CANADA vs USA.... who would win?

[fza]

Canada is 9-7-11 all time against the USA, which means that it has been pretty even. The last official game(not including friendlies) against the States we tied 0-0 (Gold Cup) that game we ended up losing on penalty kicks.

But I would like to know who would win in an all or nothing battle. Both countries playing with their best players. I think if you put Radz, De Rosario, DeVos, Mckenna, Stalteri, Lars, Aguiar, Bent, etc. all on the same field the States would have plenty to worry about.

We`ll face this team during the next WCQ but this might come in a couple of years. So lets try and imagine who would be the victor TODAY!

The North American Classic...take your pick and explain why!!

[beachesl]

It might come this August, if we draw the USA (as opposed to Mexico and Costa Rica, the other first seeds) in the Second Round (of fours). The USA have the edge due to their depth and speed, but we could nip them at home. It would be interesting if we met them 4 times, 2 each in the second round and the hex (2-1-1 for the US over 4 games) . I think there would be a lot of mutual respect, as I think most of the players from both teams are amiable. I like most of the American players, I think they are great sportsmen, unlike many of their compatriots in other sports. I like this. Save our venom for the Central Americans (though I think we should be welcoming to their fans even if they aren't welcoming to us)!

[Cheeta]

Yanks are strong in the middle/front, soft in the back, and outstanding in goal. Generaly speaking, IMHO. Nice and athletic, full of energy, which will always give them at least a chance.

I think we're better in the air, physicaly stronger, have a greyhound or two up front, especially with Radz. determined to go to Germany2006, and given the lack of respect I allow the Yank back line, think we can match up very well thankyou. Sixty places apart in the FIFA rankings or no.

Honestly, I think the 1st teams having a go at each other would make some grand football. Whoever's back line has the better day will carry the victory.

P.S. I've blamed the midfield for much of our defensive woes, maybe not entirely fair, but I'm sticking by it. Four Immortals in front of an Angel in net still can't be abandoned to the wolves.

P.S.S. Yanks three out of four. Sorry.

[BearcatSA]

At this stage, the Yanks are better: our backline is dodgy right now, and though we are trying to play more of a possession game, our midfield still gives the ball away too often.

Today, if we played a home and away series, we'd probably drop all the points.

Please note how I said, "at this stage."

A DeRosario/Radz partnership, with Hume as a wide midfielder cum winger, Staltieri and Bircham bottling up the middle of the park, (a healthy) Brennan or De Guzman providing width on the left, would give us scoring opportunities. De Vos and McKenna need to play together more to develop a better understanding; Nsaliwa at right back, keep Jazic at left back, Onstad or Lars ("needs to be more than third string at Spurs") Hirschfeld in goal, with more games under their belt this side could pose problems for any of the top CONCACAF teams.

Frankly, I like our heavy underdog position right now . . . we might be able to sneak up on opponents during the WCQ.

[matthew]

Breaking it down by position I don't see too many places where I think we're better and yet overall I think there's no reason we can't take them at home. I don't like the US backline, but they're better than we are in a lot of spots. I'd take Bocanegra and Pope over DeVos and whoever. I think we're better at left back and if Stalteri's out right back, we win that one too. Other than that, Radz is better than their best forward I'd say, but I'd say their two strikers are better than DeRo.

The should dominate the midifeld, but Aguiar vs. Armas? I have no idea. Is DeGuzman better than Donovan or Reyna? I think you've got to give Reyna the edge. Maybe not for long though.

It would be fun to see these teams matches up with something close to a full side at some point.

cheers,

matthew

[Gian-Luca]

When you say we are better at left back, I'm assuming you mean with either Jazic or Brennan there? The US must have somebody better than Hastings at that position.

The main difference I see with the US vs. Canada (outside of overall depth) is likely in goal, with the US having 3 EPL starters. I wouldn't call us weak in goal by Concacaf standards, but not as strong as they are.

