LHUCKS
Footballguy
ahhh...well Honduras refs definitely had a vested interest in an ELS upset...FIFA might need to look at a change in how they place Refs IMHO. That was a blatant bad call IMHO.
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 Soccer Discussion Thread*** (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter jpeace121
- Start date
You could hear one of the refs at the end tell Jozy that there was a foul. Pure BS though. That was a bush league call. Should have been 3-1.
I sent them an email last night and this was the response:andy_b said:
bummer.
andy_b
Footballguy
Interesting! I just checked online and I still have the Total Choice + package listed ion my acount but that is not a package that is currently offered. I wonder if that package will eventually expire and then I will have to choose one of the current ones and lose a channel like ESPN Classic.That being said, you may still be able to watch the game on Wednesday on another channel. The US vs T&T game is on Galavision as well as ESPN Classic in case you get that channel.
El Floppo
Footballguy
El Floppo
Footballguy
Last article I read about this mentioned FIFA needing 60 days to typically process these applications after their receipt (Castillo's application went in in early August)
El Floppo
Footballguy
Pre... nice stuff, as always.
I had to watch the game on DVR today (stupid family vacation), so I'm just getting to this. Gotta say, this is one of the first times I'm going to have to disagree with a few your comments: 1- Thought the team looked ok (not "flat out awful") in the middle of defense, although they definitely missed Gooch. Flanks, as you said, were the real trouble areas.2- Seemed to me that Benny was the attacking MF with Bradley as the holding MF, although there was a fair bit of interchange between the two. Yeah, Benny was the guy getting the passes out of the back, but he was also the guy doing a fair bit of the distributing as well, IMO.3- Dempsey was pretty bad, IMO. Missed at least one sitter before capitalising on another (and this time totally unmarked) and then missing some more. He showed some flashes of what makes him good- quick passing/interchange with his team-mates- but mostly flailed on and off the ball- was no help on D and offered next to nothing when he finally went up front. IMO, should've been subbed earlier as he just wasn't involved in a positive way.I'll do a full write-up next post...
prefontaine
Footballguy
tbh i missed a bit of the game (I was flipping channels some) and I didn't tivo so my takes may not be very good and your points may be dead on. But I'll just post why I said what I did. 1. ES is not an elite offense. I think we all know this. So several critical mistakes were not punished. But against a better opponent we might have seen a few more in the back of the net. One in particular in the 2nd half both center backs followed too deep in support of Bornstein (who naturally was getting toasted) and left a secondary run wide open. The ball was easily played to the man coming on at the top of the box and there wasn't a defender within 10 yards of him. Luckily he somehow mucked it up and didn't even get a shot off but it was horrible positioning. There were a few other times that the positioning - not the defending itself - was very poor and it made dangerous situations out of what should have been nothing. JMO2. I thought they were both pushing up higher than we normally do but in the 2nd half at least, it was pretty clear that Benny was holding. They may have switched up some. I dunno. Bradley seemed to be playing as an AMC more than anything which really surprised me. Just seemed he was staying extremely high. 3. He missed an easy one that I saw on a cross from Spector. But I thought he did really well in space and was creative. He makes better runs than anyone we have. There is a reason he gets so many chances and it isn't because he's huge or ridiculously fast or anything. He flubbed a few but he put himself in the right place over and over which I give a lot of credit to. My problems with him are when he loafs too much which I didn't think he did. But I do agree he should finish better.
prefontaine
Footballguy
Wait...the game Wed is on Classic too? Why? I understand a college football saturday but a random Wednesday? Then again, we probably wouldn't get a hi-def feed from Port of Spain anyway.andy_b said:
El Floppo
Footballguy
Ok then...
20 minutes in, I started cursing and having an awful feeling in my gut about where the game might head. Bornstein and Spector were looking horrible outside and Marshall was looking overwhelmed in the middle. Offensively, things were flowing ok through the MF- particularly to some open field moves by LD- and the attack was looking potent. But too many missed chances and poor give-aways.
DEFENSE:
I've been waiting for Benny to come back into the fold, but once again I feel like the defensive spacing with the two central MFs and the two central defenders was suspect; I was suprised to see how easy it was for ELS to slot the relatively easy pass just above our 18 to open guys not having to do much work. A lot of that was exacerbated by really dreadful stuff on the flanks and some once again loose defending by Dempsey on whichever side he happened to be on. When the outside backs lose ball after ball in possession, it sets up too many opportunities for opposing teams (not even counting Bornstein's "clearance"- just thinking of so many passes/dribbles gone astray.
I guess they're playing a zone- but I found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly for players to get closer to the open man in our defensive third. Really lax stuff for too much of the game.
MIDFIELD:
That said- with Benny, the spacing offensively was far better than the last couple of games, particularly Mexico. His presence, IMO was able to get LD, the forwards and even Dempsey more involved in positive US attacks. Not saying it's all Benny- it's his pairing with Bradley that opens things up as they both seem to have a good, not great, sense of how to move the team offensively. Lots of quick, easy passes from Benny that opened the game up for the US, allowing LD in particular, to find open field to attack- where he's always been best.
ATTACK:
This pairing is clearly the future of the US, and the present too. Individually some great looks, especially from Davies who continues to use his speed, strength and agility to win the ball in dangerous situations- also showing some great dribbling ability with each game (full credit to FFAer Morpheus who used to play with Davies and told me/us to keep an eye for him way back during the last WC in 06- I hadn't even heard of him at that point). Maybe I'm more forgiving with Jozy... can't tell you why (MetroStar love, I guess), but I keep getting more impressed with him, despite efforts that aren't entirely up to par. Each game he shows me something new- even if it's just once- in his repertoire that has me seeing him as a future great. He showed for the ball a number of times and was able to, at speed, establish his first touch, keep the defender off him and find a useful pass. At least one was even a ball in the air in traffic that he was able to control on his chest, shield, and distibute-- this is all Ching/McBride 101, but still great to see him growing that part of this game (playing in the EPL has to help).
As much as I like this pairing, I still haven't seen them combining well with each other enough. I hope that comes sooner than later, as we'll need them to develop a better rapport to push the US game up a notch. This is an area Dempsey actually excels.
