The Official 2007 Copa America thread

[phins_4_ever]

The result last night is the reason why the USA are not respected in Europe. Top 20 in the world!!!!!!! No where near that.

The Copa America is the one time, apart from the World Cup, where you have a chance to show the world how good football in the US is, and you make a show of yourselves.

The "C" team excuse is'nt valid cause you sent your best squad to win a cup only two teams have a real chance of winning so you could qualify for the meaningless Confed's Cup.

I really don't understand it either. In the Gold Cup it is more important to fiddle around with your best squad against Guadaloupe and the likes instead of sending your top squad to Copa America. Hey, the US wants exposure? Get to the finals in the Copa America.

The C-Team is the build in excuse. They probably know that they couldn't handle Copa America so they might as well send the "c-squad". Got a build-in excuse for failure.

If I would be a US player I'd rather play Argentina instead of Guatemala, El Salvadore and T&T.

 

[phins_4_ever]

it was our C team dude. Last I checked...5 starters missing is important. There is no doubt whatsover that the match would have been tight with our A squad.

The reason the europeans don't respect USA soccer is because of their arrogance. Who are you kidding.

I think the arrogance is on the US side. I remember the big talk before last year's WC how they could win it all and how they are amongst the top teams and the only ones ahead of them were Brazil.

And honestly, even if the Europeans would be arrogant they deserve it. Europeans (mainly France, Italy, Germany) and South Americans (mainly Brazil and Argentina) are dominating the WC.

All I hear from the US squad are excuses: oh they cheated us, oh we play with our c-team. There is a difference between playing proud and being arrogant. Throughout the world teams play with pride, the US is arrogant.

I highly doubt that you can call any National Team a C-Squad. There is really only your top team and then your reserves. Unless you go in every position into the 3rd squad you play with a modified top team. All the teams have to do it at one point or another. Most of the times it is because of injuries, the US has chosen to put a few reserve players in. It was their choice.

 

[phins_4_ever]

Meaningless? It's good practice for the World Cup.

Had we sent our B squad, I don't think we would've been able to defeat Mexico's A team in the finals. Reason Mexico can send an A team to both is because they are not in midseason like the MLS is.

The entire WC and EC qualification is in mid season. And teams make their players available. Lousy excuse.

And who cares if the MLS is in midseason. They want exposure, adjust your schedule accordingly.

PS: and the MLS was not in mid season when the Gold Cup was played? Or last year's WC, which was in June/July?

 

[phins_4_ever]

They need to make the national team a priority, no one cares about MLS.
And I'm not sure there's even competition going on right now in Europe (at least not in the big leagues)

All the leagues in Europe are done. They are preparing for next season which starts in some countries next month.

 

[phins_4_ever]

Others have already made the main points. But, I will add one thing about the Gold Cup. The main reason that's so important is for seeding purposes in the WC. In terms of which is more important for the WC, the Gold Cup clearly dominates.

In terms of which is more important recognition-wise, sure by far it's Copa America. But, Bradley had to make some decisions regarding scheduling concerns with MLS and even with clubs in Europe. So, yes it's a wasted opportunity, but the coach and players weighed the various alternatives and decided this was best. Can't argue too much with that you know. In the end it is primarily practice for the World Cup.

The Gold Cup has no bearing on the WC whatsoever. The seedings in the WC is based on the qualifications and the world standing. You may get a couple more points by winning the Gold Cup but the Gold Cup has also a lower rating than Copa America or the EC. Its not an easy system. I'd say that you could make a jump higher by winning Copa America than the Gold Cup. As a matter of fact, a loss against Argentina could give you more points than a win over Panama. And what does the Gold Cup BIG points help if you don't qualify?

The only effect the Gold Cup has is that the winner can play in the "pain in the butt" Confed Cup. But the downside is bigger than the upside.