The other difference, as Matthew alluded to, is the existence of someone like Reyna who can distribute out of midfield. He's slowing down though.

After that, the main difference is in numbers. The 4th to 8th strikers on the US depth chart, for example, is much higher than our 4 to 8th strikers (so much so that we tend to use non-strikers up there when DeRo, Radz & Pesch aren't available). Because of our problems in player availability for non-World Cup qualifying matches, we often see that happen. For the matches that mean something, assuming we did get access to all of our players, our best 11 plus 6 on the bench aren't all that far off from the US best 11 & 6 on the bench (though I would still give the edge to the US).

[Andrew W]

The US often use Greg Vanney (Bastia), Wade Barrett (AGF Aarhus) in the left back position. I think they've used others as well.

[Gordon]

Right now, I am afraid, it would be no contest. While I generally don't rate many of the US players as highly as most seem to, the one striking advantage they have is playing about 18-20 games a year. They are a far better team than Canada can ever hope to be playing 7-8 a year. Especially given that we seldom play a "full" team and lack the depth they do. I don't think that talent wise, at the top end at least, they are that far ahead of us. Really, only at keeper, would I say this is true. But their organization is light years ahead of us, and their better understanding allows them to play a far more advanced style of game. The depth gives them an edge at every position as far as I am concerned. The striker example G-L gave is a good example of this.

If, over the next 12 months we play 12+ games, with largely first choice players, then perhaps we can discuss the relative merits of each team, but right now, even the Canadian "best 11" would be hard pressed to get a result due to unfamiliarity.

[jonovision]

The USA hasn't played an international match since the Gold Cup.

[redhat]

quote:Originally posted by fza

But I would like to know who would win in an all or nothing battle. Both countries playing with their best players. I think if you put Radz, De Rosario, DeVos, Mckenna, Stalteri, Lars, Aguiar, Bent, etc. all on the same field the States would have plenty to worry about.

As much as I will feel that De Guzman is more talented than Donovan,

and that Radzinski, Stalteri, and De Rosario are key players in any team, I think we'll lose out on depth, experience, confidence, and

money. The last game (4-0) was played using pretty much our under-20

team.

We'll play better than we did at the '97 hex, but we'll still

lose. Our games against the Czech Republic and Ireland reveal

that we are still a bit behind in development. If we bring our

full A-team, we'll be competitive. But right now, it's 3-1 USA.

We'll see...

[JayWay]

The States are ranked in the top 15. We are ranked something ridiculous, like 80th in the Eastern Standard Timezone.

True, FIFA rankings are a whole lot of nonsense. But when you have a gap that large, there is a lesson to be had.

That lesson is this: We are not in the 'States league. So don't act like we are. Even full strength, they win 9 out of 10 times.

[matthew]

Yeah I was thinking Jazic over Vanney and Barrett. I've never seen Cory Gibbs and I've never seen Ben Olsen play at leftback, Olsen I figure might be better than Jazic, but it is the US' trouble spot.

Good point by Gordon about the amount of games they play together. Which is why it's so frustrating to see us waste games on guys who have little to no hope of contributing in 2004, nevermind 2006.

cheers,

matthew

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by matthew

Yeah I was thinking Jazic over Vanney and Barrett. I've never seen Cory Gibbs and I've never seen Ben Olsen play at leftback, Olsen I figure might be better than Jazic, but it is the US' trouble spot.

Good point by Gordon about the amount of games they play together. Which is why it's so frustrating to see us waste games on guys who have little to no hope of contributing in 2004, nevermind 2006.

cheers,

matthew

The US is looking at Bobby Convey at left back as well. I didn't know that Ben Olsen was getting a look too. Convey and Olsen would give them some attacking options at left back that Jazic does not seem able to provide for us. Liabilitites defensively, I'd think.

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by jonovision

The USA hasn't played an international match since the Gold Cup.

