OT: US Soccer

[Kgun7]

1) My bad for misunderstanding the UEFA comment.

2) By "just aren't there yet", I mean "just aren't there yet, and never have been there before." NOBODY on the Boneyard would accuse me of being a "glass half empty" guy, trust me!!! The FIFA rankings aren't worth the toilet paper that I just used in the bathroom. I'm serious. Here's a look at the rankings:

http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/index.html

Brazil is #14 in the world? REALLY??? Uruguay is better than Italy??? It's all crap. They have point systems, based on when you win and lose. A country like the US gets in the top ten by dominating countries like Grenada and the Bahamas.

3) We have really never been there before on the world stage. We have had some memorable moments, for sure (win over England in 1950, Confederations Cup Championship loss to Brazil 3-2, etc.), but we aren't in the upper eschelon.

I love my country and my country's soccer team. I have EVERY belief and expectation that we'll get there....it's just gonna take some time....

FIFA rankings be damned ... the US would still have been in the first pot 8 years ago.

Anyway ... fair enough ... always good to talk soccer ... now let's kick the crap out of SU and maybe Christen can redeem himself!!!

 

[UConnDan97]

FIFA rankings be damned ... the US would still have been in the first pot 8 years ago.

Anyway ... fair enough ... always good to talk soccer ... now let's kick the crap out of SU and maybe Christen can redeem himself!!!

In my lifetime, I want to see the US hoist the World Cup. I'm figuring I should have another 40 or 50 years to go, God willing (and drug providing). That's another 10 to 12 cracks at it!!

A few hours to go, and the Huskies are going to drink some orange juice!! GO HUSKIES!!!

 

[stamfordhusky]

Brazil is #14 in the world? REALLY??? Uruguay is better than Italy??? It's all crap. They have point systems, based on when you win and lose. A country like the US gets in the top ten by dominating countries like Grenada and the Bahamas.

Agree completely that the FIFA rankings are very flawed. However the U.S. could never get near the top ten by beating countries like Granada and Bahamas. The biggest reason is that points are based on the strength of who you beat. You get very few pts for beating bad teams, although if you beat them in WC qualifiers it is worth more. Beating good teams carries up to 4x as much weight.

From 2002-06, the U.S. spent some time in the FIFA top ten. This was due to a combination of the outdated ranking system used at the time plus the team's very good performance in the 2002 World Cup (beat Portugal and Mexico; lost a controversial one-goal game to Germany). World Cup games carry a HUGE weight in the formula.

However the ranking system was dramatically revised in June 2006, and the U.S. hasn't reached the top ten for even one moment since then. They are currently ranked #32.

One big flaw in the system is that friendlies normally count the same whether a team uses its full national team or a bunch of third-stringers.

 

[connectikev]

Agree completely that the FIFA rankings are very flawed. However the U.S. could never get near the top ten by beating countries like Granada and Bahamas. The biggest reason is that points are based on the strength of who you beat. You get very few pts for beating bad teams, although if you beat them in WC qualifiers it is worth more. Beating good teams carries up to 4x as much weight.

From 2002-06, the U.S. spent some time in the FIFA top ten. This was due to a combination of the outdated ranking system used at the time plus the team's very good performance in the 2002 World Cup (beat Portugal and Mexico; lost a controversial one-goal game to Germany). World Cup games carry a HUGE weight in the formula.

However the ranking system was dramatically revised in June 2006, and the U.S. hasn't reached the top ten for even one moment since then. They are currently ranked #32.

One big flaw in the system is that friendlies normally count the same whether a team uses its full national team or a bunch of third-stringers.

Replying to the post regarding the overall rankings....
The ranking system is very flawed for many reasons already stated (strength of opponents, friendlies, strength of the team feilded) - but the real rankings should always be along the lines of the "eye test" - who ranks better than the USMNT? well for a start:
-

 

[connectikev]

Brazil
Spain
Germany
Argentina
England
Mexico
France
Portugal
Denmark
Sweden
Japan


But there are teams that I believe that the USMNT has caught up to (or passed):
- Uruguay
- Poland
- Russia
- Ireland
- Most of the African teams
- Smaller European teams
- The rest of Asia
- The rest of CONCACAF

 

[UConnDan97]

Brazil
Spain
Germany
Argentina
England
Mexico
France
Portugal
Denmark
Sweden
Japan


But there are teams that I believe that the USMNT has caught up to (or passed):
- Uruguay
- Poland
- Russia
- Ireland
- Most of the African teams
- Smaller European teams
- The rest of Asia
- The rest of CONCACAF

-10 points for forgetting Italy in your list, the four-time World Cup Champions. But I agree with your assessment on principle. There are also plenty of central and eastern European countries which I think are still slightly better (Czech Rep., Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia, etc.). I think the most "telling" part of the story you're telling is that we aren't even the top dog on our own continent....and I would have to agree with you! Mexico is fielding a better team than us right now, the 1-0 result in Stadio Azteca not withstanding...

 

[Adios]

Two rugby clubs played the first soccer match and went back to rugby bump.



I prefer rugby football over association football.

 

[FrostyNuggets]

I think the Isle of Man and the Faroe Islands have teams as well.

Isle of Man only had 10 players a few years back, too many men died in that damn motorcycle race one year.