PLAYERS:
Howard... 6/10 not sure what happened on that goal, but can't really fault him anywhere else. I was talking recently with an old friend who doesn't get the love for Howard- thinks he's one of the worst US keepers in recent memory (worse than Tony Meola!). IMO, he still has some weaknesses- particularly about his decision making on diagonal crosses in the 6, but he's been steadily improving in that regard, IMO and is one of the better shot-blockers out there.
Bornstein... 3/10 oof. Out of position too many times and gave the ball away in possession too many times, not even counting the ELS goal. Started to get involved better as game opened up in the 2nd half, but his decision making with ball or touch repeatedly let him down. If Castillo is really all-systems-go from FIFA, this is the last we'll see of Bornstein... hopefully.
Marshall... 4.5/10. Those first 10 minutes he looked really wobbly- mistimed tackles, steps late reacting to passes in to the 18, poor possession of the ball. But he kind of settled down and helped stop up the middle... a bit. I was really impressed with him in the Gold Cup- constatly stepped in to break up attacks and often shut down legitimate regional star fowards (Costly, B Perez)- but I didn't see enough of that v ELS.
Boca... 5.5/10. Played like a veteran leader and seemed to help settle the rest of the newbies. SO much better in the middle than on the flank against Mexico where his lack of speed really hurt the US. But needed to do a better job helping sort the spacing in front of him.
Spector... 4/10. His worst showing in memory, IMO. Looked tentative in the tackle and couldn't get his positioning right enough of the time (a real strength for him typically). His decision making with the ball was pretty bad most of the night, and he's not the attacking-style player Cherundolo is (what happened to him?) getting forward with the ball. But he was able to get a couple high quality crosses in that deserved better finishes.
Dempsey... 4.5/10. I'm a fan of his- I love that he plays with swagger and goes for tricky ####. But it appears he doesn't want to defend, and only selectively gets forward. IMO, the way he's playing, he's best suited to be up front paired just behind a true target forward- that way he's only marginally responisble defensively and can open up the swagger in his game without causing a liability when it doesn't work out (c: Honduras). Maybe it was the altitude, but I just didn't see him in the game today.
Bradley... 5.5/10. c: comments about defensive spacing above. Don't feel like he's found, or gelled with the right central MF running-mate yet, but he's clearly got the ability on both sides of the ball and, now, the experience to deserve to be in there. That said- feel like something's been missing from his game on both sides the last couple of games- too many holes defensively around him and not providing enough support offensively in front of him.
Benny... 6/10. Feel like more often than not, it was his vision and touch that found the open guy to develop the US's attacks. Apologies to Bradley if he really was the guy, but that's how I saw it. Would''ve liked to see him get forward more to be able to really free up Jozy or Davies, but the lineup seemed set up to get LD and Dempsey forward, so I guess Benny needed to hold back more?
LD... 7.5/10. MOM, IMO. I wish I could've been there to see how MF was unfolding, but from the TV screen it was hard to tell if it was the US's attacking or ELS's defending style gave LD so much room in the MF to go at players and space- where he always excels. He finally started putting some great balls into the box (seeing Holden put crosses and dead balls right on the money repeatedly during the Gold Cup had me wondering about Donovan in that regard) and looked to be able to take the ELS's right MF and back on any time he wanted. Thought he drew a lot of intentional, cardable fouls that got no-called or minimally called. Felt like he disappeared for large stretches in the 2nd half- only reason for marking him down a bit. Really glad to see him back from the Swine Flu.
Holden... not enough to really register, but enough quality touches and decisions to make me happy.
Beckerman... one chippy mo-fo. I said it before, but he's a step slow in his quickness to be at this level- constantly late (and brutal) in the tackle and often late delivering the right ball- but when he's on time, he's fun to watch. Not so much v ELS.
Davies... 7.5/10 I continue to be impressed with him (somebody in here called him over-rated recently... totally off-base, IMO). As opposed to v Mexico when he was all alone and forced to go 1v3, got his team-mates more involved and played the easy ball more often than not. But also chose the right times to attack players and space- should have been rewarded with an assist to Dempsey after skinning his defender and putting a perfect ball back to the spot for Clint to hammer home. The wrestling background is always worth a comment in highlighting his strength and agility on the ball... and you can't teach "fast". Really, really really needs to abort that goal celebration though. Anybody else think he got intentionally, and belatedly, stomped on when he went down (and out)? Hope he's fit for T&T- it should be his type of game.
Jozy... 7/10 Again- I've got a man-crush on the kid. He disappeared too much for my liking but did a great job showing for the ball offering the attack a nice alternative to Davies' great diagonal runs. I still like to think that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive and that they'll find a way to pair up more (when Jozy shows, Davies seems to run into another part of the field which takes them out of eachother's support)... another area that needs to be seen live to get the whole picture. I thought his first touch was much improved from the games over the summer, as was his ability to hold and win the ball. I don't remember him seeing any chances other than very well taken goal (take note, Dempsey)... and that's not good- but I maybe I'm not remembering right.
Bradley Sr... 5.5/10. Would've preferred to see Cherundolo on the right and Spector on the left... hell, even Hejduk (is he even in camp, I don't remember) on the left instead of Bornstein. But other than that I liked the attacking lineup he set. Thought Jozy and Dempsey were dogging it by 60 and should've come out earlier. Ching could've actually helped the US in those last 30 minutes, IMO, with his hustle, experience and ability to hold the ball. But I liked seeing Holden continue to get minutes as he's deserved them. Beckerman... meh... but who's to say how he looked in camp- still think he had a great Gold Cup which earns him more looks. Not sure what else Bob was supposed to do on the night.
20 minutes in, I started cursing and having an awful feeling in my gut about where the game might head. Bornstein and Spector were looking horrible outside and Marshall was looking overwhelmed in the middle. Offensively, things were flowing ok through the MF- particularly to some open field moves by LD- and the attack was looking potent. But too many missed chances and poor give-aways.
