Why are the Americans so much better?

[RS]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

Actually I think the qualifying system is one of the few things concacaf has right.

Wow, really?

Only in CONCACAF can a team qualify for the World Cup with an overall losing record. Only in CONCACAF can a team be eliminated from the World Cup in two matches.

The Hex itself is alright, but the qualifying to get to the Hex is always suspect. Why is there always a group of death in the semi final stage? How do St. Vincent AND St. Kitts end up in the same semi final group of four, from which two teams advance?

Only in CONCACAF would the teams involved in the final stage of qualifying (the Hex) have a lower average FIFA ranking than a group from an earlier stage of qualifying.

[Lurker]

They could expand the Hex to 8 (call it the OCT?) and add one more semi-final group. This would put 16 teams in play for the semi-round. These semi groups would be somewhat diluted but it would get more teams playing and reduce the pointless group of death.

[Crazy_Yank]

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Wow, really?

Only in CONCACAF can a team qualify for the World Cup with an overall losing record. Only in CONCACAF can a team be eliminated from the World Cup in two matches.

The Hex itself is alright, but the qualifying to get to the Hex is always suspect. Why is there always a group of death in the semi final stage? How do St. Vincent AND St. Kitts end up in the same semi final group of four, from which two teams advance?

Only in CONCACAF would the teams involved in the final stage of qualifying (the Hex) have a lower average FIFA ranking than a group from an earlier stage of qualifying.

I agree that they could do a better job seeding the teams. Maybe pass a rule that a group can't have more than one Carribbean team. I'd even be in favor on a octet, but spliting the final group in 2 groups is a very bad idea. Conacaf doesn't have very much depth. We need our bests sides to qualify to the world cup. Not to mention that if we had 2 final groups it totally kills the best concacaf match up in USA vs Mexico. Also, so what if a team can be eliminated after 2 games? One thing I like about our system compared to UEFA's is that the minnows get weeded out early. What would be the benefit of seeing the US or Canada beat some tiny island 10-0?

[Crazy_Yank]

quote:Originally posted by Lurker

They could expand the Hex to 8 (call it the OCT?) and add one more semi-final group. This would put 16 teams in play for the semi-round. These semi groups would be somewhat diluted but it would get more teams playing and reduce the pointless group of death.

I would not be opposed to this. What I am dead set against is spliting the final group up. One final group is the fairest way. Everyone plays everyone else. The best teams advance. No group of death.

[Lurker]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

I would not be opposed to this. What I am dead set against is spliting the final group up. One final group is the fairest way. Everyone plays everyone else. The best teams advance. No group of death.

Not that I'm for this approach, but if expanding to 8 raises the questions of scheduling, CONCACAF could carry over the semi-final games against remaining opponents (the final round would start with 8 teams having already played two games). This wouldn't change much but would eliminate a couple of dates.

[Crazy_Yank]

quote:Originally posted by Lurker

Not that I'm for this approach, but if expanding to 8 raises the questions of scheduling, CONCACAF could carry over the semi-final games against remaining opponents (the final round would start with 8 teams having already played two games). This wouldn't change much but would eliminate a couple of dates.

That still wouldn't be fair. A lot can change in the year between the semi-finals and finals of qualifying. I think the hex is the way to go, but if we went to an octet all teams should start with a fresh slate. I don't like the idea of semi-final results carrying over to the next round. How do you weight those results? Why should a win over the El Salvador count as much as a win over Costa Rica?

[Lurker]

Not all results would carry over. If the US finished first in group D ahead of Canada, both teams would advance to the final round. Head-to-head, say the US won and drew Canada so both teams would start with two games (in the final round), the US on a win and a draw with 4 points and Canada on a draw and a loss with 1 point. The other results from group D wouldn't carry over.

This was just a suggestion, I like the clean slate as well.

... and when was the last time CONCACAF cared about fairness anyways? =)

[piltdownman]

quote:Originally posted by dsqpr

^ This argument is MUCH too simplistic.

