CONCACAF Disappoints

B do you know futbol?
Guardado and ramon will never go in together…

Posted from  United States

Perhaps it’s time for the US to quit shunning Copa America as it has for the past few tournaments. Then maybe, just maybe Mexico will cease to be the biggest scalp in their trophy case.

Posted from  United States

Every World Cup is different.

Just look at the African teams… just one made it. And how about teams like Paraguay, Serbia and Montenegro, thatwhere supposed to be so good? Nothing.

So yeah, it’s back to the drawing board for the teams in the region, but that does not necessarily mean they will stink every world cup.

Regional strength really determines a lot at these World Cup. The CONCACAF teams’ performance is an overall indication of the region’s strength. USA and MEX looked dominating in N. America but are quite a ways off from the elites in S. America and Europe. The four debuttantes from Africa had no previous track record but they showed the they belonged. The strength of the competition in Africa ensured that they came in with speed and strength and potent style of play. Ghana outplayed CZE and USA. Ivory Coast was tough as nails against ARG and NED. Togo led KOR and should have gotten at least a penalty kick against Switzerland. Angola, which many ranked as No.32, tied Mexico, a seeded power, and very nearly beat Iran. Regional strength is also apparent in the performance of the lesser teams in the elite regions. Ecuador looked solid. Paraguay lost on an own goal to vaunted England. Switzerland and Croatia could surprise people. CONCACAF’s regional strength needs to improve. USA needs to scrimmage against more African and S. American teams.

Posted from  United States

Apley: That being the case… how do you explain 2002 then?

Rene - The US was lucky in 2002. They caught Portugal complacent and expecting an easy match for their only group win, and getting Mexico in the next round was a break since they’re so familiar with them. Even so, they couldn’t play Mexico straight-up and had to play a defensive, counter-attacking game, but they were successful. Luck saw them face Germany in the quarters, who they honestly out-played, so in some ways they were unlucky not to make the semis last time. To their credit, they showed great pace and appeared to finally turn the corner on that scared game they have always brought to the Cup. Clearly that scared game returned against the Czechs and they were never able to overcome it. Our presonnel are getting better, but still lack the consistent touch skills to move to the next level. More time, and a new coach to infuse them with confidence and foster that skill development is what they need now. They’ll be back for 2010, hopefully better prepared and a bit pissed-off after this time.

Funny how after Iran´s match everyone got on the jollybus to praise Omar Bravo… all I heard was omar this omar that… now that Kikin scores its Kikin this Kikin that… real fans get behind their team/player in the good days and the bad days.

Posted from  Mexico

yeah well said B
Borgetti!

Posted from  United States

Rene: the elites, Brazil / Argentina / European powers, have had a strangle-hold on the final rounds of the World Cup and will continue to for the foreseeable future. In 2002, it was Brazil-Germany. In 1998, it was France-Brazil. In 1994, Italy-Brazil and so on. But the rest of the world has been improving and gaining more and more slots in WC finals relative to Europe/S. America. How much are the other regions improving relative to each other and to S. America/Europe? In 2002, CONCACAF had a great showing (2 teams in Round of 16, USA reached elite 8); a big improvement over 1998 (only MEX made it to Round of 16, losing 2-1 to Germany). Before that in 1994 CONCACAF also had MEX and USA reach round of 16 (but there were only 24 teams in the finals, so it was easier to advance; USA fell to Brazil 1-0, and MEX lost to Bulgaria in penalties). In 1990, only Costa Rica reached Round of 16 and got thrashed by Czechoslavakia 4-1. This year only MEX will advance and CONCACAF has not come close to beating any quality opponents (so far only one win, against Iran). The progress from the past seems to be stalling here. What’s more, CONCACAF has been sending pretty much the same teams (MEX, USA, CRC) to the finals.

Compare this to Africa, whose presence in the finals have also grown. In 2002, Senegal upset France and also reached elite 8, but traditional powers Cameroon (which had stunned defending champs Argentina in 1990) and Nigeria (which had advanced to the Sweet 16 in both 1998 and 1994) did not reach the second round. None of these teams even qualified for the finals this time. The arrival of the four African debutantes was widely considered a step back in African soccer. But from what we’ve seen so far, the new teams look very potent. Ghana beat the USA today. Angola tied MEX. The new blood shows that Africa’s got depth. The teams that emerge from Africa will always be reckoned with. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were two or even three African countries in the Round of 16 a few years from now. (Remember had Angola scored one more goal and held off Iran’s late goal, they’d have advanced in lieu of MEX).

This brings us to the state of Europe/South America. The gap between the super elites and the rest is also narrowing. Look at France getting bounced in 2002 and forced into ties by Switzerland and South Korea this year. Or England’s nail-biters against Paraguay and TNT. But the strength of those regions are reflected by their second-tier/third-tier qualifiers and the turnover in those teams. Turkey finished 3rd overall in 2002 and didn’t even make it this time. Switzerland is not a soccer powerhouse but looks very good. That Chile, Colombia and Uruguay aren’t in the finals doesn’t mean they are down, but that Ecuador and Paraguay are just better. Ecuador hammered Costa Rica. It’s like the ACC in College Basketball. A tough conference produces good teams.