DEFENSE:
I've been waiting for Benny to come back into the fold, but once again I feel like the defensive spacing with the two central MFs and the two central defenders was suspect; I was suprised to see how easy it was for ELS to slot the relatively easy pass just above our 18 to open guys not having to do much work. A lot of that was exacerbated by really dreadful stuff on the flanks and some once again loose defending by Dempsey on whichever side he happened to be on. When the outside backs lose ball after ball in possession, it sets up too many opportunities for opposing teams (not even counting Bornstein's "clearance"- just thinking of so many passes/dribbles gone astray.
I guess they're playing a zone- but I found myself yelling at the TV repeatedly for players to get closer to the open man in our defensive third. Really lax stuff for too much of the game.
MIDFIELD:
That said- with Benny, the spacing offensively was far better than the last couple of games, particularly Mexico. His presence, IMO was able to get LD, the forwards and even Dempsey more involved in positive US attacks. Not saying it's all Benny- it's his pairing with Bradley that opens things up as they both seem to have a good, not great, sense of how to move the team offensively. Lots of quick, easy passes from Benny that opened the game up for the US, allowing LD in particular, to find open field to attack- where he's always been best.
ATTACK:
This pairing is clearly the future of the US, and the present too. Individually some great looks, especially from Davies who continues to use his speed, strength and agility to win the ball in dangerous situations- also showing some great dribbling ability with each game (full credit to FFAer Morpheus who used to play with Davies and told me/us to keep an eye for him way back during the last WC in 06- I hadn't even heard of him at that point). Maybe I'm more forgiving with Jozy... can't tell you why (MetroStar love, I guess), but I keep getting more impressed with him, despite efforts that aren't entirely up to par. Each game he shows me something new- even if it's just once- in his repertoire that has me seeing him as a future great. He showed for the ball a number of times and was able to, at speed, establish his first touch, keep the defender off him and find a useful pass. At least one was even a ball in the air in traffic that he was able to control on his chest, shield, and distibute-- this is all Ching/McBride 101, but still great to see him growing that part of this game (playing in the EPL has to help).
As much as I like this pairing, I still haven't seen them combining well with each other enough. I hope that comes sooner than later, as we'll need them to develop a better rapport to push the US game up a notch. This is an area Dempsey actually excels.
PLAYERS:
Howard... 6/10 not sure what happened on that goal, but can't really fault him anywhere else. I was talking recently with an old friend who doesn't get the love for Howard- thinks he's one of the worst US keepers in recent memory (worse than Tony Meola!). IMO, he still has some weaknesses- particularly about his decision making on diagonal crosses in the 6, but he's been steadily improving in that regard, IMO and is one of the better shot-blockers out there.
Bornstein... 3/10 oof. Out of position too many times and gave the ball away in possession too many times, not even counting the ELS goal. Started to get involved better as game opened up in the 2nd half, but his decision making with ball or touch repeatedly let him down. If Castillo is really all-systems-go from FIFA, this is the last we'll see of Bornstein... hopefully.
Marshall... 4.5/10. Those first 10 minutes he looked really wobbly- mistimed tackles, steps late reacting to passes in to the 18, poor possession of the ball. But he kind of settled down and helped stop up the middle... a bit. I was really impressed with him in the Gold Cup- constatly stepped in to break up attacks and often shut down legitimate regional star fowards (Costly, B Perez)- but I didn't see enough of that v ELS.
Boca... 5.5/10. Played like a veteran leader and seemed to help settle the rest of the newbies. SO much better in the middle than on the flank against Mexico where his lack of speed really hurt the US. But needed to do a better job helping sort the spacing in front of him.
Spector... 4/10. His worst showing in memory, IMO. Looked tentative in the tackle and couldn't get his positioning right enough of the time (a real strength for him typically). His decision making with the ball was pretty bad most of the night, and he's not the attacking-style player Cherundolo is (what happened to him?) getting forward with the ball. But he was able to get a couple high quality crosses in that deserved better finishes.
Dempsey... 4.5/10. I'm a fan of his- I love that he plays with swagger and goes for tricky ####. But it appears he doesn't want to defend, and only selectively gets forward. IMO, the way he's playing, he's best suited to be up front paired just behind a true target forward- that way he's only marginally responisble defensively and can open up the swagger in his game without causing a liability when it doesn't work out (c: Honduras). Maybe it was the altitude, but I just didn't see him in the game today.
Bradley... 5.5/10. c: comments about defensive spacing above. Don't feel like he's found, or gelled with the right central MF running-mate yet, but he's clearly got the ability on both sides of the ball and, now, the experience to deserve to be in there. That said- feel like something's been missing from his game on both sides the last couple of games- too many holes defensively around him and not providing enough support offensively in front of him.
Benny... 6/10. Feel like more often than not, it was his vision and touch that found the open guy to develop the US's attacks. Apologies to Bradley if he really was the guy, but that's how I saw it. Would''ve liked to see him get forward more to be able to really free up Jozy or Davies, but the lineup seemed set up to get LD and Dempsey forward, so I guess Benny needed to hold back more?
LD... 7.5/10. MOM, IMO. I wish I could've been there to see how MF was unfolding, but from the TV screen it was hard to tell if it was the US's attacking or ELS's defending style gave LD so much room in the MF to go at players and space- where he always excels. He finally started putting some great balls into the box (seeing Holden put crosses and dead balls right on the money repeatedly during the Gold Cup had me wondering about Donovan in that regard) and looked to be able to take the ELS's right MF and back on any time he wanted. Thought he drew a lot of intentional, cardable fouls that got no-called or minimally called. Felt like he disappeared for large stretches in the 2nd half- only reason for marking him down a bit. Really glad to see him back from the Swine Flu.
Holden... not enough to really register, but enough quality touches and decisions to make me happy.
Beckerman... one chippy mo-fo. I said it before, but he's a step slow in his quickness to be at this level- constantly late (and brutal) in the tackle and often late delivering the right ball- but when he's on time, he's fun to watch. Not so much v ELS.
Davies... 7.5/10 I continue to be impressed with him (somebody in here called him over-rated recently... totally off-base, IMO). As opposed to v Mexico when he was all alone and forced to go 1v3, got his team-mates more involved and played the easy ball more often than not. But also chose the right times to attack players and space- should have been rewarded with an assist to Dempsey after skinning his defender and putting a perfect ball back to the spot for Clint to hammer home. The wrestling background is always worth a comment in highlighting his strength and agility on the ball... and you can't teach "fast". Really, really really needs to abort that goal celebration though. Anybody else think he got intentionally, and belatedly, stomped on when he went down (and out)? Hope he's fit for T&T- it should be his type of game.