For example, it could be used to show why the U.S. are so much better than Sweden, England, Italy, France, Spain, and Germany. Only they aren't.

Its a valid comparison between Canada and the USA because the game has the same status om both countries. The argument is invalid when comparing the US to the countries you list, for one simple reason. In those counties association football is the primary sport, were in the USA (and in Canada) it a secondary sport at best. To generalize, the best athletes in the US play NFL Football or Basketball, and in Canada they play hockey. Sure more people may play soccer than other sports in canada, but thats mostly at the low level, most of our elite athletes play other sports.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

Not to mention that if we had 2 final groups it totally kills the best concacaf match up in USA vs Mexico.

MEX and USA already play every month. It seems like it anyway.

quote:

Also, so what if a team can be eliminated after 2 games? One thing I like about our system compared to UEFA's is that the minnows get weeded out early.

UEFA only has about 5-6 minnows so the comparison isn't valid.

I can see why if you're American the current system looks good, but if you look at it objectively I think you'll see that in truth it stinks.

Sure weeding-out minnows early makes sense, but CONCACAF goes too far! It's the only confederation that weeds-out potential World Cup contenders after a few months</u>. It would be like UEFA eliminating Scotland, Slovakia and Denmark after 3 months of qualifying.

[Crazy_Yank]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

MEX and USA already play every month. It seems like it anyway.

UEFA only has about 5-6 minnows so the comparison isn't valid.

I can see why if you're American the current system looks good, but if you look at it objectively I think you'll see that in truth it stinks.

Sure weeding-out minnows early makes sense, but CONCACAF goes too far! It's the only confederation that weeds-out potential World Cup contenders after a few months</u>. It would be like UEFA eliminating Scotland, Slovakia and Denmark after 3 months of qualifying.

Which world cup contender was weeded out after 3 months? I can't think of one. Being American has nothing to do with my objectivity, which is a pretty ignorant comment on your part. As an American one group or two has no effect on my country's chances. We'll most likely qualify regardless. A final round is the most fair way. Everyone plays everyone else the same number of times. There isn't any chance of a group of death because there is only one group. I don't see any logic in separating the final group other than allowing less deserving teams a better chance because one group was weaker than the other. No, I want to the best of the final teams qualify every single time. Do I agree the semi-final round could be better? Absolutly. The Carribbean should only get 3 spots and there should be a rule only Carribbean team per group. Instead of Haiti, Surinam, El Salvador, Costa Rica imagine switch it around a bit and have Canada, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Haiti. Drop Surinam completely and replace them with Panama in Mexico's group. That would make 3 groups as equal as possible without a group of death. That would be a much more fair way to do things. I can see why countries that aren't USA and Mexico would like two groups. Instead of facing two regional powers they only have to face one. My counter to that would be if you can't handle the USA or Mexico you won't be able to handle the world cup either.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Crazy_Yank

Which world cup contender was weeded out after 3 months? I can't think of one.

Canada and Jamaica. They've qualified before...

quote:

Being American has nothing to do with my objectivity, which is a pretty ignorant comment on your part. As an American one group or two has no effect on my country's chances. We'll most likely qualify regardless.

Exactly! You just proved my point. USA will qualify anyway, so obviously you will like the current system that guarantees yet another 2 matches v Mexico. But if you look at it from the POV of Panama, Canada, Honduras, Guatemala etc. it sucks because some of those countries will go 3 years without playing a meaningful match. And these are not minnows.

quote:

A final round is the most fair way. Everyone plays everyone else the same number of times. There isn't any chance of a group of death because there is only one group. I don't see any logic in separating the final group other than allowing less deserving teams a better chance because one group was weaker than the other. No, I want to the best of the final teams qualify every single time. Do I agree the semi-final round could be better? Absolutly. The Carribbean should only get 3 spots and there should be a rule only Carribbean team per group. Instead of Haiti, Surinam, El Salvador, Costa Rica imagine switch it around a bit and have Canada, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Haiti. Drop Surinam completely and replace them with Panama in Mexico's group.

