OT: USA Men's Soccer Dos a Cero

[meyers7]

For any of you who are interested, and I know there's a couple, the USA Men's NT beat local rivals Mexico (think UCONN/TN except throw in bags of urine and batteries being tossed at players) last night 2-0 (Dos a Cero). Which has become pretty common place, at least in Columbus (4th time and of course the 2-0 win in 2002 WC in S. Korea)

Mssrs Eddie "GAM" Johnson and Landon "Landycakes" Donovan each scored to lift the USA to the precipice of World Cup Qualification. When Honduras drew with Panama later in the evening 2-2, the USA's ticket was punched to Brazil.

Sitting atop the Hex, the USA still has two games to play against Jamaica and Panama in October. But those won't really matter, at least to the US. They can rest their top player, get a look at players who might be on the bubble for Brazil. Honduras, Panama and Mexico can fight for that last automatic qualification spot. The 4th place team will go into a home and away playoff with New Zealand for the last spot in November. Finish 5th or 6th? Oh well there's always 2018 in Russia.

Teams that have qualified so far:

CONCACAF - USA, Costa Rico
UEFA - Netherlands, Italy
CONMOBEL - Brazil (Host), Argentina
AFC - South Korea, Japan, Australia, Iran (Jordan in playoff with 5th from CONMOBEL, presently Uruguay)

 

[stamfordhusky]

Sitting atop the Hex, the USA still has two games to play against Jamaica and Panama in October. But those won't really matter, at least to the US.

I think they matter a lot more than they normally would. The U.S. currently stands at #19 in the FIFA world rankings - but is not far from the top 16. Not far from #12 for that matter. (New rankings come out in the next day or two.)

If seeding for the World Cup is done in the same way as four years ago, then the top 16 in the world as of October will get seeded. To be a seeded team means being no worse than #2 in their group instead of being 3rd or 4th. With two teams from each group advancing, that is important. A few wins in qualifying and possibly in the November friendlies - depending on what cutoff date FIFA uses this year - could put them over the top.

It is interesting - but not surprising - that FIFA has yet to announce the exact seeding procedures. I assume they will wait until they see who qualified and then game the system as much as is possible to give the seeds to countries they favor - or countries that have rewarded them with bribes in the past.

 

[Wonkster]

... It is interesting - but not surprising - that FIFA has yet to announce the exact seeding procedures. I assume they will wait until they see who qualified and then game the system as much as is possible to give the seeds to countries they favor - or countries that have rewarded them with bribes in the past.

Which helps explain why I don't give an about men's pro soccer. All I care about is that the U.S. plays respectably and doesn't get embarrassed on the field. I hate to provide amusement to yahoos.

 

[meyers7]

Which helps explain why I don't give an about men's pro soccer.

Well that probably isn't why. Otherwise you wouldn't give an about most pro sports, or even a lot of amateur sports.

All I care about is that the U.S. plays respectably and doesn't get embarrassed on the field.

That they are doing quite well at.

 

[meyers7]

I think they matter a lot more than they normally would. The U.S. currently stands at #19 in the FIFA world rankings - but is not far from the top 16. Not far from #12 for that matter. (New rankings come out in the next day or two.)

If seeding for the World Cup is done in the same way as four years ago, then the top 16 in the world as of October will get seeded. To be a seeded team means being no worse than #2 in their group instead of being 3rd or 4th. With two teams from each group advancing, that is important. A few wins in qualifying and possibly in the November friendlies - depending on what cutoff date FIFA uses this year - could put them over the top.

It is interesting - but not surprising - that FIFA has yet to announce the exact seeding procedures. I assume they will wait until they see who qualified and then game the system as much as is possible to give the seeds to countries they favor - or countries that have rewarded them with bribes in the past.

Ehh probably not. Usually they seed the top 8 (which the USA isn't going to get to. After that it has more to do with Confederations as to who goes into which pot/group. At least that's what they have done the last few WCs. Of course as you said, that could change. But I doubt it.

 

[Waquoit]

Ehh probably not. Usually they seed the top 8 (which the USA isn't going to get to. After that it has more to do with Confederations as to who goes into which pot/group. At least that's what they have done the last few WCs. Of course as you said, that could change. But I doubt it.

Are you sure? I'm not, but I thought they had the Top 7 plus the host the A's, one per pot. Than the next 8 were "B"'s, one per pot. The rest filled in with some protocol to keep more than 2 from any one region in the same Group.

 

[meyers7]

Are you sure? I'm not, but I thought they had the Top 7 plus the host the A's, one per pot. Than the next 8 were "B"'s, one per pot. The rest filled in with some protocol to keep more than 2 from any one region in the same Group.