Jozy... 7/10 Again- I've got a man-crush on the kid. He disappeared too much for my liking but did a great job showing for the ball offering the attack a nice alternative to Davies' great diagonal runs. I still like to think that the two don't have to be mutually exclusive and that they'll find a way to pair up more (when Jozy shows, Davies seems to run into another part of the field which takes them out of eachother's support)... another area that needs to be seen live to get the whole picture. I thought his first touch was much improved from the games over the summer, as was his ability to hold and win the ball. I don't remember him seeing any chances other than very well taken goal (take note, Dempsey)... and that's not good- but I maybe I'm not remembering right.
Bradley Sr... 5.5/10. Would've preferred to see Cherundolo on the right and Spector on the left... hell, even Hejduk (is he even in camp, I don't remember) on the left instead of Bornstein. But other than that I liked the attacking lineup he set. Thought Jozy and Dempsey were dogging it by 60 and should've come out earlier. Ching could've actually helped the US in those last 30 minutes, IMO, with his hustle, experience and ability to hold the ball. But I liked seeing Holden continue to get minutes as he's deserved them. Beckerman... meh... but who's to say how he looked in camp- still think he had a great Gold Cup which earns him more looks. Not sure what else Bob was supposed to do on the night.
El Floppo
Footballguy
1. ES is better than you're giving them credit for, but you're right- and I started to latch onto that in my player reviews (forthcoming)... too many open looks from ELS players on top of the box with Boca and Marshall a step slow getting there.2.
... maybe they were playing kinda flat allowing LD and Dempsey to get forward more? Yeah, Bradley was getting forward more in those last 30 minutes, but it still appeared to me that Benny was guy pulling the strings... maybe they switched it up in the end?3. Again- I'm a big Dempsey fan- but I thought he made too many poor decisions on both sides of the ball on the night. Did some great link-up play in the 2nd half when the game opened up. And yeah- good point that getting to the dangerous spots a crucial part of the game (one of Ching's strengths) and Dempsey was getting there well. Dunno... maybe I'm overlooking the good parts of his game because it felt like he was one of the trio (w/ Spector and Bornstein) I kept saying "F-ing ______" when they were involved in a play.
andy_b
Footballguy
I think normally the game would have been on ESPN2 but ESPN2 has the US Open Quarter Finals (Tennis) that night.
El Floppo
Footballguy
So somebody mentioned "just getting the three points" in WCQ... this might be a year where it's also about scoring goals as goal differential is high up the tie-break determiners. The win against ELS, although not necessarily "embarrassing" as somebody else put it, was a real lost opportunity to not get all the goals that were in the offing along with the win. Just saying here...
andy_b
Footballguy
The following teams have already qualified for the 2010 World Cup
Host: South Africa
Asia: Australia, Japan, N. Korea and South Korea
Africa: Ghana
South America: Brazil
Europe: Holland
Ignoring Oceania , CONCACAF is the only region to not have qualified at least one team yet.
I still hate how friggan New Zealand only has to play the winner of Saudi Arabia-Baharain to qualify and the 4th place CONCACAF team gets Argentina or Colombia...
Host: South Africa
Asia: Australia, Japan, N. Korea and South Korea
Africa: Ghana
South America: Brazil
Europe: Holland
Ignoring Oceania , CONCACAF is the only region to not have qualified at least one team yet.
I still hate how friggan New Zealand only has to play the winner of Saudi Arabia-Baharain to qualify and the 4th place CONCACAF team gets Argentina or Colombia...
El Floppo
Footballguy
But New Zealand has to make it through powerhouses like Tonga first...Oceania- seems like it changes up which region they have to play against, right? Wasn't that the reason Australia made the switch to Asia, rather than roll the dice against Europe or Conmebol? Although Saudi Arabia or Bahrain ain't Uruguay or Sweden... but what I've seen from New Zealand, I don't know they're capable of advancing regardless of who they play.
andy_b
Footballguy
I agree but my point was from CONCACAFS perspective. The last time CONCACAF and Asia were paired for the playoffs and CONCACAF ended up advancing. FIFA rewarded this by making CONCACAF face a usually tougher South American side this time around.I am not just #####ing because the US may have to face the playoff but more to the fact that I want as many CONCACAF teams to advance as possible. I have always felt that Asia and Africa have over shadowed CONCACAF in terms of qualification places and yet their results at the finals have not warranted it.
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
I think it kinda depends on how you measure "warranted it" though. If you're talking group stage results, then yeah, it does kinda seem like there's always an African nation or two that just gets blown out and finishes on 1 or 2 points. But I did a little rudimentary analysis of the 4 World Cups going back to 1994 - if you go back further, I'm sure it could be different, but really, how relevant is a tournament from nearly 20 years ago (or over 20 years ago) to today....Teams reaching semi-finals - South Korea (2002 - Asia)*Teams reaching quarterfinals - USA (2002 - CONCACAF), Senegal (2002 - CAF), Mexico (2002 - CONCACAF)Teams reaching round of 16 - USA (1994 - CONCACAF)*, Saudi Arabia (1994 - Asia), Mexico (1994 - CONCACAF), Nigeria (1994 - CAF), Mexico (1998 - CONCACAF), Nigeria (1998 - CAF), Japan (2002 - Asia)*, Mexico (2006 - CONCACAF), Ghana (2006 - CAF), Australia (2006 - Asia)**So summarizing a little further, Semi-final teams: Asia 1, CONCACAF 0, CAF 0Quarterfinal teams: CONCACAF 2, CAF 1, Asia 0Round of 16 teams: CONCACAF 4, Asia** 4, CAFBased on this, it looks like the South Korea run in 2002 was a fluke (which it probably was, since they were the host nation). But it also shows that CONCACAF, Asia, and the CAF are pretty close in terms of final results, especially if you take into account that the US was the host nation in 1994 and likely experienced the same "skewing" of results based on the home field advantage.I might go up and tally a per-tournament, per-team points average for the group stages from these 3 in a bit.* they were the host nation for the cup, so their performance may be skewed a bit better than they actually were** NOTE: Included in Asia's 4 Round of 16 teams is Australia, who was still considered in Oceania in 2006, but is now in Asia.ETA - missed Japan's 2002 Round of 16 run, added it in, makes it a little closer looking, although they were also the host nation in 2002.