That would make 3 groups as equal as possible without a group of death. That would be a much more fair way to do things. I can see why countries that aren't USA and Mexico would like two groups. Instead of facing two regional powers they only have to face one. My counter to that would be if you can't handle the USA or Mexico you won't be able to handle the world cup either.

You miss the point. If countries like Canada go 3 years without playing meaningful matches, they'll never improve. Your idea of restructuring the seeding for the semifinal and having one final group is good for the short-term , but in the long-term it ensures you'll never have more than 3 or 4 competitive teams in the entire continent.

It's almost like having a promotion/relegation system because the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th best teams in CONCACAF will often miss-out on the HEX and therefore never build enough momentum to become good.

[ag futbol]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

You miss the point. If countries like Canada go 3 years without playing meaningful matches, they'll never improve. Your idea of restructuring the seeding for the semifinal and having one final group is good for the short-term , but in the long-term it ensures you'll never have more than 3 or 4 competitive teams in the entire continent.

I see your point, but it's not Concacaf's problem that were not playing games, it's the CSA's.

Now I know somebody is instantaneously going to say "no money" but quite seriously this is a chicken and the egg argument. We can't play because we have no money, nobody will sponsor us because we never play (and that team hasn't been successful) and nobody knows about the team because they never play.

The way out of this is the CSA has to kick itself in the nuts to play a few games at home a year. Down the road it’s going to make you money. Fan base in Toronto (in the future: Mtl and Vancouver) make it easier than it once was.

[Crazy_Yank]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

Canada and Jamaica. They've qualified before...

Exactly! You just proved my point. USA will qualify anyway, so obviously you will like the current system that guarantees yet another 2 matches v Mexico. But if you look at it from the POV of Panama, Canada, Honduras, Guatemala etc. it sucks because some of those countries will go 3 years without playing a meaningful match. And these are not minnows.

You miss the point. If countries like Canada go 3 years without playing meaningful matches, they'll never improve. Your idea of restructuring the seeding for the semifinal and having one final group is good for the short-term , but in the long-term it ensures you'll never have more than 3 or 4 competitive teams in the entire continent.

It's almost like having a promotion/relegation system because the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th best teams in CONCACAF will often miss-out on the HEX and therefore never build enough momentum to become good.

Your argument that Canada was a potential world cup qualifier doesn't hold any water considering that they only earned 2 points from a possible 18. Not to mention that they didn't win a single match, let alone a home match. Panama lost to El Salvador, the same El Salvador that so far has only won one home match out of 3, and has a grand total of 5 points from 5 games. Jamaica lost out on goal differential. They are the only team I have sympathy for. Canada had 8 qualifying matches, are the playing the Gold Cup. The CSA also has the opportunity to schedule matches on the numerous FIFA mandated dates. The fact that they didn't isn't the fault of concacaf. It's the fault of your moronic orgranization. Honduras (who was in the group of death) didn't make the 2006 cycle hex, yet made it this time around and are in a excellent position (and probably will) to qualify for the world cup. That right there defeats your argument that if a team can't make the hex they can't improve. Going back to El Salvador, they missed the past 2 hex cycles yet they seem to be a much better team than the team that qualified for the 1998 cycle. If a team isn't good enough to qualify for world cup when they have to play the region's best they don't deserve to be there. The final can't, won't, and shouldn't be split up. Canada's lack of improvement has nothing to do with the format. It has everything to do with an incompetent federation.

[Lurker]

Why do you keep talking about splitting up the final group when most of the talk has been about adding two more teams to the final group?

[Crazy_Yank]

quote:Originally posted by Lurker

Why do you keep talking about splitting up the final group when most of the talk has been about adding two more teams to the final group?

I'm responding to amacpher, who wants to split up the final group. I believe that if Canada has 7-8 professional teams, and a decent federation they will qualify for the world cup regardless of the qualifying format. Maybe not every time, but they could be a regular participant.

[Nate]

quote:Originally posted by ag futbol

I see your point, but it's not Concacaf's problem that were not playing games, it's the CSA's.

