Post: #26

(06-12-2017 03:46 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  How come then the US is having such difficulty in a fairly weak group? I haven't seen the games, were they unlucky?

Klinsmann was an idiot. Arena isn't that much better but he knows this team and he knows the opponents. Don't think coaching is that important at this level? Just look at Holland.

Post: #27

(06-12-2017 10:14 PM)BallsDeep Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 03:46 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  How come then the US is having such difficulty in a fairly weak group? I haven't seen the games, were they unlucky? Pulisic is indeed looking good, but the US will need more then that. Let's see if Panama and Costa Rica win tomorrow, because if they do it can become quite a tight finish still.

We haven't lost a game since Klinsmann was fired.

Many US Soccer fans believe we would've beaten Belgium in the last WC had Klinsmann not been the coach. More importantly, if we had a decent coach we would've won our group and not had to face Belgium in the first place.

Our current coach, Bruce Arena, is decent but not world class. He's the best American coach out there though, and since Klinsmann was fired only 18 months before WC 2018 we were forced to hire a coach who is already familiar with the American talent pool.

The US is already #2 in the hex and will stay there through qualifying. Mexico is on a tear and I expect them to get 3 points in each of their remaining qualifying games. This is easily the best Mexican squad of the last 30 years and they should do some damage next year in Russia.

Mexico will do as they always do.

Be on fire in group stage, either upset the top seed and come out as group winners, or strong runners-up, then go out in the first knockout round.

Ever since my first World Cup that I remember (98), it's been the same

98- R16 loss to Germany
02- R16 loss to USA
06- R16 loss to Argentina
10- R16 loss to Argentina
14- R16 loss to Netherlands


Looking back, they actually keep getting really tough draws in R16s

Post: #28

Mexico has been eliminated more than any other country in the Round of 16.

But this Mexican team is far better than any of the prior ones.

In any WC there's usually 6-8 countries that have a shot, and Mexico will be in that category next year.

Post: #29

(06-12-2017 10:14 PM)BallsDeep Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 03:46 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  How come then the US is having such difficulty in a fairly weak group? I haven't seen the games, were they unlucky? Pulisic is indeed looking good, but the US will need more then that. Let's see if Panama and Costa Rica win tomorrow, because if they do it can become quite a tight finish still.

We haven't lost a game since Klinsmann was fired.

Many US Soccer fans believe we would've beaten Belgium in the last WC had Klinsmann not been the coach. More importantly, if we had a decent coach we would've won our group and not had to face Belgium in the first place.

Our current coach, Bruce Arena, is decent but not world class. He's the best American coach out there though, and since Klinsmann was fired only 18 months before WC 2018 we were forced to hire a coach who is already familiar with the American talent pool.

The US is already #2 in the hex and will stay there through qualifying. Mexico is on a tear and I expect them to get 3 points in each of their remaining qualifying games. This is easily the best Mexican squad of the last 30 years and they should do some damage next year in Russia.

Like you said US fans, I don't think anyone else would think that as Belgium was far superior to the US. Belgium dominated that game, they had 38 goal chances compared to 14 by the US. 26 were on target compared to 9 of the US, Tim Howard saved that game or it could have been an easy victory for Belgium.

I'm not so sure about Mexico either. I admit I haven't seen them play recently, but their top players seem to be Herrera and Corona from Porto and Chicharito & Carlos Vela. Decent players for sure, but as always mostly attacking. On first sight there is little balance in the team. The overall worth of the squad is also just slightly above average for a world cup team. For instance teams like Poland and Serbia have more expensive squads.

Only if they can get the unity and fighting spirit of a team like Chile, they would be able to cause damage. To my surprise they are also a fairly old squad, I see that as an advantage though on a tournament. Maybe their experience will get them somewhere.

After the Confederations cup we will know more, because I see in recent times only small wins and draws against average teams. And a loss against Chile (0-7) and Croatia (1-2). Let's see what they can do against Portugal and Russia.