No, not "sure" what they'll do. But here's the pots from 2010

Pot 1 - S. Africa, Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Argentina, England
Pot 2 - Australia, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Honduras, Mexico, USA, New Zealand
Pot 3 - Algeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay
Pot 4 - Denmark, France, Greece, Portugal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Swiss

and 2006

Pot 1 - Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Italy, Germany, Argentina, England, France
Pot 2 - Angola, Australia, Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Ghana, Paraguay, Togo, Tunisia
Pot 3 - Croatia Czech Rep, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Swiss, Ukraine
Pot 4 - Costa Rica, Iran, Japan, S Korea, Saudi, Trin and Tobago, USA
Special Pot?? - Serbia and Montenegro

 

[stamfordhusky]

Yes, I was wrong in my original post. Memory apparently is going. There should be 16 seeds but there aren't.

As you say, there were 8 seeds in Pot 1. Then Pot 2 included CONCACAF and Asia. Pot 3 had Africa and South American, while Pot 4 was all Europe. This assures that there will typically be no more than one team from a given Confederation in a group - except in the cases where a seeded team is from the same country as one of the teams pulled from the other pots.

The U.S., btw, moved up to #13 in the rankings released by FIFA today but has almost no shot to make it into the top 8.

 

[meyers7]

Yes, I was wrong in my original post. Memory apparently is going. There should be 16 seeds but there aren't.

As you say, there were 8 seeds in Pot 1. Then Pot 2 included CONCACAF and Asia. Pot 3 had Africa and South American, while Pot 4 was all Europe. This assures that there will typically be no more than one team from a given Confederation in a group - except in the cases where a seeded team is from the same country as one of the teams pulled from the other pots.

The U.S., btw, moved up to #13 in the rankings released by FIFA today but has almost no shot to make it into the top 8.

Yea I would prefer Klinsy give a few bubble players a chance the last couple of games as opposed to trying to get to #8, which we have almost no shot at anyway.

 

[SubbaBub]

I don't recall if the pot system has changed from 2006, but the weighted ranking system to determine protected seeds has changed.

But this is FIFA we are talking about. They make the NCAA and NASCAR look good when it comes to open competition.

 

[DobbsRover2]

The U.S., btw, moved up to #13 in the rankings released by FIFA today but has almost no shot to make it into the top 8.

Why not? It's only Brazil at #8, and what have they ever done in soccer?

I remember back in the spring of 2006 I met up with some of my company's UK comrades who were talking up the Brits' chances in the WC (the soccer\football one, not the men's room type), and I mentioned that the Americans were at #4 in the FIFA rankings, well ahead of their sad sack squad. This was met with total disbelief and then violent indignation when they checked online and learned the truth. Of course, by the time the draw came along the US was ranked back in the teens and after a lackluster WC ended the year ranked in the 30s. Sometimes the ranking seem a bit screwy.

 

[meyers7]

Why not? It's only Brazil at #8, and what have they ever done in soccer?

I remember back in the spring of 2006 I met up with some of my company's UK comrades who were talking up the Brits' chances in the WC (the soccer\football one, not the men's room type), and I mentioned that the Americans were at #4 in the FIFA rankings, well ahead of their sad sack squad. This was met with total disbelief and then violent indignation when they checked online and learned the truth. Of course, by the time the draw came along the US was ranked back in the teens and after a lackluster WC ended the year ranked in the 30s. Sometimes the ranking seem a bit screwy.

Yea, those rankings are sometimes (well quite often) really out to lunch. We'll just have to see how the pots line up. And then hopefully get a lucky draw.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Why not? It's only Brazil at #8, and what have they ever done in soccer?

I remember back in the spring of 2006 I met up with some of my company's UK comrades who were talking up the Brits' chances in the WC (the soccer\football one, not the men's room type), and I mentioned that the Americans were at #4 in the FIFA rankings, well ahead of their sad sack squad. This was met with total disbelief and then violent indignation when they checked online and learned the truth. Of course, by the time the draw came along the US was ranked back in the teens and after a lackluster WC ended the year ranked in the 30s. Sometimes the ranking seem a bit screwy.

The ranking system back then was completely screwed-up. IIRC, there was no differentiation made between friendlies with second-line players vs World Cup qualifiers or high-level tournaments. The U.S. dropped back to #30 or so when they changed the ranking system. Being ranked #13 right now, however, is legit and relies on a MUCH better methodology. They have earned a good ranking over the past year.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Yea, those rankings are sometimes (well quite often) really out to lunch. We'll just have to see how the pots line up. And then hopefully get a lucky draw.

Well I see England has dropped back to #17 at this point, and maybe we can get them in our pot again and once again take their goalie out for a hearty night of chugging before the game. Just don't want to get stuck in a group with South American teams for this WC.

 

[meyers7]

Well I see England has dropped back to #17 at this point, and maybe we can get them in our pot again and once again take their goalie out for a hearty night of chugging before the game. Just don't want to get stuck in a group with South American teams for this WC.

Assuming they go by the rankings, I wouldn't mind being in Colombia's group. That way we wouldn't get any other SA team. Errr nevermind, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay are ranked so we wouldn't get them anyway. Maybe Italy's group and play them early. They always get better as the the tourney goes on. And European teams don't do as well outside Europe anyway.