How will Team USA improve in the coming years? Will the Hondurases and Jamaicas of the CONCACAF offer sufficient practice? Team USA looked nothing like those dazzling highlights from the Guatemala and Canada qualifier games that ABC/ESPN replays. That’s because we’re seeing better opponents with different styles of play. We surprised some people in 2002 with our lightening attacks. The Czech Republic learned and clamped down on our wings. Landon and DeMarcus had no place to run. They were trapped by pairs and trios of defenders. They also had an-Ilguskas look-alike whose taller than any forward in this hemisphere. Ghana will press and attack all over the field and bump/tackle like nobody’s business. Our coaches felt good about their game plan coming into the game. We got outplayed badly. The only way to get better from here is to play them. If the Europeans are too snobby, schedule games against African/South Americans.

Posted from  United States

We need Borgetti, Guardado and Ramon if we want a shot at it!

Posted from  Mexico

Apley, that is not correct:

Angola needed 2 more goals before Iran tied to go in lieu of Mexico.

Look at the math:

Angola had a -1 and Mexico a +2

When Mexico was down 2-1 and Angola was 1-0 (because Angola scored after Mexico’s goal), Mexico was a +1 and Angola had a 0. Scoring one more would have put Angola at +1, but with lesser score diferential (Mexico had 4 goals, Angola would have had only 2).

So Angola would have had to win 3-0 and Mexico to remain at 2-1 for Mexico to lose its spot, or Portugal to score another goal and Angola to have a 2-0 scorecard.

So yes… people are dramatizing about having to depend on third parties and all that jazz, but in reality Mexico was not in such immediate danger as people are now making it out to be. Of course, that headline sells more newspapers, feeding on people’s frustration, but it is hardly the reality.

Angola, was not THAT good. Neither was Togo. Ivory Coast probably deserved a little bit better luck, but at the end of the day, the purpose is to score gials and they did not. Every team has had bogus calls made against them, like the second penalty by the Portuguese that was not awarded near the end of the match, for example.

The reality is African soccer is overrated… yes, they are strong and fast, but they are also disorganized and naive while defending. Proof of this is that only one team has made it to the quarterfinals from Africa, and that happened all the way back in 1990. None ever since has made it there. Just like CONCACAF, they get stuck at best of 16. I don’t really see that much of a difference, to be quite honest.

Actually Senegal also made it to the Quarter Finals in 2002. Just for the record.

Posted from  Australia

It is good that TEAM USA supporters are starting to wake up and smell the roses. Mexico has basically single handedly carried CONCACAF to 12 World Cup Appearance and the development of Mexico was stunted in part because CONCACAF was horrific for a long time save for the occassional good Honduras and Guatemala team. What good was it to whup Canada 5-0. Nothing. Players even know this.

What are the answers: well this much we know. Playing St. Kitts and Nevits and St. Vincent, and so forth is useless to both the USA and Mexico.

Trinidad and Tobago, no offense, but history tells us that this was a fluke. Squads that breakthrough usually do not have the infrastructure to support another strong run.

One suggestion would be to break up CONMEBOL and cherry pick Colombia, Venezuela but that is not likely to help much in raising the level of Mexico or the USA, we play those teams frequently already.

Probably the best bet is to raise the level of MLS and Mexican First Division and doing a real champions league format, which is already in the works. Hopefully, they do it right. Copa Libertadores is good but actually might hurt clubs with less resources to do two competitions and spend a ton of money. Usually teams domestic form takes a dip because it is grueling, just look at Cruz Azul, Tigres, America, Chivas. Nobody has done the double yet.

One thing to keep in mind, is barring miraculous upsets the soccer powers will always qualify in no matter what region your in. I.e. Brasil and Italy, Argentina, Germany. So in that sense the USA and Mexico will always be in there every 4 yrs with round of 16 at the very least an achievable goal.

I am not sold on every player needs to play in Europe. Look, the same squads win it every 4 yrs. While teams like Uruguay, Spain, Portugal, Scotland, and even England have all the players plaing in Europe’s top clubs and even they bomb out sometimes. It helps but lets not go overboard.

Posted from  United States

I still think the lack of euro based players is the most important thing that needs to change in Mexican soccer. Playing lesser teams at any level will stunt progress (international and professional). Mexico does have a lot of money but I don’t think it can compete with the likes of Spain, Italy, England etc. Also, why would euro players cross the atlantic when they can get paid just as much and get skill development by staying closer to home.

Posted from  United States

Maybe it’s time for the US to quit shunning Copa America. Then maybe, just maybe, Mexico won’t be the biggest scalp in the trophy case.

Posted from  United States

i agree with john trindiad and tobago was the only team that did good. Mexico didn’t prove why they are ranked number 4 in the fifa/coca cola ranking

After the teams performance in this cup, it is highly likely that CONCACAF will lose that extra 1/2 a spot they gained after the decent showing in 2002, and go back to just 3.
Africa already has 5 spots, which to me sounds just about right, so I doubt FIFA will give it to them - although given that South Africa will be hosting in 2010, it is still a posibility. Perhaps raising South America from 4 1/2 to 5 and adding a playoff between number 6 in Africa and Australia would be more adequate given the relative strengths of each conference.

- Africa: 5 1/2 spots
- South America: 5 spots
- CONCACAF: 3 spots
- Oceania: 1/2 spot.

Posted from  United States

Forgot Asia, which should also lose that extra 1/2 spot.

- Asia: 3

Posted from  United States

oops!
- Asia: 4 spots

and thats one too many if you ask me!

Posted from  United States

i think it is rather unfortunate (although not viable economically) that mexico does not eliminate itself within south america. it would spice up things, and really ensure that the mexican team is up to standard if it manages to get to the world cup. a good old idea, unfortunately not practical economically.

Posted from  United Kingdom