful data points (versus basketball, American football, baseball, and other sports) it is a tricky thing to try to rank world football.
At least Nate did a better job than FIFA or some of the folks in this thread of calculating which sides are actually more likely to prevail in true, full-strength matches.
I’m a big fan of U.S.A. soccer and always hope to see them do their very best. But American soccer fans need to be realistic and accept our place in the world football pecking order.
Somebody upthread said that only Spain and Germany were better European sides than the USA???
???
!!!1111!!
I wish that were true, but it’s not. It is laughable. Silver’s rankings were absolutely spot-on in putting:
Spain
Germany
Portugal
Netherlands
England
France
Sweden
Russia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Italy
Denmark
…Ahead of the USA. He also ranked** Switzerland** and Bosnia-Herzegovina ahead of the USA but I think those are a little dicier–more like a virtual tie between the USA and those last two.
On the other hand, he ranked Belgium, Greece, Austria and Serbia behind the USA and I think those teams are all at least level with the U.S. overall. But the 12 European teams I listed first are going to come out ahead over the USA more often than not, and when you include the other six nations that I consider approximately equal to the USA, that’s a whole lot of teams.
OK, OK!! So some of you want to be the proud homers… Yeah sure… USA BEST!!! Shining City on The Hill! Beacon of Hope and Freedom! America #1!!! and all that claptrap, but when it comes to world-class football, we’re still not even in the discussion, really.
Even so, GO USA!!!
The USA are good enough to pose a serious contest for pretty much any team ranked below them (outside the top half-dozen.) i.e. In a competitive game (friendlies really don’t count) if you are not at your best you run the risk of the USA’s work rate and organisation undoing you.
This means that during knock-out competitions they always present a challenge and there is the real risk of an upset. However the more games they play the more likely it is they will be found wanting and at the moment they are unlikely to get much further than last eight (still a good achievement though)
But all that is relating to knock-out football which is a very different beast to a league situation. Theoretically, if all the countries of the world played in a league structure analogous to the UK with 20 or so clubs per division and 30-40 games per season then the USA would be in the second tier pushing for a play-off slot, England would be mid-table in the top tier with little sign of a push for improvement. At the top would be Spain, Germany, Brazil, Italy.
“A better job”?
I don’t know.
I think the premise that qualifiers have any bearing on the success of a team in the tournament is mostly untrue. I believe success can be better predicted by cumulative accomplishments of the teams players in other leagues in the last 2 or 3 years.
I didn’t do the statistical work but individual player’s success seems to me a strong indicator for success in country tournaments.
Looking at player rankings I would come up with quite another list than Nate does:
(Rank of the 11th player regardless of position on the Castroll ranking (first hit on google))
Germany 71
Spain 72
Argentina 130
England 159
France 163
Brazil 188
Italy 192
Belgium 478
Netherlands 659
Portugal 778
Cameroon 1031
USA 1107
Uruguay 1114
Serbia 1125
Columbia 1205
Switzerland 1285
Chile 1320
Denmark 1352
Côte d’Ivore 1371
Sweden 1525
Poland 1611
Croatia 1656
Turkey 1802
This list is as flawed as any, countries with a strong league other than Spain, Italy, England, Germany and France, such as Turkey, Mexico, Brazil etc. are very much underrated. And England is overrated. But at least all contenders for the title are in the top 10.
FIFA has decided on the Goal line technology they will be using in the upcoming World Cup.
Bumping this thread, because the next round of matches are coming up later this week:
June 7, 2013 U.S. Men vs. Jamaica 9:30 p.m. ET National Stadium
Kingston, Jamaica beIN SPORT
June 11, 2013 U.S. Men vs. Panama 6:30 p.m. PT CenturyLink Field
Seattle, Wash. ESPN, WatchESPN, UniMas
June 18, 2013 U.S. Men vs. Honduras 7 p.m. MT Rio Tinto Stadium
Sandy, Utah ESPN, WatchESPN, UniMas
Now I have to figure out what the heck beIN SPORT is.
It’s Al Jazeera’s soccer channel. I get it through Comcast, but I think it’s on the extra sports tier that costs a couple of bucks a month more.
All of the away games for USA in qualifying are on beIN with the exception of vs. Mexico, but that has already been played.
USA 2 Jamaica 1
From the Sportscenter highlights, USA was ahead 1-0 most of the game, Jamaica equalized at 87 minutes or so, and then a USA defender who basically never scores netted a super awkward one with a bit of a deflection off a corner kick. But we’ll take it.
USA must be super-favored to qualify now, with a 1-1-1 record in 3 away matches so far.