True, but they have played 16 games in 2003. Which is actually quite low for them.

[argh1]

Ahhhhhh, here we go : another opinion.Truthfully the U.S. and US are even. Our best players play at least 5 time zones away.

Our problem is the Canadian bench is too short. I refuse to be Monday A.M quarterback at any international match as none of the Canadian players has to risk injury to play for US . They play cuz they WANT to play for CANADA .

But the U.S.A. has the same troubles .......so it's who ever has the most heart. AND IS ANY-ONES HEART BIGGER THAN A CANADIAN!!!!!!!

[SABuffalo786]

You could also put O'Brien at left back (his natural position for Ajax), and Cherundolo at right back, although his size is still an issue.

Right now, with full strength squads, I'd put the USA to win by two goals.

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by JayWay

The States are ranked in the top 15. We are ranked something ridiculous, like 80th in the Eastern Standard Timezone.

True, FIFA rankings are a whole lot of nonsense. But when you have a gap that large, there is a lesson to be had.

That lesson is this: We are not in the 'States league. So don't act like we are. Even full strength, they win 9 out of 10 times.

Whoa! 9 times out of 10? Let's keep in mind the last match between these two teams (in 2002) using squads even remotely close to full-strength ended 0-0 after 120 minutes. Yes, each team was missing a few regulars (no Reyna, O'Brien, Radzinski or De Guzman*) and yes Lars was spectular for a short stretch early in the 2nd half, but it was still 0-0, and a match held in the US. That means for the next 9 matches, including, let's say 5 of them in Canada (to make things equal), the US would beat our full-strength squad every time for that statistic to come true.

I just don't see it. I give them the edge, yes, but 9 times out of 10 is something I'd suggest would be applicable only to the likes of Brazi, France, Italy etc. (as a side-note, against Brazil our senior team has only lost 1 match out of 4, if it had been Brazil's full-strength senior team vs. ours I don't think the numbers would be as favourable).

For the sake of argument:

Radzinski, De Rosario

Brennan De Guzman Bent** Nsaliwa

Jazic Klukowski De Vos Stalteri

Hirshfeld

Subs: Pesch, Hume, Imhof, Bircham, Aguiar, Hutchinson, McKenna, Onstad

The US team would have an edge, but I am skeptical it would be that significant of an edge, even with the US advantage of having played more games together. ***

*He was in the squad for that match, but never left the bench. And Xausa was used before De Rosario. If a new coach continues to do that sort of thing, then its a larger edge to the US, but we are speculating about "full-strength" squads so the point is moot.

**I put Bent in as someone with more pace(than Imhof, Bircham or Aguair) to be better able to cover Landon Donovan. Tam can take of Beasely. I'm not so sure about Armas or Mulrooney (if that is the US holding midfielder) against De Guzman, and I would worry about their backline's ability to hold Radzniski as much as our own's ability to hold Donovan. I like a De Vos vs. McBride match up.

*** The point is well made, but I don't know if this is enough of a factor to make it a "no contest", unless the Canadian team continually got together just a day or two before playing each match.

[matthew]

quote:Originally posted by Gordon

Damn, I meant Convey, not Olsen. I'm getting my DC United wonderkids mixed up. Convey's better than Olsen anyway, but I wouldn't want to put a player of his talent in the back. I didn't know O'Brien player left back for Ajax. I think he's the most under-rated player they have.

cheers,

matthew

[fza]

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

Whoa! 9 times out of 10?

I just don't see it. I give them the edge, yes, but 9 times out of 10 is something I'd suggest would be applicable only to the likes of Brazi, France, Italy etc.

I agree 9 out of 10 is a bit too much. I think it`s time to start believing in this team and what it can achieve. Like someone said in this board, Nobody has more heart than us!!. So USA bring it on!!!

