http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_ylt=A ... &type=lgns


The United States is now fifth and only one point behind fourth ranked Argentina. Germany fell out of the top 20 and the Czech Republic who is in group E with the Americans remain 2nd.

a bit sketchy, methinks

#5?! It's got to be a marketing ploy to attract more US viewers to the Cup. Once we start beating Mexico on a regular basis, then I'd say we've cracked the Top 15.

We tend to beat Mexico on a regular basis here in the United States and play well against them in Mexico City, we just can't get a victory there.
With Mexico ranked 7th, I say our place is justified. Our friendly against Germany on March 22nd in Dortmund, should really show us how well prepared we are for the World Cup.

USA ahead of Spain & France! Thats ridiculous. Good luck though. The Germany game will be very interesting after they got trashed the other week.

Has France really done anything since they won the Euro title in 2000? They don't even have Zidane anymore.

NO. Have you seen some of the players who are on the fringes of making the squad though? If the manager has the balls to drop some of the more established players i expect them to do well. I really fancy Spain for the winners.

This is like, cricket or something, right?

Nah it's like the World Series.

Who gives a fuck about France?

[img][650:488]http://www.tvcrazy.net/tvclassics/wallpaper/cartoons/looneytunes/images/Pepe.jpg[/img]

The FIFA ranks are a complete joke.

The US, Mexico and Australia in particular play competitive matches in pretty weak geographical groups and, surprise, surprise tend to win most of them. Compare this is group qualification in Europe or South America.

The result is teams who dominate weak geographical qualifying groups in Oceania, North and Central America, Asia (and to a lesser extent Africa) are 'ranked' much higher than they should be.

In contrast, European teams, in particular, those who fail to qualify to major tournaments from much more difficult and competative groups are ranked much lower than they should be.

To give you an example, my own nation Scotland, don't have a bad record in competative matches but we have just failed to qualify for the last few major competitions. We are ranked around 65th.

In 'real' terms we are about the same standard as the current US team (the recent results between the two nations confirm this, 1 win each and 2 draws in the last ten years or so, including a draw this season) but because the US qualify from a weak geographical section and Scotland fail to qualify from a much stronger geographical section, the US are rated much higher than we are. On the pitch there is actually very little difference in the quality of the sides.

Basically, the ranking system is the result of politics at FIFA from the weaker confederations in order to limit the power of the Europeans.

I will concede that Europe is more competitive, but I can't really see comparing Oceania to North America. Both the United States and Mexico are equally competitive with Argentina and Brazil when it comes to the Gold Cup Tournament, and both of those squads consistantly beat the best Europe has to offer.
The U.S. team tends to play its most difficult friendly matches abroad, and rarely gets the opportunity to play one of the so-called European powers at home.
I agree that the system is flawed, but it is hard to rate national teams on a regular basis, when most countries lose their best players to the major European Soccer leagues for a great deal of the year. I'd like to see the World cup decided by an RPI, in which countries would be rewarded for playing a tougher global schedule than win a regional round robin tournament.

BTW, I have never understood how Wales, Scotland and England each have a national team, when they are unified as one entity. It seems a little screwy to me, even though I know it is all about national pride.

[quote="Promethium McCabe"]Both the United States and Mexico are equally competitive with Argentina and Brazil when it comes to the Gold Cup Tournament[quote]

I accept a lot of your points but Argentina and Brazil generally send a 'shadow' squad to the Gold Cup when they compete in it.

Not to mention the third-tier squad England sent over last year. We lost. And didn't we get pummeled by an unknown Dutch team in NY last year.

Billy Packer : ACC :: Darrin Frew : UEFA

the British Isles get special consideration as they are the home of the game

so they all get a team

Yeah this is definitely the case, but has different results. The US and Mexico are decent teams but have been able to get to the World Cup and dominate CONCACAF competitions (where the real points are) by being easily the 2 biggest fish in that pond. But in no way are either top 10 teams. I wouldn't necessarily even call them top 15.