 

[ckb2001]

The Gold Cup has no bearing on the WC whatsoever. The seedings in the WC is based on the qualifications and the world standing. You may get a couple more points by winning the Gold Cup but the Gold Cup has also a lower rating than Copa America or the EC. Its not an easy system. I'd say that you could make a jump higher by winning Copa America than the Gold Cup. As a matter of fact, a loss against Argentina could give you more points than a win over Panama. And what does the Gold Cup BIG points help if you don't qualify?

The only effect the Gold Cup has is that the winner can play in the "pain in the butt" Confed Cup. But the downside is bigger than the upside.

You're wrong about this. First of all, seedings are based on prior WC performance AND FIFA rankings. And FIFA rankings weight your matches based on what kind of match it is. Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings#2006_ranking_system_update

"Friendly match x 1.0
FIFA World Cup and Continental cup qualifiers x 2.5
Continental cup and Confederations Cup finals x 3.0
World Cup finals match x 4.0"
-----------------

First of all, since the US has a better chance of winning the Gold Cup than the Copa America (and the matches are equally weighted), it's wiser to focus on winning the Gold Cup if you care about seeding (only top 8 are seeded and US is like 13th or something like that last I looked.) Furthermore, it qualifies you for the Confederations Cup where the matches are weighted higher.

So, if the goal is to make it more likely you will be seeded, the US did the right thing.

 

[ckb2001]

I think the arrogance is on the US side. I remember the big talk before last year's WC how they could win it all and how they are amongst the top teams and the only ones ahead of them were Brazil.

And honestly, even if the Europeans would be arrogant they deserve it. Europeans (mainly France, Italy, Germany) and South Americans (mainly Brazil and Argentina) are dominating the WC.

All I hear from the US squad are excuses: oh they cheated us, oh we play with our c-team. There is a difference between playing proud and being arrogant. Throughout the world teams play with pride, the US is arrogant.

I highly doubt that you can call any National Team a C-Squad. There is really only your top team and then your reserves. Unless you go in every position into the 3rd squad you play with a modified top team. All the teams have to do it at one point or another. Most of the times it is because of injuries, the US has chosen to put a few reserve players in. It was their choice.

First of all, the talk among more optimistic US fans was that we might reach the quarter finals. The more level-headed of us were thinking we'd get into the second round. I don't remember anyone being serious about us winning the WC, so you don't have a basis for that argument, at least among almost all serious US soccer fans.

And bringing a C team to a tournament lowers expectations. Of COURSE that is a valid excuse. I even said before all this that one shouldn't be surprised if the US loses all its games because of that.

You're from Germany right? Don't you remember the excuses German teams that lost to the US in friendlies made? Yup, lots had to do with "not bringing our best players".

The excuse is valid. Seriously, look at the roster and you can't say with a serious face that's made of the second best 11 we have on average. Too many players are just not seriously on the radar for one to say that. This team you see is NOT our reserves. Overall, our reserves are stronger than that. I mean just look at the roster!!

 

[phins_4_ever]

You're wrong about this. First of all, seedings are based on prior WC performance AND FIFA rankings. And FIFA rankings weight your matches based on what kind of match it is. Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings#2006_ranking_system_update

"Friendly match x 1.0
FIFA World Cup and Continental cup qualifiers x 2.5
Continental cup and Confederations Cup finals x 3.0
World Cup finals match x 4.0"
-----------------

First of all, since the US has a better chance of winning the Gold Cup than the Copa America (and the matches are equally weighted), it's wiser to focus on winning the Gold Cup if you care about seeding (only top 8 are seeded and US is like 13th or something like that last I looked.) Furthermore, it qualifies you for the Confederations Cup where the matches are weighted higher.

So, if the goal is to make it more likely you will be seeded, the US did the right thing.

Riddle me this:
The US won the Gold Cup in 2005, was ranked 5th in the World prior to the WC in 2006 and they were still placed in Pot D. So what did the Gold Cup victory in 2005 do for the 2006 WC? What do you expect for them to get a seeding of top 8 now?

