Zathras 234 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 USA have a canny record at World Cups tbf Better than Scotland. Or Greece or Egypt or Tunisia or Poland recently What is better? The fact that they qualify. Are there teams from CONCAF that don't qualify who have more than 11 registered footballers. You would like to compare Honduras with Liberia? Or the Congo with Jamaica? No, the USA with Greece etc. And I think there are quite few more African nations than Carribean islands... 35 members of CONCACAF 50 members of CAF 45 members of AFC 12 members of OFC (Incl. Australia) 52 members of UEFA 10 members of CONMEBOL Aren't it 55 of CAF? And most members of CONCACAF are as big as Jersey or the Isle of Man... But that's not the question anyway. The USA will qualify for the World Cup for the 100 years as they don't have any real competition apart from Mexico. So to compare their success with the success of Greece etc. recently is hilarious tbh. And Viana is not a holding midfielder. Comparing their success at the world cup is different to comparing it qualifying for the world cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 234 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 It wont be long before the USA do their usual trick with football, by creating a sporting world championship where they are the only representive country !! Speedball championships coming soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8884 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 USA have a canny record at World Cups tbf Better than Scotland. Or Greece or Egypt or Tunisia or Poland recently What is better? The fact that they qualify. Are there teams from CONCAF that don't qualify who have more than 11 registered footballers. You would like to compare Honduras with Liberia? Or the Congo with Jamaica? No, the USA with Greece etc. And I think there are quite few more African nations than Carribean islands... 35 members of CONCACAF 50 members of CAF 45 members of AFC 12 members of OFC (Incl. Australia) 52 members of UEFA 10 members of CONMEBOL Aren't it 55 of CAF? And most members of CONCACAF are as big as Jersey or the Isle of Man... But that's not the question anyway. The USA will qualify for the World Cup for the 100 years as they don't have any real competition apart from Mexico. So to compare their success with the success of Greece etc. recently is hilarious tbh. And Viana is not a holding midfielder. Comparing their success at the world cup is different to comparing it qualifying for the world cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 USA have a canny record at World Cups tbf Better than Scotland. Or Greece or Egypt or Tunisia or Poland recently What is better? The fact that they qualify. Are there teams from CONCAF that don't qualify who have more than 11 registered footballers. You would like to compare Honduras with Liberia? Or the Congo with Jamaica? No, the USA with Greece etc. And I think there are quite few more African nations than Carribean islands... 35 members of CONCACAF 50 members of CAF 45 members of AFC 12 members of OFC (Incl. Australia) 52 members of UEFA 10 members of CONMEBOL Aren't it 55 of CAF? And most members of CONCACAF are as big as Jersey or the Isle of Man... But that's not the question anyway. The USA will qualify for the World Cup for the 100 years as they don't have any real competition apart from Mexico. So to compare their success with the success of Greece etc. recently is hilarious tbh. And Viana is not a holding midfielder. Comparing their success at the world cup is different to comparing it qualifying for the world cup. Questioning their success at the tornament is relevant to questioning their qualification procedure tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'd say that CONCACAF don't deserve an automatic World Cup place. agreed, same as Oceana. I propose the winner of the CONCACAF plays the winner of the Oceanic region for the right to play the team who finishes 5th in South America. Can't leave out both Mexico and the US, sorry. Mexico is too good to leave out and they can't beat the US. Maybe we could have Mexico vs Oceanic champ then USA vs 5th place in South America. I'm sure I can stretch to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 234 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'd say that CONCACAF don't deserve an automatic World Cup place. agreed, same as Oceana. I propose the winner of the CONCACAF plays the winner of the Oceanic region for the right to play the team who finishes 5th in South America. Can't leave out both Mexico and the US, sorry. Mexico is too good to leave out and they can't beat the US. Maybe we could have Mexico vs Oceanic champ then USA vs 5th place in South America. I'm sure I can stretch to that. Oceania has one 1/2 decent side; CONCACAF has two decent sides. Bit of a stretch. IMO this is what it should be: CONCACAF - One full spot, one half spot, one 1/4 spot Oceania - 1/4 spot Asia - 2.5 spots CONMEBOL - 4.5 spots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 The side truly did underperform. Why Arena chose to go with a clearly unfit Beasely and to play a left winger at left back and a 4-5-1 with a striker whose primary virtue is making his partner look good I'll never know. It was a shambles to say the least. That being said, I don't think it was as bad as the results spoke to. The loss to the Czechs was fully deserved--we didn't even try to play after that first goal; heads just hit the chests. (I think the Czechs would have done much better in the tournament if Koller hadn't got injured) The Italy game was a