I agree on the group ending; Mexico, Us and then Costa Rica. Panama to lose against the Asian qualifier. It surprises me even to see them up there. They have absolutely no top players, I would've thought teams like Jamaica or Canada even would be stronger, but it appears not. Good for them.

Post: #30

(06-12-2017 10:32 PM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 03:46 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  How come then the US is having such difficulty in a fairly weak group? I haven't seen the games, were they unlucky?

Klinsmann was an idiot. Arena isn't that much better but he knows this team and he knows the opponents. Don't think coaching is that important at this level? Just look at Holland.

Holland has sucked of late, no talent, at least by their historic standards.

Belgium is the team that has been the most undercoached for the last few years, I don;t know how good Martinez is but there is no way that he's going to be as bad as Wilmots was. He came from Everton, coached Lukaku and Mirallas and against Kompany, Hazard, KdB, Courtois and co in the EPL.

If I'm a bigtime soccer coach, this is the challenge I'd want to take, if you bring that team to near the sum of its parts, look out!


Here are the early odds to win:

Germany 5/1 Brazil 6/1 France 15/2
Spain 8/1 Argentina 9/1 Belgium 16/1
Italy 16/1 England 18/1 Colombia 25/1
Russia 28/1 Portugal 28/1 Uruguay 33/1
Netherlands 33/1 Chile 33/1 Croatia 40/1

Brazil is overrated, they just aren't that good right now to start with, and they've always laid eggs in Europe. Russia is even worse as a venue for them.

Belgium at 16 to 1 looks like a solid value. Holland isn't even going to qualify, with France and Sweden in their group.

Post: #31

(06-12-2017 11:53 PM)911 Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 10:32 PM)Space Cowboy Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 03:46 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  How come then the US is having such difficulty in a fairly weak group? I haven't seen the games, were they unlucky?

Klinsmann was an idiot. Arena isn't that much better but he knows this team and he knows the opponents. Don't think coaching is that important at this level? Just look at Holland.

Holland has sucked of late, no talent, at least by their historic standards.

Belgium is the team that has been the most undercoached for the last few years, I don;t know how good Martinez is but there is no way that he's going to be as bad as Wilmots was. He came from Everton, coached Lukaku and Mirallas and against Kompany, Hazard, KdB, Courtois and co in the EPL.

If I'm a bigtime soccer coach, this is the challenge I'd want to take, if you bring that team to near the sum of its parts, look out!


Here are the early odds to win:

Germany 5/1 Brazil 6/1 France 15/2
Spain 8/1 Argentina 9/1 Belgium 16/1
Italy 16/1 England 18/1 Colombia 25/1
Russia 28/1 Portugal 28/1 Uruguay 33/1
Netherlands 33/1 Chile 33/1 Croatia 40/1

Brazil is overrated, they just aren't that good right now to start with, and they've always laid eggs in Europe. Russia is even worse as a venue for them.

Belgium at 16 to 1 looks like a solid value. Holland isn't even going to qualify, with France and Sweden in their group.

Agreed on Brazil, they look good now, but they will lose again against a European team with a strong defensive block. The attack is world class and the defense is decent, but I don't see that midfield dominating against strong sides.

Holland is back on track, but just too late. I think they would've made it, if not for that late Sweden goal against France. Now they are 3 points behind and have a goal less in favor so it will be hard to even reach the European play offs. A lot of talent coming through though, next tournament, they will be back.

Belgium has had horrible coaches, but they are also a difficult side to coach. The best thing Martinez did was change it to a 3-5-2 and give Hazard more freedom. Nevertheless, the Belgium FA is very dumb for not organizing friendlies against top teams. Belgium will easily win their group, but will have next to no experience playing the top teams in their new formation. Having a 3 man defense is no issue against Greece, Bosnia, Czech Republic, etc., but it has to be tested against France, Brazil, Argentina, Germany... Also if Kompany, Vermaelen get injured then they have to rely on Alderweireld and Vertonghen and a lesser player. That could be fatal for their WC winning chances.

