What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***Official 2022 World Cup Thread*** (2 Viewers)

This WC more than any has shown there's a lifetime to go before the US can field a team that can stay on the pitch with the elites on the men side young team or not.

I’ve read different versions of this in here several times. I don’t buy it. We played England even and looked good for stretched against the Dutch. Are we top 10, no but with four more years and a quality coach there’s no reason to think that the US couldn’t make a run similar to what Morocco did this year.
I think it was the contrast in the technical skills of the players in the WC Final yesterday vs. the USMNT. Look at the one touch passing and lethal counter attacks that ARG did for 70 minutes until they ran out of gas. Look at that amazing finish of Mbappe and the looped pass by Thuram for the volley. That's the elite level that people are talking about, I think. Those were unbelievable technical plays.
Just a reminder, this matched if not exceeded anything Mbappe or Messi did yesterday.


No I'm not putting Pulisic in their class. By many of our players are closer to the elites than a bunch of chukleheads playing kickball.
 
This WC more than any has shown there's a lifetime to go before the US can field a team that can stay on the pitch with the elites on the men side young team or not.

I’ve read different versions of this in here several times. I don’t buy it. We played England even and looked good for stretched against the Dutch. Are we top 10, no but with four more years and a quality coach there’s no reason to think that the US couldn’t make a run similar to what Morocco did this year.
I think it was the contrast in the technical skills of the players in the WC Final yesterday vs. the USMNT. Look at the one touch passing and lethal counter attacks that ARG did for 70 minutes until they ran out of gas. Look at that amazing finish of Mbappe and the looped pass by Thuram for the volley. That's the elite level that people are talking about, I think. Those were unbelievable technical plays.

And all that technical ability got Argentina a loss against Saudia Arabia, PKs against a Dutch team that we played pretty decently against outside of a few mental mistakes, and a narrow nail biter win against a very mediocre Australia team. France eeked out a game against an English squad (2.03 vs. 1.33 XG in favor of England) that we arguably outplayed in our matchup with them.

USMNT players can do technically great things, just not with the same kind of consistency as a team like Argentina or France. That's the interesting thing about soccer and why anything can happen on any day. Each game is a low number of opportunities that guys convert at low percentages, and great players simply convert them at really low percentages instead of really really low percentages. Everyone raves when a great player smashes a howitzer into the corner of the net from way out, or hits some crazy amazing volley, but ignores the 23 consecutive times they hit those same shots into the 15th row of the stands preceding that.

That USMNT goal against Iran was a pretty technically great play, and is a play where if we'd seen Brazil do the exact same thing we'd all probably be sitting here saying "that's the kind of play the USMNT could never make".

We're a long ways off from getting anywhere near that top tier with Argentina, France, Brazil where they win 30 straight games and stuff like that. But in a tournament setting where a 4-game win streak is all it takes, sometimes it's a 2nd/3rd tier team that wins it, and those type of teams make runs to the semi's pretty much every year. And that's a tier that, if a lot goes right over the next 3 years, the US could find its way into.
 
But in a tournament setting where a 4-game win streak is all it takes, sometimes it's a 2nd/3rd tier team that wins it,
When has a second or third tier team won the world cup? Italy in 2006?

Look, I'll give you Greece winning Euros a while back but the cream normally rises to the top. That's why only 6 nations have won it in the last 50 years.
 
But in a tournament setting where a 4-game win streak is all it takes, sometimes it's a 2nd/3rd tier team that wins it,
When has a second or third tier team won the world cup? Italy in 2006?

Look, I'll give you Greece winning Euros a while back but the cream normally rises to the top. That's why only 6 nations have won it in the last 50 years.
France were ranked 18th before the 1998 World Cup and weren’t really thought of as a top tier soccer power before that tournament. (Obligatory FIFA ranking grain of salt caution)

 
Missing the original post about it but I think even with 12 groups of 4 that all 3 of USA, Canada and Mexico get Pot 1. There already is precedent where Japan and South Korea both got Pot 1 and in both situations that means hosts get 25% of the Pot 1 spots. And Japan and South Korea were 25th and 30th out of the 32 teams in that World Cup in terms of rank at the beginning of the tournament - two teams that by the measure would have been in Pot 4.