And just for your info. You can also get minus points in the rankings. So with a pathetic showing in the Copa America they may just have lost the Gold Cup points. They got left the Confed Cup. And you better not suck there. The USA will be facing the WC Champ, the EC Champ and Copa America Champ. You may just lose more points there as well. It is a lousy gamble for a move within Pot D, maybe, at best, up to pot C.

But my anger is not why they have chosen one cup over another. My anger is that they are crying and blaring how little respect they get and the little exposure and they are not even professional enough to work themselves up into the elite. They should have gone with their best squad into BOTH tournaments. PERIOD!!!!

 

[phins_4_ever]

First of all, the talk among more optimistic US fans was that we might reach the quarter finals. The more level-headed of us were thinking we'd get into the second round. I don't remember anyone being serious about us winning the WC, so you don't have a basis for that argument, at least among almost all serious US soccer fans.

And bringing a C team to a tournament lowers expectations. Of COURSE that is a valid excuse. I even said before all this that one shouldn't be surprised if the US loses all its games because of that.

You're from Germany right? Don't you remember the excuses German teams that lost to the US in friendlies made? Yup, lots had to do with "not bringing our best players".

The excuse is valid. Seriously, look at the roster and you can't say with a serious face that's made of the second best 11 we have on average. Too many players are just not seriously on the radar for one to say that. This team you see is NOT our reserves. Overall, our reserves are stronger than that. I mean just look at the roster!!

Friendlies are not competitions like EC, Copa America or the WC. The only time you have a full squad for a friendly is the tune up for the WC.

To be honest I don't even know which game you are talking about. And I can not recall Germans whining about not bringing their full squad to a meaningless friendly.

And I am not talking about fans when speaking of arrogance (eventhough that goes without even mentioning it). Oh no, I am talking the ESPN appearances by the players.

And it has nothing to if I am from Germany or not. The US is my home. I want them both to win. I want this sport to grow in this country. I lost already an MLS team. I am hoping to get one one day back. I am hoping that the competition is better one day. I am hoping that the US gets out of their little bubble and realize that to compete with the best you have to go out there with your best and play the best. CONSTANTLY!

As a second class team you have no right whatsoever to choose and pick your competition and then expect respect.

 

[ckb2001]

Riddle me this:
The US won the Gold Cup in 2005, was ranked 5th in the World prior to the WC in 2006 and they were still placed in Pot D. So what did the Gold Cup victory in 2005 do for the 2006 WC? What do you expect for them to get a seeding of top 8 now?

And just for your info. You can also get minus points in the rankings. So with a pathetic showing in the Copa America they may just have lost the Gold Cup points. They got left the Confed Cup. And you better not suck there. The USA will be facing the WC Champ, the EC Champ and Copa America Champ. You may just lose more points there as well. It is a lousy gamble for a move within Pot D, maybe, at best, up to pot C.

But my anger is not why they have chosen one cup over another. My anger is that they are crying and blaring how little respect they get and the little exposure and they are not even professional enough to work themselves up into the elite. They should have gone with their best squad into BOTH tournaments. PERIOD!!!!

Last time, Mexico barely edged the US out in rankings and got seeded as a result, instead of us being seeded. By the way, Mexico did participate in the Confed Cup, and I remember some on some soccer boards doing calculations of how it would have been different had the US won the Gold Cup and went to the Confed Cup. Well, that's past history, but it was very close with Mexico edging the US out.

Now, of course you can get minus points, but the question is NOT whether it's better to have sent the A team to BOTH the Gold Cup and Copa America - obviously, that's the best option! I as coach would have done that.

No, the question is IF you had to choose: either send the A team to Copa or the A team to the Gold Cup AND participate in both, well the US definitely did the right thing.

And winning the Gold Cup gets you more points by far than losing all three games in the group stage in Copa America. So, we already easily got net points there, even without the Confed Cup.