Post: #32

Are Mexico still playing their 5 at the back system? They were looking really good with that in 2014, and I wish England played a smiliar system as it would play to our strengths.

Post: #33

(06-12-2017 11:53 PM)911 Wrote:  Holland has sucked of late, no talent, at least by their historic standards.

Belgium is the team that has been the most undercoached for the last few years, I don;t know how good Martinez is but there is no way that he's going to be as bad as Wilmots was. He came from Everton, coached Lukaku and Mirallas and against Kompany, Hazard, KdB, Courtois and co in the EPL.

If I'm a bigtime soccer coach, this is the challenge I'd want to take, if you bring that team to near the sum of its parts, look out!


Here are the early odds to win:

Germany 5/1 Brazil 6/1 France 15/2
Spain 8/1 Argentina 9/1 Belgium 16/1
Italy 16/1 England 18/1 Colombia 25/1
Russia 28/1 Portugal 28/1 Uruguay 33/1
Netherlands 33/1 Chile 33/1 Croatia 40/1

Brazil is overrated, they just aren't that good right now to start with, and they've always laid eggs in Europe. Russia is even worse as a venue for them.

Belgium at 16 to 1 looks like a solid value. Holland isn't even going to qualify, with France and Sweden in their group.

I was in the stadium in Lyon for Belgium 0-2 Italy match in Euro 2016. I dont understand about the hype for Belgium. That team has no unity, just like Argentina. Everyone looks at Belgium one by one and they see that they have quality names but they can't do anything if they are not a team.

We had one of the worst team in our history in Euro 2016. We had Pelle and Eder upfront and we still beat Belgium pretty comfortably. If you would have compared one by one Belgium vs Italy line-up, they should have beat us 3-0.

They're not really gonna do anything in World Cup as well. I think they can go up to Quarter Final and thats about it.

Post: #34

(06-12-2017 11:47 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  Like you said US fans, I don't think anyone else would think that as Belgium was far superior to the US. Belgium dominated that game, they had 38 goal chances compared to 14 by the US. 26 were on target compared to 9 of the US, Tim Howard saved that game or it could have been an easy victory for Belgium.

Yes Belgium dominated the game, and Howard had one of the best goalkeeping games in history.

But this is why US fans think we would've won it with a better coach:



This player was a substitute striker with no international experience. The idea is if Klinsmann weren't such a stubborn idiot, that Landon Donovan would've been the substitute striker instead of this guy, and Donovan would've put that ball away in the 93rd minute.

Post: #35

Yeah I remember that moment, but I think it's far fetched to write this off to the coach. Just an individual miss and if you see what Belgian stars missed that day, you realize that even top players (such as Donovan) could do the same. In all honesty, I think Klinsmann didn't do too bad with that team. Second round was an achievement given the lack of talent in that team. Let's see how they will do this time around, but I think US fans are once again underestimating the level of international football due to who they are playing in their qualifiers. They should play some mid level European teams before the tournament, the likes of Slovakia, Bosnia, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden,... That should give them an idea about their current level.

Post: #36

Japan took a point in Iraq (they can finally host at home), now they can secure their qualification in their next game at home against Australia who needs at least a draw to stay in the game.

Post: #37

Belgium's golden generation will most likely end up just like how England's golden generation did, too much hype and pressure.

BallsDeep, I see your point about Klinsmann should have brought on a different sub, but I can guarantee you that guy (no idea what his name is) scores that chance 99/100 in training. The manager can only do so much.

Post: #38

(06-13-2017 11:47 AM)e-smile Wrote:  Japan took a point in Iraq (they can finally host at home), now they can secure their qualification in their next game at home against Australia who needs at least a draw to stay in the game.

Iraq plays their home matches in Tehran, not Iraq.

That group A is looking tasty. a real 3 way battle between Japan, Saudi and Australia. Last 2 games are gonna be insane.