This is absolutely right. You need to play matches to get better, and the CSA simply doesn't set up enough friendlies, or high-enough quality friendlies.

If we compare the US to Canada since the last Gold Cup, the US of course has played more full internationals (and better full internationals) than Canada, because they've been in bigger and better competitions (Confed Cup, the Hex, Copa America): 21 competitive matches, including Spain, Italy, Brazil and Argentina. During that same time, Canada's only played 8 full internationals, and no one of note besides the US and Mexico. But I understand that (aside from putting together a team capable of qualifying for/getting invited to those 3 competitions) there's not much the CSA could do about that.

What the CSA can do something about is the comical friendlies they set up. For instance, even though the US has played more than twice as many competitive matches in the past 2 years, they've also set up more friendlies than Canada (11 to 10). And the quality of those friendlies is a world apart. Sure, Canada played Brazil during that time -- the but US played Brazil, Argentina, Spain, and England (4 of the top 8 teams in the world). The average world ranking of Canada's friendly opponents is 70th; the average world ranking of the US's is 27th. The worst team the US played was South Africa, #70 in the world... but South Africa is one of the better teams Canada has played in the past 2 years. For God's sake, one of Canada's friendlies was against a second-division Danish team, Vejle BK. That's pitiful.

You don't have to play full internationals to get better -- you just need to play regular matches, against good competition. Because I can assure you the US players considered playing England at Wembley or Argentina at Giants Stadium to be a lot more meaningful and a lot better learning experience than most of the full internationals they've been in over the past two years (ie WC qualifiers against minnows, or yesterday against Grenada).

If the Canadian national team going to improve, the CSA needs to start scheduling some quality opponents. The good news is, I think this is a quick route to improvement -- the US got destroyed at Copa America 2 years ago, but just think about all the players who picked up crucial experience there and how important those players have been for the US this year. If the CSA starts scheduling decent matches now, Canada will be in a pretty good position to challenge for the 3rd Concacaf spot in 2014.

Now, fixing the long-term problem (youth development), that's not so easy....

[Macksam]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

MEX and USA already play every month. It seems like it anyway.

UEFA only has about 5-6 minnows so the comparison isn't valid.

I can see why if you're American the current system looks good, but if you look at it objectively I think you'll see that in truth it stinks.

Sure weeding-out minnows early makes sense, but CONCACAF goes too far! It's the only confederation that weeds-out potential World Cup contenders after a few months</u>. It would be like UEFA eliminating Malta, Andorra and San Marino after 3 months of qualifying.

FYP.

[Macksam]

quote:Originally posted by Nate

Now, fixing the long-term problem (youth development), that's not so easy....

I have the solution, I call them the Vancouver Whitecaps.

Seriously though, youth development lies with the clubs now.

[ag futbol]

quote:Originally posted by Macksam

I have the solution, I call them the Vancouver Whitecaps.

Seriously though, youth development lies with the clubs now.

I don't think it's quite that easy yet.

The overall scope of the situation is that these clubs (even at full capacity) it will only be a drop in the bucket. Something better has to be in place to improve the product before it shows up at the professional clubs door.

If you were to ask a kid playing hockey in Canada these days how to become a pro, he's give you a straight answer. When kids can do the same for soccer, that's when we'll be getting somewhere.

[Macksam]

quote:Originally posted by ag futbol

I don't think it's quite that easy yet.

The overall scope of the situation is that these clubs (even at full capacity) it will only be a drop in the bucket. Something better has to be in place to improve the product before it shows up at the professional clubs door.

If you were to ask a kid playing hockey in Canada these days how to become a pro, he's give you a straight answer. When kids can do the same for soccer, that's when we'll be getting somewhere.

Yeah, it's not that easy yet. I think the CSL is taking the right approach by partnering up with local youth teams and putting in quotas about having developmental players in the squad for the future.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Macksam

FYP.

Well you didn't "fix" my post, you just missed the point.