For Australia this argument doesn't really work since being in Ocenia has done nothing for us - consistently ranked in 50s/60s and up until this year only 1 WC qualification, which always comes down to a tough 2-legged match against a team from another confederation with little/no preparation in meaningful games.

I've always maintained that we could be a good team if we were in a stronger confederation where we could play more meaningful matches and have the opportunity of direct qulification. At least we get the chance now we're in Asia to show that.

The rankings are crap and yes, the US benefits from playing a ton of games against weak teams. We are better than Mexico now though I have to say, considering they can beat us in Mexico City, but anywhere else we've beaten them regularly for several years now, including the last cup when it really mattered. We're a legit top 20 team, nothing to sneeze at and can rise up and grab an upset against top level teams on our day, but we don't have the individual stars to really be a top 5-10 team.

OH...and the Englad team that beat us had a bunch of 2nd and 3rd stringers, but we only had a fraction of our guys as well. And, we played the Dutch twicew in recent memory, once before the last cup and once a couple years back in Holland, both very close games with the Dutch bringing their big guns.

We did just beat a solid Poland team a coupl weeks age and will be playing Germany in Germany next week...a game, unfortunatyely, that I expect to lose as our domestic players are all still in pre-season, we'll be missing many of our top players from Europe since it's not a FIFA date and teams don't have to release, and considering the beating Italy just laid down on the Germans, I expect them to be up for it.

I'd like to see the US play the Aussies..would be a close match-up I think. The Aussies have a few more established players, but the US plays very well as a unit...which is why they do tend to punch a bit above weight when ya look at results vs. the quality of many of the players.

i'd like to address this more in depth, although darrin did a good job. but for now it is important to point out that the french do indeed have zidane. he has come out of international retirement to play for les bleus one last time in the world cup

He's not the player he was though (i.e one of the best players of the last 20 years) and the fact that he's been drafted in again tells you France are a little bit desperate.

I wouldn't expect France to do much at the Word Cup but it will be interesting to see how Thierry Henry does. Will he finally prove it at the top level or go down as one of those great club players that never made the step up?

This is the problem for non-Euro teams though isn't it? (Apart from S Am.) they don't often get the chance to play against strong competition, particularly those teams that are around that top 20 level, and when they do it's usually middle of the season so half the team isn't available, so no consistent system can be set up. We have that problem all the time, especially when the match is held in Australia to try to create some interest in the sport.

As for the rankings, I don't know. In one sense, when I think of footballing nations and good national teams I don't think of USA. But on the other hand a lot of the more prestigious teams with many great players seem to be underperforming or not inspiring much confidence (hello France, Italy, Spain in perpetuity, even England who, despite the English tabloid's opinion will not win the WC).

Not trying to disparage the US, as they do seem to play well as a unit and get the job done consistently, but I guess for me, not really seeing the US play, it seems like you guys are out of place at that level in terms of not having the big names. Maybe in a way I'm thinking more of teams that should be above you, given their talent.

I'm surprised that a US-Aus game hasn't been mooted since the new administration came in here - they've organised a good program of games so far, and a US game could be huge given the relationship between us and the fact that we are probably on similar levels, as you say. If we get to the WC QF I will be a very happy fan.

Outside maybe the top 4 or 5 teams I don't think there is a big gulf between the next 40 or 50 nations. There's 20 to 25 European teams alone, who could compete in a 32 team World Cup.

This is partly due to soccer being at a low ebb for the last few years despite what all the hype will tell you. The fact that Greece are current European Champions and Liverpool and Porto were the last two Champions League winners tells you everything you need to know. There are no great teams out there (Except perhaps the current Brazil team).

We had a generation of great players in the 90's who just haven't been replaced as yet. The ones who are still active are long past their best.

It's difficult to tell if this world cup will see a new crop of world class players emerge or if it will be a relative flop like the 2002 World Cup, where poor to average teams were able to progress through the competition to the latter stages.