Was kind of hoping UAE would beat Thailand, so they'd be in shout for a play-off spot when they host Saudi in August. Now they are just gonna lay down for their "brother" masters and gift them an easy 3 points.

Post: #39

I don't know aboutthe English golden generation Britch, there was a good team in the 90s that made the semis in the '90 WC and '96 Euro, and lots of great mostly British clubs before that like Keegan's Liverpool, but not much since in terms of tangible results... The caliber of Belgian players is pretty high, probably in the top 3 in Europe right now.

Post: #40

Klinsmann managed the USA through to the second round in a group that included Germany, Portugal, and Ghana. People thought we were fucked before the tournament even started and we made it out... USA's 2014 performance was overshadowed by Costa Rica and to a lesser extent, Mexico, but what Klinsmann did for that team was remarkable.

Though he technically accepted Landon Donovan's sabbatical (which was during the season, mind you... he missed multiple qualifiers), Donovan was challenging Klinsmann's authority as manager while making a show of his mental health problems. Yes, he's THE BEST PLAYER IN US SOCCER HISTORY, but come on... that's the equivalent of being the best basketball player in the history of a 250-person high school. If the current #10 stays healthy, he'll be the best player in US soccer history.

Never mind the fact that Donovan could never get consistent runs in Europe (partially because he was "homesick"), nevermind that his attitude has always been shit, and nevermind that he wouldn't shut up about being "depressed, not in the right place mentally" for two fucking years.

The US always hypes a player (and the sport itself) as the next big thing without realizing that--despite great progress since Italia '90--getting to a point where the team is a consistent quarter-finalist or semi-finalist could take generations.

The whole thing with Wondolowski's miss sums up everything you need to know about US soccer supporters. "Oh, if we had Donovan we would've won..."

^These are the same cunts whose parents wouldn't let them play American football as children. They're fucking hall monitors who nitpick everything. We got run ragged by Belgium and were very fortunate to not get embarrassed (FFS if we'd won that game we would've had to go up against Argentina). If we had Donovan and his bitch-ass, "look at me attitude," there's no way we would even get out of the group stage.

But no, a heroic showing and a great management job in 2014 only set these people's expectations sky-high... fast forward to 2015, Gold Cup, we get bounced by Jamaica and it's the end of the fucking world. As if Jamaica is some scrub team that's so far beneath us... just because their manager made it to be a "David vs. Goliath"-struggle. Or, as if the Gold Cup really matters, anyway.

It's fucking madness. Every "die hard" fan made Klinsmann out to be some sort of failure and pressured US Soccer's economist-in-Chief Mr. Gulati to can him after losses to Costa Rica and Mexico in qualifying.

^ Yes, that string of games was bad. At the same time, unless Klinsmann was so difficult to deal with that US Soccer had to part ways, letting him go was a huge mistake because:

1. You're making US soccer out to be some sort of Italy, Argentina, Spain, Brazil, etc. where if you don't win and win now then you're gone.
2. To get to the next step (consistent quarter-finalist, favored to go through in any group) you need to change the culture (ie the domestic league--which is barely 20 years old--plays spring through fall), you need to go hard after dual-nationals... Bitch tits Bruce Arena likes his players to be "real Americans," btw.
3. You need to let the California German try out some "weird" tactical shit. You need to let him have a big say in the youth development. Yeah, qualification would've been tense, but we're not in any sort of position to think "short term..." unless we want the same results for another generation or two.

^The game is never going to be culturally relevant in the US a la basketball or football (TBD with concussion science). So, you need to be efficient in how you develop these kids, get them over to Europe, don't be so fucking stubborn about doing it OUR way and let the stubborn Kraut do it HIS way and maybe we'll fucking learn something.

Save for 2002, we've never been past the second round. In the short term, Arena got a big result at Azteca... which makes it more difficult to defend Klinsmann. In the long term, we really fucked ourselves by trying to nitpick Klinsmann to death and finally letting him go.

The winners in all of this are every other CONCACAF country because oh what we could've been!!