They prefer the hosts at least advance to the knock-out stage and that will hold true for Canada.

-QG
 
France were ranked 18th before the 1998 World Cup and weren’t really thought of as a top tier soccer power before that tournament. (Obligatory FIFA ranking grain of salt caution)


France was the host nation and didn't get to boost their ranking in qualifiers.

They'd made it to the semi-finals in the previous Euros (losing on penalties) and been competitive in the Tournoi in 1997.
 
France were ranked 18th before the 1998 World Cup and weren’t really thought of as a top tier soccer power before that tournament. (Obligatory FIFA ranking grain of salt caution)


France was the host nation and didn't get to boost their ranking in qualifiers.

They'd made it to the semi-finals in the previous Euros (losing on penalties) and been competitive in the Tournoi in 1997.
But they also failed to qualify for the previous two world cups and had a modest overall history pre-1998 (a couple of 3rd place finishes in ‘58 and ‘86 and a Euro win in 1984 but they were also host for that).

Not saying they were bad, but they were definitely considered 2nd tier at best back then.
 
France were ranked 18th before the 1998 World Cup and weren’t really thought of as a top tier soccer power before that tournament. (Obligatory FIFA ranking grain of salt caution)


France was the host nation and didn't get to boost their ranking in qualifiers.

They'd made it to the semi-finals in the previous Euros (losing on penalties) and been competitive in the Tournoi in 1997.
But they also failed to qualify for the previous two world cups and had a modest overall history pre-1998 (a couple of 3rd place finishes in ‘58 and ‘86 and a Euro win in 1984 but they were also host for that).

France was one of the pre-tournament favorites in 1998. They weren't an outsider making a surprise run in the WC like Croatia that year or Bulgaria in USA '94.
 
France were ranked 18th before the 1998 World Cup and weren’t really thought of as a top tier soccer power before that tournament. (Obligatory FIFA ranking grain of salt caution)


France was the host nation and didn't get to boost their ranking in qualifiers.

They'd made it to the semi-finals in the previous Euros (losing on penalties) and been competitive in the Tournoi in 1997.
But they also failed to qualify for the previous two world cups and had a modest overall history pre-1998 (a couple of 3rd place finishes in ‘58 and ‘86 and a Euro win in 1984 but they were also host for that).

France was one of the pre-tournament favorites in 1998. They weren't an outsider making a surprise run in the WC like Croatia that year or Bulgaria in USA '94.
They were also the host, which boosted those odds imo. But fair enough, we’ll go by your definition of what constitutes tiers.

If we go by pre-tournament odds, then 1982 Italy was the winner with the longest odds at 18-1, 7th favorite in that tournament (available odds go back to 1966). Rank outsiders don’t win the World Cup, basically ever.
 
This WC more than any has shown there's a lifetime to go before the US can field a team that can stay on the pitch with the elites on the men side young team or not.

I’ve read different versions of this in here several times. I don’t buy it. We played England even and looked good for stretched against the Dutch. Are we top 10, no but with four more years and a quality coach there’s no reason to think that the US couldn’t make a run similar to what Morocco did this year.
I think it was the contrast in the technical skills of the players in the WC Final yesterday vs. the USMNT. Look at the one touch passing and lethal counter attacks that ARG did for 70 minutes until they ran out of gas. Look at that amazing finish of Mbappe and the looped pass by Thuram for the volley. That's the elite level that people are talking about, I think. Those were unbelievable technical plays.

And all that technical ability got Argentina a loss against Saudia Arabia, PKs against a Dutch team that we played pretty decently against outside of a few mental mistakes, and a narrow nail biter win against a very mediocre Australia team. France eeked out a game against an English squad (2.03 vs. 1.33 XG in favor of England) that we arguably outplayed in our matchup with them.