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
However, in analyzing the group stage results, it appears that our perceptions may actually be correct - Asia and Africa just don't do as well as CONCACAF nations in the World Cup, in terms of points and overall finish. Keep in mind that I have included Australia's 2006 World Cup appearance as part of Asia, even though they were not in the Asian Confederation at the time (AUS finished on 4 points in 2nd place in Group F).
Below is the average points per team and average group stage finish from World Cups 1994-2006. CONCACAF placed 12 teams in these World Cups (USA - 4 times, Mexico - 4, Costa Rica - 2, Jamaica - 1, Trinidad and Tobago -1). Asia placed 15 teams (Saudi Arabia - 4, Korea - 4, Japan - 3, Iran - 2, Australia - 1, China - 1). Africa placed 18 teams (Cameroon - 3, Nigeria - 3, Tunisia - 3, Morocco - 2, South Africa - 2, Senegal, Angola, Togo, Ivory Coast, Ghana - 1).
Average points/team:
CONCACAF - 3.083
Asia - 2.733
CAF - 2.722
Average group stage finish:
CONCACAF - 2.667
CAF - 3.056
Asia - 3.067
The averages aren't statistically significant, but they do show quite a bit of disparity between the CONCACAF nations and the other two confederations. However, as you can probably guess, Mexico's results really do a lot for the CONCACAF's averages. Out of CONCACAF's 37 aggregate group stage points, Mexico recorded 20 of them (just over 54% total). The other 8 teams that CONCACAF placed averaged 2.125 points/team and averaged a dismal 3.375 group stage finish (out of 4).
In recent World Cups, the other two confederations don't have a true dominant world-stage team like CONCACAF has had in Mexico. In the interest of fairness, I removed the top team in each of the confederations in each year (which is equivalent to CONCACAF minus Mexico, because Mexico was the top group stage team in each of the 4 Cups).
Average points/team:
CONCACAF (minus Mexico) - 2.125
Asia (minus top finisher) - 1.909
CAF (minus top finisher) - 1.857
Average group stage finish:
CONCACAF (minus Mexico) - 3.375
Asia (minus top finisher) - 3.454
CAF (minus top finisher) - 3.5
We can see here that the "CONCACAF's results are skewed because of the Mexico Effect" argument has less merit when removing the top teams from the other confederations. The deviation between CONCACAF point average and Asia point average is 0.35 on the whole. In the second analysis, the deviation is 0.216. So, while Mexico's effect on CONCACAF's results is important, it doesn't wholly account for CONCACAF's successes.
I also took a look at head-to-head World Cup matches between these teams, although these are likely less significant because of the pots. A top team from CONCACAF, like Mexico, is more likely to be placed in a group with a lower-seeded team from Asia and Africa, and vice-versa. It should be noted that 2 Asian teams played in the same group in 2006 - Australia and Japan, because Australia was in Oceania at the time. Australia won 3-1. Regardless, in 15 matches between the confederations (W-D-L):
CONCACAF: 4-2-2
Asia: 4-4-5
CAF: 2-4-3
Despite playing 5 less games against the other confederations, CONCACAF nations have won as many games as Asian nations, and CONCACAF is the only confederation with a positive W/L.
Basically, if you define "more success at the World Cup" to mean group stage results, it appears that CONCACAF has indeed had much better results than Asian and African nations in the last 4 cups. Does that mean that CONCACAF should get more places and Asia/Africa less? Maybe. I think you might find a reverse trend if that were the case - more poor results from CONCACAF, and the elimination of goose-egg 4th place finishers like China in 2002 and Togo in 2006. If anything, I think this shows that there really are only a handful of world-class teams from these confederations at any given time - the rest are just filler teams. Some people could argue (successfully, most likely) that they should eliminate some of the extra Asian and African qualifiers and add another European or South American team, because replacing a team like 2006 Togo with a team like Guatemala likely won't produce much of a change.