As far as the respect thing, being fair, arguments on both sides have merit. It's hard to argue the Europeans (even many average soccer fans) lower their estimate of US ability if one JUST goes by record. I've been in such debates before and did a bunch of statistical stuff, but the key point is it seems that if you don't know it was the US that had that particular record, the estimate of ability seems to be higher. I mean I've heard so many arguments putting Mexico well above the US, teams like Turkey or Sweden, etc.. all teams that are realistically in the same class as the US simply above us. And that's evidence of SOME sort of bias, not sure what.

On the other hand, the US is asking for more respect than it deserves, that's clear. I mean in the last 4 WC we came in last, close-to last, made it to the second round, and went to the quarter-finals. That's not that great a showing. So, I think it goes both ways. And sending such a weak team to such an important competition as Copa America is disrespectful, not to mention a waste of a great chance at getting the kind of experience the US needs.

 

[phins_4_ever]

Last time, Mexico barely edged the US out in rankings and got seeded as a result, instead of us being seeded. By the way, Mexico did participate in the Confed Cup, and I remember some on some soccer boards doing calculations of how it would have been different had the US won the Gold Cup and went to the Confed Cup. Well, that's past history, but it was very close with Mexico edging the US out.

Now, of course you can get minus points, but the question is NOT whether it's better to have sent the A team to BOTH the Gold Cup and Copa America - obviously, that's the best option! I as coach would have done that.

No, the question is IF you had to choose: either send the A team to Copa or the A team to the Gold Cup AND participate in both, well the US definitely did the right thing.

And winning the Gold Cup gets you more points by far than losing all three games in the group stage in Copa America. So, we already easily got net points there, even without the Confed Cup.


As far as the respect thing, being fair, arguments on both sides have merit. It's hard to argue the Europeans (even many average soccer fans) lower their estimate of US ability if one JUST goes by record. I've been in such debates before and did a bunch of statistical stuff, but the key point is it seems that if you don't know it was the US that had that particular record, the estimate of ability seems to be higher. I mean I've heard so many arguments putting Mexico well above the US, teams like Turkey or Sweden, etc.. all teams that are realistically in the same class as the US simply above us. And that's evidence of SOME sort of bias, not sure what.

On the other hand, the US is asking for more respect than it deserves, that's clear. I mean in the last 4 WC we came in last, close-to last, made it to the second round, and went to the quarter-finals. That's not that great a showing. So, I think it goes both ways. And sending such a weak team to such an important competition as Copa America is disrespectful, not to mention a waste of a great chance at getting the kind of experience the US needs.

You putting too much weigth into winning the Gold Cup. Mexico was NOT seeded because of the Gold Cup.

Here is the 2006 formula:

To calculate the seeding for the 2006 FIFA World Cup, FIFA used the FIFA World Rankings in combination with performances of national teams in the two previous World Cups. [1]

Points were allocated on the basis of 32 for the best achieving of the 32 qualifiers for 2006 FIFA World Cup in each of the five fields considered, down to one for the lowest ranking.

The seedings table uses these points obtained from the 1998 FIFA World Cup and the 2002 FIFA World Cup averaged in a 1:2 ratio respectively, added to the average amount of points derived from the World Rankings at three given dates (at ratio 1:1:1), December 2003, December 2004, and November 2005. This generates a view of how well the teams have performed over the last ten years (since the rankings in 2003 include results from eight years previous to that) with a specific focus on how the teams have performed in the FIFA World Cup on previous occasions. Significant differences between this ranking of the teams and the official FIFA rankings at the time of the draw can be seen for Czech Republic, Germany and South Korea (ρ=0.87).

As I told you before: it is consistency what counts. Based on a win in the Gold Cup every winner of the respected cups should be seeded.

Why should the winner of CONCACAF have a seed and not the winner of CAF or OFC or AFC?

In other words you should have the US seeded among Australia, the EC winner, the Copa America winner, and maybe Cameroon or Ghana or something like that. Not so. Winning the Gold Cup helps you in the rankings. Losing lousy in Copa America and the Confed Cup hurts you in the rankings. To be seeded you have to do much more then just win the Gold Cup.