USMNT players can do technically great things, just not with the same kind of consistency as a team like Argentina or France. That's the interesting thing about soccer and why anything can happen on any day. Each game is a low number of opportunities that guys convert at low percentages, and great players simply convert them at really low percentages instead of really really low percentages. Everyone raves when a great player smashes a howitzer into the corner of the net from way out, or hits some crazy amazing volley, but ignores the 23 consecutive times they hit those same shots into the 15th row of the stands preceding that.

That USMNT goal against Iran was a pretty technically great play, and is a play where if we'd seen Brazil do the exact same thing we'd all probably be sitting here saying "that's the kind of play the USMNT could never make".

We're a long ways off from getting anywhere near that top tier with Argentina, France, Brazil where they win 30 straight games and stuff like that. But in a tournament setting where a 4-game win streak is all it takes, sometimes it's a 2nd/3rd tier team that wins it, and those type of teams make runs to the semi's pretty much every year. And that's a tier that, if a lot goes right over the next 3 years, the US could find its way into.
In a one-off with our core healthy, sure, we have the pieces to snatch a game against a top side. What the WC winners tend to have that we don't is the ability to play at our best once every 4 days. Some more quality depth sprinkled up and down the roster is necessary (as well as a good striker).

Getting closer... but the quality depth hurdle is going to present a challenge. With that, we will need a coach who can properly utilize that depth so the team can rise to recurring challenges and emergencies. We are too brittle currently.
 
 

Dang they even stole the Washington Monument to celebrate :eek:
-QG
 

Dang they even stole the Washington Monument to celebrate :eek:
-QG
We're not the only one with a giant phallic symbol it seems.
 
Some more quality depth sprinkled up and down the roster is necessary (as well as a good striker).
Yep. A striker and another half-dozen players in our top-tier core group.

We got incredibly lucky with the timing of injuries and etc at this World Cup -- everyone was healthy. And the one guy with a long-term injury (Miles) made space for what turned out to be our best defender (Ream). We'll almost never have all those guys available at the same time again. (We also got lucky we didn't lose anyone to injury or suspension in our four games -- that's unusual too.)

And I'd settle for a Dempsey or Donovan up front at this point -- doesn't need to be a Haaland. Just someone who can reliably score. We find that and we can beat any team on the planet on our day. We've done it many times before with lesser players.

FWIW, a reasonable argument would be something like, "the US is still a long way from being favored to win more than they lose against the top 10 teams in the world."
 
Some more quality depth sprinkled up and down the roster is necessary (as well as a good striker).
Yep. A striker and another half-dozen players in our top-tier core group.

We got incredibly lucky with the timing of injuries and etc at this World Cup -- everyone was healthy. And the one guy with a long-term injury (Miles) made space for what turned out to be our best defender (Ream). We'll almost never have all those guys available at the same time again. (We also got lucky we didn't lose anyone to injury or suspension in our four games -- that's unusual too.)

And I'd settle for a Dempsey or Donovan up front at this point -- doesn't need to be a Haaland. Just someone who can reliably score. We find that and we can beat any team on the planet on our day. We've done it many times before with lesser players.

FWIW, a reasonable argument would be something like, "the US is still a long way from being favored to win more than they lose against the top 10 teams in the world."
Another thing that I always forget about, and that gets hammered into my head each world cup, is just how astute the big boys tend to be. The US is still all about grit and pride, which is great and has yielded some unforgettable moments. But the big boys know how to break a team down analytically in the game prep, and choke off the inferior (or more naive) team's options as the game goes along.
 
But the big boys know how to break a team down analytically in the game prep, and choke off the inferior (or more naive) team's options as the game goes along.
Except for Brazil. They think that they can score at will and other teams will just capitulate to their superior quality. Why have more than 3 guys back on D when we're up a goal with 5 minutes to play?
 