In the spoiler tags are the data I used. It's not really organized, but you can look at it if you want
mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("
1994 World Cup:
USA 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd A)*
Cameroon 0-1-2 1 pt (4th B)
Korea 0-2-1 2 pts (3rd C)
Nigeria 2-0-1 6 pts (1st D)
Mexico 1-1-1 4 pts (1st E)
Saudi Arabia 2-0-1 6 pts (2nd F)
Morocco 0-0-3 0 pts (4th F)
H2H: Saudi Arabia 2 - 1 Morocco
1998 World Cup:
Morocco 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd A)
Cameroon 0-2-1 2 pts (4th B)
South Africa 0-2-1 2 pts (3rd C)
Saudi Arabia 0-1-2 1 pt (4th C)
Nigeria 2-0-1 6 pts (1st D)
Mexico 1-2-0 5 pts (1st E)
Korea 0-1-2 1 pt (4th E)
Iran 1-0-2 3 pts (3rd F)
USA 0-0-3 0 pts (4th F)
Tunisia 0-1-2 1 pt (4th G)
Jamaica 1-0-2 3 pts (3rd H)
Japan 0-0-3 0 pts (4th H)
H2H: South Africa 2 - 2 Saudi Arabia, Mexico 3 - 1 Korea, Iran 2 - 1 USA, Jamaica 2 - 1 Japan
2002 World Cup:
Senegal 1-2-0 5 pts (2nd A)
South Africa 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd B)
Costa Rica 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd C)
China 0-0-3 0 pts (4th C)
Korea 2-1-0 7 pts (1st D)
USA 1-1-1 4 pts (2nd D)
Cameroon 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd E)
Saudi Arabia 0-0-3 0 pts (4th E)
Nigeria 0-1-2 1 pt (4th F)
Mexico 2-1-0 7 pts (1st G)
Japan 2-1-0 7 pts (1st H)
Tunisia 0-1-2 1 pt (4th H)
H2H: Costa Rica 2 - 0 China, Korea 1 - USA 1, Cameroon 1 - 0 Saudi Arabia, Japan 2 - 0 Tunisia
2006 World Cup:
Costa Rica 0-0-3 0 pts (4th A)
Trinidad and Tobago 0-1-2 1 pt(4th B)
Ivory Coast 1-0-2 (3rd C)
Mexico 1-1-1 4 pts (2nd D)
Angola 0-2-1 2 pts (3rd D)
Iran 0-1-2 1 pt (4th D)
Ghana 2-0-1 6 pts (2nd E)
USA 0-1-2 1 pt (4th E)
Australia 1-1-1 4 pts (2nd F)
Japan 0-1-2 1 pt (4th F)
Korea 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd G)
Togo 0-0-3 0 pts (4th G)
Tunisia 0-1-2 1 pt (3rd H)
Saudi Arabia 0-1-2 1 pt (4th H)
H2H: Mexico 3 - 1 Iran, Mexico 0 - 0 Angola, Iran 1 - 1 Angola, Ghana 2 - 1 USA, Australia 3 - 1 Japan, Korea 2 - 1 Togo, Tunisia 2 - 2 Saudi Arabia*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();
Below is the average points per team and average group stage finish from World Cups 1994-2006. CONCACAF placed 12 teams in these World Cups (USA - 4 times, Mexico - 4, Costa Rica - 2, Jamaica - 1, Trinidad and Tobago -1). Asia placed 15 teams (Saudi Arabia - 4, Korea - 4, Japan - 3, Iran - 2, Australia - 1, China - 1). Africa placed 18 teams (Cameroon - 3, Nigeria - 3, Tunisia - 3, Morocco - 2, South Africa - 2, Senegal, Angola, Togo, Ivory Coast, Ghana - 1).
Average points/team:
CONCACAF - 3.083
Asia - 2.733
CAF - 2.722
Average group stage finish:
CONCACAF - 2.667
CAF - 3.056
Asia - 3.067
The averages aren't statistically significant, but they do show quite a bit of disparity between the CONCACAF nations and the other two confederations. However, as you can probably guess, Mexico's results really do a lot for the CONCACAF's averages. Out of CONCACAF's 37 aggregate group stage points, Mexico recorded 20 of them (just over 54% total). The other 8 teams that CONCACAF placed averaged 2.125 points/team and averaged a dismal 3.375 group stage finish (out of 4).
In recent World Cups, the other two confederations don't have a true dominant world-stage team like CONCACAF has had in Mexico. In the interest of fairness, I removed the top team in each of the confederations in each year (which is equivalent to CONCACAF minus Mexico, because Mexico was the top group stage team in each of the 4 Cups).
Average points/team:
CONCACAF (minus Mexico) - 2.125
Asia (minus top finisher) - 1.909
CAF (minus top finisher) - 1.857
Average group stage finish:
CONCACAF (minus Mexico) - 3.375
Asia (minus top finisher) - 3.454
CAF (minus top finisher) - 3.5
We can see here that the "CONCACAF's results are skewed because of the Mexico Effect" argument has less merit when removing the top teams from the other confederations. The deviation between CONCACAF point average and Asia point average is 0.35 on the whole. In the second analysis, the deviation is 0.216. So, while Mexico's effect on CONCACAF's results is important, it doesn't wholly account for CONCACAF's successes.
I also took a look at head-to-head World Cup matches between these teams, although these are likely less significant because of the pots. A top team from CONCACAF, like Mexico, is more likely to be placed in a group with a lower-seeded team from Asia and Africa, and vice-versa. It should be noted that 2 Asian teams played in the same group in 2006 - Australia and Japan, because Australia was in Oceania at the time. Australia won 3-1. Regardless, in 15 matches between the confederations (W-D-L):
CONCACAF: 4-2-2
Asia: 4-4-5
CAF: 2-4-3
Despite playing 5 less games against the other confederations, CONCACAF nations have won as many games as Asian nations, and CONCACAF is the only confederation with a positive W/L.
Basically, if you define "more success at the World Cup" to mean group stage results, it appears that CONCACAF has indeed had much better results than Asian and African nations in the last 4 cups. Does that mean that CONCACAF should get more places and Asia/Africa less? Maybe. I think you might find a reverse trend if that were the case - more poor results from CONCACAF, and the elimination of goose-egg 4th place finishers like China in 2002 and Togo in 2006. If anything, I think this shows that there really are only a handful of world-class teams from these confederations at any given time - the rest are just filler teams. Some people could argue (successfully, most likely) that they should eliminate some of the extra Asian and African qualifiers and add another European or South American team, because replacing a team like 2006 Togo with a team like Guatemala likely won't produce much of a change.