 

[ckb2001]

Friendlies are not competitions like EC, Copa America or the WC. The only time you have a full squad for a friendly is the tune up for the WC.

To be honest I don't even know which game you are talking about. And I can not recall Germans whining about not bringing their full squad to a meaningless friendly.

And I am not talking about fans when speaking of arrogance (eventhough that goes without even mentioning it). Oh no, I am talking the ESPN appearances by the players.

And it has nothing to if I am from Germany or not. The US is my home. I want them both to win. I want this sport to grow in this country. I lost already an MLS team. I am hoping to get one one day back. I am hoping that the competition is better one day. I am hoping that the US gets out of their little bubble and realize that to compete with the best you have to go out there with your best and play the best. CONSTANTLY!

As a second class team you have no right whatsoever to choose and pick your competition and then expect respect.

I already addressed our attitude towards Copa America and the Gold Cup in my post above (as well as what I think should have been done), so you can respond to that there.

ESPN appearances by the players.. I see. Well, I think a good deal of that is not arrogance as much as trying to keep a positive attitude, an attitude of "we can win it". It may come off as arrogance, but that's really irrelevant if you're a player or a coach who wants to prepare yourself to win a game.

So, attacking the fans as being arrogant is one thing (that's more justifiable). But, the players or the coach? Public relations isn't their FIRST concern. Winning is, so if they think it's best to make statements like "we can beat the best in the world", etc.. or "we can get to the QF" etc.. well I'm not going to necessarily believe it nor attack them for it.


I'll try looking up the game I remember reading quotes about: there were two games we played against Germany on home soil, one was 3-0 US and the other I forget. In one of the games you had most of your best players and the other you didn't. The kinds of excuses you hear from practically every team when they lose playing their B team was no different from Germany. I'll see if I can find some quotes (may take some time).

 

[ckb2001]

You putting too much weigth into winning the Gold Cup. Mexico was NOT seeded because of the Gold Cup.

Here is the 2006 formula:

Maybe I didn't make it clear (read what I write here and then reread what I wrote before). On one soccer forum, BigSoccer (the best one I know), I remember some guys doing calculations of what the difference in ranking would have been had the US won the prior Gold Cup and won something like 1 or 2 games in the subsequent Confed Cup instead of Mexico doing that. And one of the guys there showed that this difference would have been enough to get the US seeded. That's what I'm referring to. Of course, since I didn't do the calculations myself, and I couldn't possibly find a link to something that old by searching on BigSoccer, I can't verify it.

The point is, the difference in points between Mexico and the US was VERY small. And winning or not winning one such tournament may have been the difference in Mexico edging the US out in getting seeded.

As I told you before: it is consistency what counts. Based on a win in the Gold Cup every winner of the respected cups should be seeded.

Why should the winner of CONCACAF have a seed and not the winner of CAF or OFC or AFC?

In other words you should have the US seeded among Australia, the EC winner, the Copa America winner, and maybe Cameroon or Ghana or something like that. Not so. Winning the Gold Cup helps you in the rankings. Losing lousy in Copa America and the Confed Cup hurts you in the rankings. To be seeded you have to do much more then just win the Gold Cup.

I see you added this after I posted my answer above. It seems you didn't understand what I was saying. Never did I say winning the Gold Cup gets you seeded. I said that the difference point-wise between Mexico and the US was small enough that one such Gold Cup win (plus one or two Confed Cup wins) might have made the difference.

Also, regarding THIS situation we're in now, I made it clear that IF you had to choose between winning the Gold Cup or winning the Copa America, the best strategy given the strength of the US is to go for the Gold Cup.

Is that clearer? I thought I laid that argument out clearly.