Some more quality depth sprinkled up and down the roster is necessary (as well as a good striker).
Yep. A striker and another half-dozen players in our top-tier core group.

We got incredibly lucky with the timing of injuries and etc at this World Cup -- everyone was healthy. And the one guy with a long-term injury (Miles) made space for what turned out to be our best defender (Ream). We'll almost never have all those guys available at the same time again. (We also got lucky we didn't lose anyone to injury or suspension in our four games -- that's unusual too.)

And I'd settle for a Dempsey or Donovan up front at this point -- doesn't need to be a Haaland. Just someone who can reliably score. We find that and we can beat any team on the planet on our day. We've done it many times before with lesser players.

FWIW, a reasonable argument would be something like, "the US is still a long way from being favored to win more than they lose against the top 10 teams in the world."
The semis and final showed how important strikers are for consistent scoring and crisp, fast one-touch passing with intelligent, subtle movement is to unlocking world class defenses. We're light-years away from really doing either. They're not flailing crosses into the box if they can help it. They're attacking the box with purpose to force the defense to make mistakes (penalties).
 
For kicks, since 1994 -- all games in the World Cup against "big" teams (at that time):
  • USA 2-1 Colombia
  • USA 0-1 Brazil
  • USA 0-2 Germany
  • USA 3-2 Portugal
  • USA 0-1 Germany
  • USA 1-1 Italy
  • USA 1-1 England
  • USA 2-2 Portugal
  • USA 0-1 Germany
  • USA 1-2 Belgium
  • USA 0-0 England
  • USA 1-3 Netherlands
2-4-6 overall, 11GF vs 17GA (-6).
 
Last edited:
For kicks, since 1994 -- all games in the World Cup against "big" teams (at that time):
  • USA 2-1 Colombia
  • USA 0-1 Brazil
  • USA 0-2 Germany
  • USA 3-2 Portugal
  • USA 0-1 Germany
  • USA 1-1 Italy
  • USA 1-1 England
  • USA 2-2 Portugal
  • USA 0-1 Germany
  • USA 1-2 Belgium
  • USA 0-0 England
  • USA 1-3 Netherlands
2-4-6 overall, 11GF vs 17GA.
Not great, Bob. Now do Mexico.
 
Now do Mexico.
There's only one World Cup game that really matters as far as Mexico goes. But, I hope you're sitting down anyhow. Since 1994:
  • Mexico 1-1 Italy
  • Mexico 2-2 Netherlands
  • Mexico 1-2 Germany
  • Mexico 1-1 Italy
  • Mexico 1-2 Portugal
  • Mexico 1-2 Argentina
  • Mexico 2-0 France
  • Mexico 1-3 Argentina
  • Mexico 0-0 Brazil
  • Mexico 1-2 Netherlands
  • Mexico 1-0 Germany
  • Mexico 0-2 Brazil
  • Mexico 0-2 Argentina
2-4-7 overall, 12GF vs 19GA (-7). Virtually identical to the US, with one additional 1-2 loss thrown in.

If you include the head to head in 2002: USA 3-4-6 (-4) and Mexico 2-4-8 (-9).
 
In individual game the distance has narrowed. I think we mostly accepted the idea that we had about 1/3 chance against Netherlands. Move that forward against Argentina we can be generous and say 1/4. Croatia (which I would think we might consider what we aspire to be) I think 2/5 chance is about as much as we could say and again that is generous. France, like Argentina let's say 1/4 (but the collective experience of a side like that in major competitions makes that plenty generous as well).

So (1/3)*(1/4)*(2/5)*(1/3) = (2/180).

Like 1.11% to run that gauntlet. 8.33% to get as far as Morocco. And that is taking group advancement for granted.

You can basically apply that sort of deal to every team in the 10th-40th range. Morocco popped up this time around. South Korea did at home 20 years ago. But year in year out contenders? Naah. Croatia breaking into the club is impressive (and will be more so if they can keep it going without their generational player) but the Euro sides popping up at various times still have all that compete time against the big boys. Same with South America.