In the spoiler tags are the data I used. It's not really organized, but you can look at it if you want
mytagid = Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 );document.write("
1994 World Cup:
USA 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd A)*
Cameroon 0-1-2 1 pt (4th B)
Korea 0-2-1 2 pts (3rd C)
Nigeria 2-0-1 6 pts (1st D)
Mexico 1-1-1 4 pts (1st E)
Saudi Arabia 2-0-1 6 pts (2nd F)
Morocco 0-0-3 0 pts (4th F)
H2H: Saudi Arabia 2 - 1 Morocco
1998 World Cup:
Morocco 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd A)
Cameroon 0-2-1 2 pts (4th B)
South Africa 0-2-1 2 pts (3rd C)
Saudi Arabia 0-1-2 1 pt (4th C)
Nigeria 2-0-1 6 pts (1st D)
Mexico 1-2-0 5 pts (1st E)
Korea 0-1-2 1 pt (4th E)
Iran 1-0-2 3 pts (3rd F)
USA 0-0-3 0 pts (4th F)
Tunisia 0-1-2 1 pt (4th G)
Jamaica 1-0-2 3 pts (3rd H)
Japan 0-0-3 0 pts (4th H)
H2H: South Africa 2 - 2 Saudi Arabia, Mexico 3 - 1 Korea, Iran 2 - 1 USA, Jamaica 2 - 1 Japan
2002 World Cup:
Senegal 1-2-0 5 pts (2nd A)
South Africa 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd B)
Costa Rica 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd C)
China 0-0-3 0 pts (4th C)
Korea 2-1-0 7 pts (1st D)
USA 1-1-1 4 pts (2nd D)
Cameroon 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd E)
Saudi Arabia 0-0-3 0 pts (4th E)
Nigeria 0-1-2 1 pt (4th F)
Mexico 2-1-0 7 pts (1st G)
Japan 2-1-0 7 pts (1st H)
Tunisia 0-1-2 1 pt (4th H)
H2H: Costa Rica 2 - 0 China, Korea 1 - USA 1, Cameroon 1 - 0 Saudi Arabia, Japan 2 - 0 Tunisia
2006 World Cup:
Costa Rica 0-0-3 0 pts (4th A)
Trinidad and Tobago 0-1-2 1 pt(4th B)
Ivory Coast 1-0-2 (3rd C)
Mexico 1-1-1 4 pts (2nd D)
Angola 0-2-1 2 pts (3rd D)
Iran 0-1-2 1 pt (4th D)
Ghana 2-0-1 6 pts (2nd E)
USA 0-1-2 1 pt (4th E)
Australia 1-1-1 4 pts (2nd F)
Japan 0-1-2 1 pt (4th F)
Korea 1-1-1 4 pts (3rd G)
Togo 0-0-3 0 pts (4th G)
Tunisia 0-1-2 1 pt (3rd H)
Saudi Arabia 0-1-2 1 pt (4th H)
H2H: Mexico 3 - 1 Iran, Mexico 0 - 0 Angola, Iran 1 - 1 Angola, Ghana 2 - 1 USA, Australia 3 - 1 Japan, Korea 2 - 1 Togo, Tunisia 2 - 2 Saudi Arabia*** SPOILER ALERT! Click this link to display the potential spoiler text in this box. ***");document.close();
Last edited by a moderator:
Mjolnirs
Footballguy
I'm fairly sure you are correct.But, let's face it, The US made the semi-finals in 1930 and South Korea made the semi-finals in 2002, other than that nobody outside of Europe and South America has even come close.
El Floppo
Footballguy
FWIW- Castillo's update in linkage form. It's official! (after hearing it here, I was still concerned for no good reason it appears)
prefontaine
Footballguy
2006 CONCACAF WC Results
1st Mexico 1-1-1 4 points (adv to R16)
2nd USA 0-1-2 1 point
3rd Costa Rica 0-0-3 0 points
4th T&T 0-1-2 1 point (zero goals)
Four teams, 6 points in 12 group stage games. Based on this, it's really hard to complain about not having an easier route to get a 4th team in. Yes, Mexico and the US advance in 02 but I think as a region we need to make a regular habit of being more competitive, especially beyond Mexico, before we have much right to complain. As it is right now, I think both UEFA and CONMEBOL have more right to complain.
1st Mexico 1-1-1 4 points (adv to R16)
2nd USA 0-1-2 1 point
3rd Costa Rica 0-0-3 0 points
4th T&T 0-1-2 1 point (zero goals)
Four teams, 6 points in 12 group stage games. Based on this, it's really hard to complain about not having an easier route to get a 4th team in. Yes, Mexico and the US advance in 02 but I think as a region we need to make a regular habit of being more competitive, especially beyond Mexico, before we have much right to complain. As it is right now, I think both UEFA and CONMEBOL have more right to complain.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
So some of you guys were actually PLEASED with the ELS game?
To me it was a pretty poor showing. Sure they got the 3 points, and sure it should have been 3-1, but there's no good reason that ELS should have had more than 1 or 2 shots on goal this game. They are a poor team throughout the field, and the US should have worked them tactically and technically all night playing on home turf. LD was pretty classy and Jozy and Davies again played well as a team up top. The midfield was poor however, and Dempsey leaves a LOT to be desired in terms of productivity and output. There was a hole in the US team from the Center Backs though the central midfield, and no matter the motor that Michael Bradley has, it couldn't make up for the number of poor passes and lost possession. The DCs were particularly terrible in clearing the ball though proper placement of passes out of the box. Sure every once in a while it's necessary to simply boot it up field immediately to no one in particular, but not EVERY TIME.
I still want to see more of el gringo Torres. Not sure how he fits in with the LD, Demps, Altidore, Davies attacking MF though.
I also can't wait to see Castillo and Jones play for the US. They can fill 2 big big holes if they are up to snuff.
To me it was a pretty poor showing. Sure they got the 3 points, and sure it should have been 3-1, but there's no good reason that ELS should have had more than 1 or 2 shots on goal this game. They are a poor team throughout the field, and the US should have worked them tactically and technically all night playing on home turf. LD was pretty classy and Jozy and Davies again played well as a team up top. The midfield was poor however, and Dempsey leaves a LOT to be desired in terms of productivity and output. There was a hole in the US team from the Center Backs though the central midfield, and no matter the motor that Michael Bradley has, it couldn't make up for the number of poor passes and lost possession. The DCs were particularly terrible in clearing the ball though proper placement of passes out of the box. Sure every once in a while it's necessary to simply boot it up field immediately to no one in particular, but not EVERY TIME.
I still want to see more of el gringo Torres. Not sure how he fits in with the LD, Demps, Altidore, Davies attacking MF though.
I also can't wait to see Castillo and Jones play for the US. They can fill 2 big big holes if they are up to snuff.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
UEFA gets the advantage of having over half the World Cups played on home soil. They haven't fared nearly as well playing outside UEFA as inside. Of course there will be some very competitive teams coming from UEFA (Spain, Germany, Holland, and England should all have top notch teams). However, I'm going to be betting against UEFA winning this time as well. This one is Brazil's to lose IMO.
prefontaine
Footballguy
This is an excellent point that certainly helps them. But I just glanced at the 02 tables. Here are the 15 UEFA qualifiers in group stage. They did pretty well then anyway.Spain 3-0-0 9 points
Denmark 2-1-0 7 points
Germany 2-1-0 7 points
Belgium 1-2-0 5 points
Ireland 1-2-0 5 points
Sweden 1-2-0 5 points
England 1-2-0 5 points
Italy 1-1-1 4 points
Turkey 1-1-1 4 points
=== these did not advance===
Portugal 1-0-2 3 points
Poland 1-0-2 3 points
Croatia 1-0-2 3 points
Russia 1-0-2 3 points
France 0-1-2 1 point
Slovenia 0-0-3 0 points
9 advanced, 6 did not. Of the 6 that did not advance, only 2 were totally miserable like the CONCACAF teams in 06 (and one was the defending champs). Admittedly, in 02 we had 2 advancers and CR got 4 points in group stage and did not advance so it was a very strong cup for us. I think that is why they gave us a potential 4th. We're getting stronger but we clearly have to perform more consistently to demand a change in number of teams.
