Comments on: CONCACAF Disappoints

By: jack

jack — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:41:57 +0000

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.

By: diego

diego — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:33:10 +0000

oops!
- Asia: 4 spots

and thats one too many if you ask me!

By: diego

diego — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:26:50 +0000

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

- Asia: 3

By: diego

diego — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:23:30 +0000

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.

By: unknown

unknown — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 01:13:43 +0000

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

By: John

John — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:47:44 +0000

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.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:32:43 +0000

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.

By: Big-Baller-Shot-Caller

Big-Baller-Shot-Caller — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 05:08:28 +0000

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.

By: Gus

Gus — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 05:07:50 +0000

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

By: Rene

Rene — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:52:38 +0000

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.