But the big boys always have the depth. They can pick their team a little wrong or have players at not quite the right time and still be true contenders. And we are still some distance from being situated where we require maybe 1 true upset to win it all instead of 3 or 4 with perfect selection, strategy and health. I mean heck we have only just leveled up to the point where a little strategic flexibility is possible.

All that said once in a generation the Premier League gets a Leicester City so we can hope (just don't think too hard about the 1 year vs 4 year frequency of competition)

-QG
 
For kicks, since 1994 -- all games in the World Cup against "big" teams (at that time):
  • USA 2-1 Colombia
  • USA 0-1 Brazil
  • USA 0-2 Germany
  • USA 3-2 Portugal
  • USA 0-1 Germany
  • USA 1-1 Italy
  • USA 1-1 England
  • USA 2-2 Portugal
  • USA 0-1 Germany
  • USA 1-2 Belgium
  • USA 0-0 England
  • USA 1-3 Netherlands
2-4-6 overall, 11GF vs 17GA (-6).
Thank you for not putting the Czech Republic beatdown in there.
 
This is all kinds of amazing.

An Argentine shootout vs Colombia during the COPA and you can hear Emi Martinez just talking non-stop **** to the Colombian player all the way up until he hits the shot. (captioned)
:lmao:

Reminds me of one of those guys you love to have on your team but hate to play against. What an *******, but a very good player.
In my experience the best goalies are crazy ********. I would have loved Emi on my team.
 
For kicks, since 1994 -- all games in the World Cup against "big" teams (at that time):
  • USA 2-1 Colombia
  • USA 0-1 Brazil
  • USA 0-2 Germany
  • USA 3-2 Portugal
  • USA 0-1 Germany
  • USA 1-1 Italy
  • USA 1-1 England
  • USA 2-2 Portugal
  • USA 0-1 Germany
  • USA 1-2 Belgium
  • USA 0-0 England
  • USA 1-3 Netherlands
Looking at the these again, the US is 0-0-5 against the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire, and 2-4-1 against everyone else. You're welcome.
 
It is partly cloudy and in the low 80's there today.

What a boon for the entire country. Good for them and I'm happy for Messi.

Happy for the country as well. I didn't realize how much economic hardship they've experienced recently. For a pretty big country it's amazing to see how much their currency has devalued in a few short years: USD to ARG peso
 
Half-spaces grades for the full World Cup.

My o/u for good performances used to be around 4.0, but he says his updated grading system yields slightly lower scores. So the # of guys coming in at 4+ across four games is not to be sneezed at. At the team level, the scores match what I thought I saw watching the games.

And if you look at the players who didn't perform it's basically who you'd expect, and mostly subs.

Really believe Berhalter got just about the most he could have gotten out of this group and that most of the criticism is edge cases and relatively minor stuff.
 
Last edited:
Finally decided to make an account on here after reading along in this thread most of the world cup. Never watched a futbol match in my life until the second group game of Argentina and followed them throughout. Can say I enjoyed watching most of the matches compared to a lot of the sports I grew up in the states watching. Looking even more forward to my trip to Europe in May and intend to catch a PSG game while in Paris to see Messi and Mbappe :)
 
Half-spaces grades for the full World Cup.

My o/u for good performances used to be around 4.0, but he says his updated grading system yields slightly lower scores. So the # of guys coming in at 4+ across four games is not to be sneezed at. At the team level, the scores match what I thought I saw watching the games.

And if you look at the players who didn't perform it's basically who you'd expect, and mostly subs.

Really believe Berhalter got just about the most he could have gotten out of this group and that most of the criticism is edge cases and relatively minor stuff.
I’d prefer a new coach and it looks like that’s the way things are headed, but I wouldn’t mind if Berhalter saw things out through the summer when more managers become available.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top