Last edited by a moderator:
El Floppo
Footballguy
, Z. Agree with almost all of that.Only thing I"ll disagree with is Jozy and Davies playing well together as "a team"- thought they played well individually and in combination with the MFs, but IMO didn't combine well or at all with each other.And again- CONCACAF qualifying usually turns into something like this, where the 3 points far outweigh the beauty on the field. But again in agreement- the US should have man-handled ELS and not gritted it out over the last 15 minutes to hang on to a win.
prefontaine
Footballguy
to continue down this path of UEFA, not that anyone cares, but...
Last 2 cups held outside of UEFA
2002
15 UEFA qualifiers in 32 spots, just less than half
9 of 16 advance
4 of 8 in quarters
2 of 4 in semis
1 of 2 in final
1994
13 of 24 qualifiers, slightly more than half
9 of 16 advance
7 of 8 in quarters !!!
3 of 4 in semis
1 of 2 in finals
Brazil won both of these but it's hard to say UEFA didn't perform well
Last 2 cups held outside of UEFA
2002
15 UEFA qualifiers in 32 spots, just less than half
9 of 16 advance
4 of 8 in quarters
2 of 4 in semis
1 of 2 in final
1994
13 of 24 qualifiers, slightly more than half
9 of 16 advance
7 of 8 in quarters !!!
3 of 4 in semis
1 of 2 in finals
Brazil won both of these but it's hard to say UEFA didn't perform well
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
This is pretty much what my simple analysis said. It seems like every cup, CONCACAF, Asia, and Africa each have 1 good team, with the occasional 2nd team that performs well.To be honest, none of those three confederations really deserve 4-5 spots. I don't think Asia or Africa should get preferential treatment and extra spots, but I don't necessarily think CONCACAF should either.
prefontaine
Footballguy
Demerit didn't make the trip to T&T
andy_b
Footballguy
They are not cycled at all. The playoffs change almost every time through and are based on the number of spots given to each confederation which in itself changes almost every cycle but never seems to favor CONCACAF. The best we ever got was 2006 which was 3 places plus a playoff against Asia. We took a small step back for 2010.
Last edited by a moderator:
andy_b
Footballguy
can I pull a positive out of this thinking that Davies did make the trip?Hopefully the back line will look as followsCherundolo Gooch Boca Spector
prefontaine
Footballguy
Yeah, I think Davies went but is questionable. We would probably see Spector on the left and Dolo on the right rather than vice versa. But maybe we continue our left back tryouts and throw out Robbie Rogers or something...lol. If Davies doesn't play, I really hope we slide Dempsey up to a withdrawn role and give Holden a go.
Senor Schmutzig
Footballguy
Native
Footballguy
Very interesting article on Landon's move from Striker to midfield/wing.
http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1679/us-nat...deeper-position
http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1679/us-nat...deeper-position
andy_b
Footballguy
I agree. I always list from back to frontKeeperDefenseMidStrikersso in my lineup Cherundolo is on the right as he has always been, just as Boca is on the left center as he always is when paired with Gooch
prefontaine
Footballguy
gotcha. That makes more sense now. I didn't want to quibble about the Gooch-Boca placement before haha. Guess I always think of it with the Keeper at bottom.
andy_b
Footballguy
I hope things work out for him. This may be his last chance before having to come back to MLS and if he fails there, his once bright career is a mess.I wish he had this general attitude 5 years ago, but I blame MLS as much as I blame him.
andy_b
Footballguy
not feeling the love hereOk, some one make me feel better about tonight
Tremendous Upside
Footballguy
If they can't win this game, they don't deserve to go to the World CupReally as simple as thatnot feeling the love hereOk, some one make me feel better about tonight
Steve Tasker
Footballguy
I agree. It is on the road, but T&T is still a mediocre team.It will be cool to see former T&T hero Russell Latapy as their manager, I had no idea they hired him (apparently it happened recently).I think the US comes out pissed off and takes it to them....get an early goal, maybe a 2nd before the half....I'll say a 2-goal win, either 2-0 or 3-1.If they can't win this game, they don't deserve to go to the World CupReally as simple as thatnot feeling the love hereOk, some one make me feel better about tonight
1. Soccer - Wednesday, September 09, 2009USA Money Line (-175) Game Remove Item Risk $1000.00 To Win $574.10not feeling the love hereOk, some one make me feel better about tonight
USA is going off at the same odds to win as England vs CroatiaUSA -1 is @ (-133), England -1 is @ (-101)the books think the US is a better bet to win by more than a goal than England.the books are usually right.
Tremendous Upside
Footballguy
two legged
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Croatia is a whole lot more desparate and basically need to get a point though otherwise they're looking at having to get a whole bunch @ Kazakhstan1. Soccer - Wednesday, September 09, 2009USA Money Line (-175) Game Remove Item Risk $1000.00 To Win $574.10not feeling the love hereOk, some one make me feel better about tonight
Last edited by a moderator:
that may be, but no one in the world is playing better than England right now, the game is in England, and Croatia will be without arguably their two most valuable players (Modric & Corluka).just sayingCroatia is a whole lot more desparate and basically need to get a point though otherwise they're looking at having to get a whole bunch @ Kazakhstan1. Soccer - Wednesday, September 09, 2009USA Money Line (-175) Game Remove Item Risk $1000.00 To Win $574.10not feeling the love hereOk, some one make me feel better about tonight
Similar threads