55% of the teams reaching the HEX in CONCACAF end-up qualifying for the World Cup. Considering 13 UEFA teams qualify for the World Cup, that is equivalent to UEFA having a final qualifying round involving only 24 nations. Using the FIFA ranking for an illustration, even if there were no upsets in the preliminary qualfying round, you'd have Slovakia, Hungary and Bosnia eliminated from UEFA WCQ a long time ago if a format similar to CONCACAF's was used. But of course UEFA has their head positioned on their shoulders and breathing fresh air (unlike CONCACAF), so instead those 3 nations are gaining valuable experience playing key matches throughout 2009.

So yes, the CONCACAF format is stupid to the 'n'th power (where 'n' is large).

[Saviola7]

^Totally agree, but I'm trying to think of a good way to keep the minnows along. 3 groups of 12 with the 2nd place teams doing some sort of playoff?

Anyway, it should be noted that Asia also has a very tiered qualification system (not that I like that either ...).

[youllneverwalkalone]

The teams I'd like to see consistently in the final group are: Canada, USA, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Jamaica, T&T, Haiti and Cuba. So that's 12 teams. Which is basically where we start in the second round. You can't really be more inclusive than this because most on the minnows can't afford more than a couple of matches anyway. I don't know that we can play 22 qualifying matches, so the only change I can see is scrapping the Hex and splitting the final stage into two groups. This will lead to similar complaints about each group that we currently have but everybody would get 4 more games. I would definitely like 4 more games, but I'm not sure this change really would make Canada more likely to qualify.

The only other possibility I see is to get to a single group stage with 9 countries so everybody plays 16 matches. But this creates the real possibility that with an unfavourable draw, we are playing 2 games per cycle instead of 8. Unless 2-35 played home and away, and then the remaining 18 played home and away. Still, we could be left with only 4 matches. It's a tough call. We're so demoralized, I'd almost take our 8 matches at this point. []

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

so the only change I can see is scrapping the Hex and splitting the final stage into two groups. This will lead to similar complaints about each group that we currently have but everybody would get 4 more games. I would definitely like 4 more games, but I'm not sure this change really would make Canada more likely to qualify.

The complaints will be less valid and minor if you use the format I propose below. Plus because of the 4 added games, it gives more time for the cream to rise to the top of both groups (e.g. one bad referee call against you won't carry the same importance as in a 6-game round).

- A1 and B1 qualify directly to the World Cup

- A2 plays B3 and A3 plays B2 in a pair of two-legged playoffs.

- The winners of those 2 playoffs meet to determine who gets the third automatic qualifying spot and who goes to the playoff against CONMEBOL.

So if you finish 3rd because you were in the tougher group, at least you'll have a playoff game against a team from the weaker group. You can't have any complaints about getting stuck in the tougher group if you lose to an also-ran in the other group, right?

This format also keeps every match meaningful right to the end. In the current format, if Costa Rica win their next game then they can coast through their last 4 matches because finishing first means nothing.

[youllneverwalkalone]

So based on the most recent FIFA rankings (assumig the top 12 made in through the prelim round) we could see:

Group A:

USA

Mexico

Jamaica

T&T

Grenada

Canada

Group B:

Costa Rica

Honduras

Panama

Cuba

El Salvador

Antigua

You're right that, in the end, the cream will rise to the top -though I'm not sure this improves our chances.

Still, in terms of the topic at hand, I do think Canada would improve by playing in this group.

Neverthless, I think a single table would be more fair. FWIW, if we went to a final round of 9 -assuming the top 18 made it through the first qualifying round- Canada would draw Cuba based on current FIFA rankings. I feel okay about that match up.

EDIT: Actually, the more I look at AMac's system, the more I like it. At first I looked at the draw and felt like we were still in the "group of death." But it doesn't matter so much because if you can't beat Jamaica & TT you're not going to qualify anyway. And the cross over really equalizes the two groups. If we could play Honduras or the Ticos for a chance to play in the 4th place playoff, I'd be pretty damn happy. And, regardless, we would really improve as this could lead to 16 matches even we did come up short.