Post: #41

(06-13-2017 08:10 AM)BallsDeep Wrote:  

(06-12-2017 11:47 PM)rottenapple Wrote:  Like you said US fans, I don't think anyone else would think that as Belgium was far superior to the US. Belgium dominated that game, they had 38 goal chances compared to 14 by the US. 26 were on target compared to 9 of the US, Tim Howard saved that game or it could have been an easy victory for Belgium.

Yes Belgium dominated the game, and Howard had one of the best goalkeeping games in history.

But this is why US fans think we would've won it with a better coach:



This player was a substitute striker with no international experience. The idea is if Klinsmann weren't such a stubborn idiot, that Landon Donovan would've been the substitute striker instead of this guy, and Donovan would've put that ball away in the 93rd minute.

I think the guys who criticize this striker and Klinsmann never played football/soccer in their lives.
It is not an easy ball to score, he tries to put it over the keeper who is already on top of him by the time the ball reaches his foot for the shot. I have seen legendary strikers missing far more easier chances...

Post: #42

That's different though, he tried to showboat an score a fancy backheel and got tangled up when a tap would have worked.

Post: #43

(06-13-2017 01:42 PM)911 Wrote:  That's different though, he tried to showboat an score a fancy backheel and got tangled up when a tap would have worked.

Even worst me thinks.

In the GIF of the missing chance by USA it is clear that the keeper is already half a metre close to the ball when he strikes it. He tried to chip it over and failed. I give more credit to the keeper than criticism on the striker.

Post: #44

(06-13-2017 12:44 PM)AManLikePutin Wrote:  

(06-13-2017 11:47 AM)e-smile Wrote:  Japan took a point in Iraq (they can finally host at home), now they can secure their qualification in their next game at home against Australia who needs at least a draw to stay in the game.

Iraq plays their home matches in Tehran, not Iraq.

That group A is looking tasty. a real 3 way battle between Japan, Saudi and Australia. Last 2 games are gonna be insane.

Was kind of hoping UAE would beat Thailand, so they'd be in shout for a play-off spot when they host Saudi in August. Now they are just gonna lay down for their "brother" masters and gift them an easy 3 points.

They were recently allowed to play in Iraq, they played their first time at home in a friendly against Jordan a couple of weeks ago so I though they would play this game in Iraq as well.

Post: #45

Watching France-England now, some top top talents on the pitch. Romania-Chile also a nice game.

Post: #46

US soccer was arguably better in the 90s under Bora.

The 1-0 loss to Brazil (eventual champion) in the second round showed the US can compete.

Also, that team had some flair. Lalas, Harkes, Wynalda, Jones, all great players.

Post: #47

(06-13-2017 02:35 PM)underboss Wrote:  US soccer was arguably better in the 90s under Bora.

The 1-0 loss to Brazil (eventual champion) in the second round showed the US can compete.

Also, that team had some flair. Lalas, Harkes, Wynalda, Jones, all great players.

That team was cool, esp. Wynalda and Harkes.

Still, it's important to remember that:

1. That WC was played at home.
2. Even with home field advantage (think of S. Korea in 2002) we were very fortunate to go through... we went through as a third place team (1-1-1). Our lone victory made possible in large part by Colombia's infamous own goal.
3. Brazil went down to ten men shortly before half time in the second round.

Post: #48

(06-12-2017 11:00 PM)BallsDeep Wrote:  Mexico has been eliminated more than any other country in the Round of 16.

But this Mexican team is far better than any of the prior ones.

In any WC there's usually 6-8 countries that have a shot, and Mexico will be in that category next year.

Not sure how good they are. Maybe they just look great because their CONCACAF opponents are so weak. Mexico recently lost in a friendly to a Croatian C-squad. Also key players Marquez, Guardado and Chicarito are old.

Post: #49

Mexico would never qualify in CONMEBOL.

Post: #50

How is Portugal 28-1 after winning Euro 16? That looks like a value bet to me.