[Crazy_Yank]

I honestly don't think Canada could take any points off the US in a game that mattered. The last time Canada beat he US in a men's senior FIFA sanctioned match was back in 1985. The current Canadian men's team reminds me of the early 90's US teams. A couple of class players surrounded by a supporting cast that has no business at the international level. I think in 3 years Canada will be a much better challenge for the US. You guys have a lot of quality young players who are already better than their older counter parts. They just lack experience.

[Crazy_Yank]

quote:Originally posted by argh1

Ahhhhhh, here we go : another opinion.Truthfully the U.S. and US are even. Our best players play at least 5 time zones away.

Our problem is the Canadian bench is too short. I refuse to be Monday A.M quarterback at any international match as none of the Canadian players has to risk injury to play for US . They play cuz they WANT to play for CANADA .

But the U.S.A. has the same troubles .......so it's who ever has the most heart. AND IS ANY-ONES HEART BIGGER THAN A CANADIAN!!!!!!!

I think you mean "the US and Canada" are close to being even, which is not true. Right now Canada is no where near the level of the US. Your youth squads are pretty even with ours, but your senior team is 4-5 years away.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

I honestly don't think Canada could take any points off the US in a game that mattered.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement. Among the top 8 teams (if not more) in concacaf, anyone CAN take points off anyone else (especially at home). It's not like you're France!

[Gordon]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

I honestly don't think Canada could take any points off the US in a game that mattered. The last time Canada beat he US in a men's senior FIFA sanctioned match was back in 1985. The current Canadian men's team reminds me of the early 90's US teams. A couple of class players surrounded by a supporting cast that has no business at the international level. I think in 3 years Canada will be a much better challenge for the US. You guys have a lot of quality young players who are already better than their older counter parts. They just lack experience.

Wow! You're trying to gain a lot of mileage from 3 games here. Lets see, 2 wins in qualifying in 1997 and a draw in 2002 Gold Cup. Add in friendlies and you get two more wins and a loss. I think you are right about the state of the Canadian team, only I'd say we remind me of Canada in 1994, the last time Canada and the US were more or less equal. The resultant disparity came as a result of the creation of the MLS coinciding with the demise of the CSL, plus reorganization of the US youth system into a much better model. I personally don't think your roster is much more talented than in 1994, however depth is considerably greater and team organization and tactics are vastly improved. Obviously the injection of cash for the 1994 World Cup was put to very good use, but it would not surprise me to see us taking points from the US in the next hex.

[bettermirror]

can we worry about belize first, please?

[Gian-Luca]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

I honestly don't think Canada could take any points off the US in a game that mattered. The last time Canada beat he US in a men's senior FIFA sanctioned match was back in 1985. The current Canadian men's team reminds me of the early 90's US teams. A couple of class players surrounded by a supporting cast that has no business at the international level.

If we are to assume that Radzinski & Stalteri are the two "class" players, does that mean the likes of De Guzman, Brennan, De Vos, Nsaliwa, Peschisolido and Aguiar, as well as the likes of De Rosario, Bent, Bircham, Imhof, Hume, Hutchinson, McKenna, Hirshfeld, Onstad, Klukowski and Jazic are the "supporting cast that have no business at the international level"? That's a full squad of 19 players I just listed, with the first group (from Radzinski to Aguiar) all playing at a higher level than the MLS & the 2nd group (from De Rosario to Jazic) all playing at the MLS or rough equivalent level (in the case of Hutchinson & Hume, they may very well soon be joining the first group). And I've left out the likes of Pozniak, Canizalez, Placentino, Stamatopolous & Reda, since the level of their play is up for a debate that probably belongs on another thread altogether. But the first two players have shown already at a young age that they can be effective against the likes of full Costa Rican national team.

I give the US the edge over Canada (mainly due to their advantage, historically, of playing more games together - we'll see what happens with Yallop at coach in the future) but I'm hard pressed to see a possible US line-up from their current player pool that would be so vastly superior that it would be very unlikely for the Canadian team listed above to even pull out a draw at home.