 

[phins_4_ever]

Maybe I didn't make it clear (read what I write here and then reread what I wrote before). On one soccer forum, BigSoccer (the best one I know), I remember some guys doing calculations of what the difference in ranking would have been had the US won the prior Gold Cup and won something like 1 or 2 games in the subsequent Confed Cup instead of Mexico doing that. And one of the guys there showed that this difference would have been enough to get the US seeded. That's what I'm referring to. Of course, since I didn't do the calculations myself, and I couldn't possibly find a link to something that old by searching on BigSoccer, I can't verify it.

The point is, the difference in points between Mexico and the US was VERY small. And winning or not winning one such tournament may have been the difference in Mexico edging the US out in getting seeded.

I tell you what: I wouldn't listen to any fan calculations. FIFA has not even listed its formula on how the rankings are calculated. There is no way a fan can just come up with some calculation.

See to consider the rankings you have to take all the mexico games out that will change the opponents strength of mexico, then you insert the US ...oh boy...

here is FIFA's explanation:

You are a man of science, you figure it out:

:wink:

COMPARISON OF BASIC CALCULATION CRITERIA

Revised World Ranking
Existing world ranking
Matches All international "A" matches All international "A" matches
Result: Win-Draw-Defeat 3 points -1 points – 0 points Complex points allocation
Importance of match 1 (friendly match) to 4 (FIFA World Cupâ„¢) 1 (friendly match) to 2 (FIFA World Cupâ„¢)
Strength of opponent Position in world ranking (no. 1 = 2.00, no. 30 = 1.70, no. 118 = 0.82 etc.)
Formula: [200 - Position] / 100 Complex calculation based on difference in strength of teams
Regional strength Based on results in last three FIFA World Cups (wins per confederation per match) Complex calculation based on all inter-continental matches played in the previous 12 months
Period Last four years, gradual decline in importance of results: 100%- 50% - 30% - 20% Last 8 years with linear importance of results
Number of matches considered per year Average points gained from all matches in last 12 months (minimum: 5 matches) Complex calculation (average between best 7 matches and all matches)
Number of goals -- Points value from the difference between goals for and goals against
Home and away matches -- 3-point bonus for away team

Thats garbelt...here is the link:

http://fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/procedure/men.html

and after you are done with that you have to continue on with the rest of the 2006 seeding formula.

Points were allocated on the basis of 32 for the best achieving of the 32 qualifiers for 2006 FIFA World Cup in each of the five fields considered, down to one for the lowest ranking.

The seedings table uses these points obtained from the 1998 FIFA World Cup and the 2002 FIFA World Cup averaged in a 1:2 ratio respectively, added to the average amount of points derived from the World Rankings at three given dates (at ratio 1:1:1), December 2003, December 2004, and November 2005. This generates a view of how well the teams have performed over the last ten years (since the rankings in 2003 include results from eight years previous to that) with a specific focus on how the teams have performed in the FIFA World Cup on previous occasions. Significant differences between this ranking of the teams and the official FIFA rankings at the time of the draw can be seen for Czech Republic, Germany and South Korea (ρ=0.87).

I bet ya that Mexico won the WC qualification.

:wink:

 

[ckb2001]

I tell you what: I wouldn't listen to any fan calculations. FIFA has not even listed its formula on how the rankings are calculated. There is no way a fan can just come up with some calculation.

See to consider the rankings you have to take all the mexico games out that will change the opponents strength of mexico, then you insert the US ...oh boy...

here is FIFA's explanation:

You are a man of science, you figure it out:

:wink:



Thats garbelt...here is the link:

http://fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/procedure/men.html

and after you are done with that you have to continue on with the rest of the 2006 seeding formula.



I bet ya that Mexico won the WC qualification.

:wink:

Well, that info is probably sufficient to reconstruct the calculations. Anyway, like I said, if I can't verify it I won't claim it to be true, but I do know the difference point-wise between Mexico and the US was very small the last time around.

By the way, you lost that bet about Mexico winning the WC qualification. The US did last time :wink:

And I think it was the 2-0 US win over Germany in the Confed Cup in Mexico where I remember some quotes, but I'm still not yet sure.