better performance-- 1-1 with nine men-- but WHY when down to 9 men don't you use ALL THREE subs??? The Ghana game was a case of being raped by the referee. Twice. I'm willing to believe the side underperformed, especially giving my expectations pre-tournament, but Arena has got you where you are, so it's a bit harsh to pin it on him. Maybe he's done as well as he can with the tools he has? My memory is shite, but that doesn't make my impressions at the time any less valid. Ghana beat you fair and square, you made the Czech Republic look like they were the best team in the World, who then did this: for half (most?) of the game against Ghana. I really can't remember my impressions of the Italy match, but when the US went out, my over-riding impression as stated previously, was that you were a long way back from the development I'd expected. I'd also say that every team can point to moments when things could/should have changed things for the better, but the teams that do consistently well, do well in spite of these same moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmericanMag 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'd say that CONCACAF don't deserve an automatic World Cup place. agreed, same as Oceana. I propose the winner of the CONCACAF plays the winner of the Oceanic region for the right to play the team who finishes 5th in South America. Totally agree! Arena really pissed me off this WC. I hope we can get someone with more experience. Klinsman possibly??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 234 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 The side truly did underperform. Why Arena chose to go with a clearly unfit Beasely and to play a left winger at left back and a 4-5-1 with a striker whose primary virtue is making his partner look good I'll never know. It was a shambles to say the least. That being said, I don't think it was as bad as the results spoke to. The loss to the Czechs was fully deserved--we didn't even try to play after that first goal; heads just hit the chests. (I think the Czechs would have done much better in the tournament if Koller hadn't got injured) The Italy game was a better performance-- 1-1 with nine men-- but WHY when down to 9 men don't you use ALL THREE subs??? The Ghana game was a case of being raped by the referee. Twice. I'm willing to believe the side underperformed, especially giving my expectations pre-tournament, but Arena has got you where you are, so it's a bit harsh to pin it on him. Maybe he's done as well as he can with the tools he has? My memory is shite, but that doesn't make my impressions at the time any less valid. Ghana beat you fair and square, you made the Czech Republic look like they were the best team in the World, who then did this: for half (most?) of the game against Ghana. I really can't remember my impressions of the Italy match, but when the US went out, my over-riding impression as stated previously, was that you were a long way back from the development I'd expected. I'd also say that every team can point to moments when things could/should have changed things for the better, but the teams that do consistently well, do well in spite of these same moments. The Ghana game was completely changed by the first goal (clear foul on Reyna-who shouldn't have been hlding the ball in his own end anyways to be fair) and the penalty was a complete joke. As a result, the entire second half was Ghana defending with 9 men behind the ball and wasting time. We should have been able to break them down however, and didn't although there were several disasterously wasted chances and McBride's header off the post. Arena is a spectacular coach in my opinion. I don't mean to pin the failures on him, but his persistance with Beasely when for the last year or so he's been hesitant after his bad knee injury was a glaring thing for me. The injuries to Hejduk and Gibbs forced his hand with the left back situation, but putting a winger there when you had Bocanegra on the bench was the wrong move in my opinion. The composure was definitely lacking versus Ghana, but I would put a large part of that down to the lack of leadership on the field-Reyna, Mastroeni and Pope were all off the field and are the three best leaders on the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zathras 234 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'd say that CONCACAF don't deserve an automatic World Cup place. agreed, same as Oceana. I propose the winner of the CONCACAF plays the winner of the Oceanic region for the right to play the team who finishes 5th in South America. Totally agree! Arena really pissed me off this WC. I hope we can get someone with more experience. Klinsman possibly??? I don't feel Klinsmann would be a great improvement. Bradley and Pekerman are my choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodgate27 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'd say that CONCACAF don't deserve an automatic World Cup place. agreed, same as Oceana. Lump them in with Asia. Fuck the costs. FIFA can cover it. Same with CONCACAF--lump them in with CONMEBOL. I agree that Oceania shouldn't have an automatic spot, but for the sake of the region (and the AFC, which already has too many nobodies) they should keep it how it is. In any case, it will probably end up being 5th place AFC v Oceania for a World Cup spot from now on, at least it should be. It's irrevelant to me now anyway, Australia are not only in the AFC but we're the highest ranked AFC nation. Plus with the success of the A-League (that is, apart from the token NZ club), football has never been better in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'd say that CONCACAF don't deserve an automatic World Cup place. agreed, same as Oceana. Lump them in with Asia. Fuck the costs. FIFA can cover it. Same with CONCACAF--lump them in with CONMEBOL. I agree that Oceania shouldn't have an automatic spot, but for the sake of the region (and the AFC, which already has too many nobodies) they should keep it how it is. In any case, it will probably end up being 5th place AFC v Oceania for a World Cup spot from now on, at least it should be. It's irrevelant to me now anyway, Australia are not only in the AFC but we're the highest ranked AFC nation. Plus with the success of the A-League (that is, apart from the token NZ club), football has never been better in this country. I heard about it, but never followed it. Are Australia now qualifying through the Asian set up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodgate27 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 We sure are, and the benefits are already obvious. For one, we're top seed for the Asian Cup and will probably be top seed for qualifying. We play more competitive matches against better opposition than previously. Plus, it gives the Solomon Islands a chance to qualify for the WC. Which can only be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'd say that CONCACAF don't deserve an automatic World Cup place. agreed, same as Oceana. I propose the winner of the CONCACAF plays the winner of the Oceanic region for the right to play the team who finishes 5th in South America. Can't leave out both Mexico and the US, sorry. Mexico is too good to leave out and they can't beat the US. Maybe we could have Mexico vs Oceanic champ then USA vs 5th place in South America. I'm sure I can stretch to that. And when Mexico or USA host the WC again, what happens? 33 teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 I'd say that CONCACAF don't deserve an automatic World Cup place. agreed, same as Oceana. I propose the winner of the CONCACAF plays the winner of the Oceanic region for the right to play the team who finishes 5th in South America. Can't leave out both Mexico and the US, sorry. Mexico is too good to leave out and they can't beat the US. Maybe we could have Mexico vs Oceanic champ then USA vs 5th place in South America. I'm sure I can stretch to that. And when Mexico or USA host the WC again, what happens? 33 teams? The same as happens every World Cup. Someone qualifies automatically due to hosting it, but there's still 32 teams that make the World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesie 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Interestingly, Northern Ireland are now ranked above the Republic of Ireland. We are improving by every International game; from being something like 124th just two (maybe longer?) we are now in the top fifty of the FIFA World Rankings for the first time since we where 33rd back in May? 1994. You can not argue that we deserve to be that high especially since Lawrie Sanchez took charge from Sammy McIlory, we have been getting sensational results especially at home against the likes of England (1-0), Portugal (1-1) and Spain (3-2) and drawing in Denmark 0-0 before going on to beat Latvia in our last International, it’s a huge turnaround from a nation who couldn’t score to save our lives. I can see us keep building on our fantastic run and maybe going to qualify for Euro 2008? I know it’s early days, but who knows, really. Great to see us back above the scum (Republic of Ireland) as it was always weird seeing us below them, but now it is time to build on it and chase Scotland up the rankings (both of us) with a bit of luck England will drop and keep dropping until they are deep in the rankings in the hundreds. We’re not Brazil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 There is no "floating" place for the hosts tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 There is no "floating" place for the hosts tbh Aye but that doesn't really interest me. I'm only trying to get a bite by saying America and Mexico should struggle to get through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJ 0 Posted October 18, 2006 Author Share Posted October 18, 2006 Interestingly, Northern Ireland are now ranked above the Republic of Ireland. We are improving by every International game; from being something like 124th just two (maybe longer?) we are now in the top fifty of the FIFA World Rankings for the first time since we where 33rd back in May? 1994. You can not argue that we deserve to be that high especially since Lawrie Sanchez took charge from Sammy McIlory, we have been getting sensational results especially at home against the likes of England (1-0), Portugal (1-1) and Spain (3-2) and drawing in Denmark 0-0 before going on to beat Latvia in our last International, it’s a huge turnaround from a nation who couldn’t score to save our lives. I can see us keep building on our fantastic run and maybe going to qualify for Euro 2008? I know it’s early days, but who knows, really. Great to see us back above the scum (Republic of Ireland) as it was always weird seeing us below them, but now it is time to build on it and chase Scotland up the rankings (both of us) with a bit of luck England will drop and keep dropping until they are deep in the rankings in the hundreds. We’re not Brazil. I think Northern Ireland will suffer the same as Scotland in the fact that they have very hard groups. I can't see N. Ireland or Scotland qualifying, which is a shame as both have improved drastically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now